#logicalfallacy — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #logicalfallacy, aggregated by home.social.
-
If you are still on YouTube and enjoy critical-thinking analysis, it's worth viewing https://www.youtube.com/@FramingLogic
I know there are flaws, but I think it is helpful to be reminded of the logical fallacies, and cognitive biases, and rhetorical approaches that external actors are using against you.
I know I should get better at thinking slowly and analytically about some things. It's almost impossible to recognize my own cognitive biases when I'm thinking fast.
-
There are still quite a lot of people who think that whatever an authority, such as the government, says is accepted as true. Argumentum ad verecundiam or appeal to authority. Thankfully I'm not like that, especially since I'm knowledgeable and well educated.
#sofiaflorina #ソフィアフロリナ #authority #authorities #becritical #government #governments #thegovernment #appealtoauthority #logicalfallacy #fallacy #fallacies #itstrue #itistrue #thatstrue #thatistrue #reality #thereality #provemewrong
-
The Free Speech Fallacy occurs when someone uses the concept of free speech to deflect criticism or avoid accountability for their statements. Learn about this logical fallacy with examples:
https://www.logical-fallacy.com/articles/free-speech/
#logicalfallacy #logic #philosophy #debating #politics -
The Free Speech Fallacy occurs when someone uses the concept of free speech to deflect criticism or avoid accountability for their statements. Learn about this logical fallacy with examples:
https://www.logical-fallacy.com/articles/free-speech/
#logicalfallacy #logic #philosophy #debating #politics -
The Free Speech Fallacy occurs when someone uses the concept of free speech to deflect criticism or avoid accountability for their statements. Learn about this logical fallacy with examples:
https://www.logical-fallacy.com/articles/free-speech/
#logicalfallacy #logic #philosophy #debating #politics -
The Free Speech Fallacy occurs when someone uses the concept of free speech to deflect criticism or avoid accountability for their statements. Learn about this logical fallacy with examples:
https://www.logical-fallacy.com/articles/free-speech/
#logicalfallacy #logic #philosophy #debating #politics -
The Free Speech Fallacy occurs when someone uses the concept of free speech to deflect criticism or avoid accountability for their statements. Learn about this logical fallacy with examples:
https://www.logical-fallacy.com/articles/free-speech/
#logicalfallacy #logic #philosophy #debating #politics -
I just participated in the first W3C Authentic Web Mini Workshop¹ hosted by the Credible Web Community Group² (of which I’m a longtime member) and up front I noted that our very discussion itself needed to be careful about its own credibility, extra critical of any technologies discussed or assertions made, and initially identified two flaws to avoid on a meta level, having seen them occur many times in technical or standards discussions:
1. Politician’s Syllogism — "Something must be done about this problem. Here is something, let's do it!"
2. Solutions Looking For Problems — "I am interested in how tech X can solve problem Y"
After some back and forth and arguments in the Zoom chat, I observed participants questioning speakers of arguments rather than the arguments themselves, so I had to identify a third fallacy to avoid:
3. Ad Hominem — while obvious examples are name-calling (which is usually against codes of conduct), less obvious examples (witnessed in the meeting) include questioning a speaker’s education (or lack thereof) like what they have or have not read, or would benefit from reading.
I am blogging these here both as a reminder (should you choose to participate in such discussions), and as a resource to cite in future discussions.
We need to all develop expertise in recognizing these logical and methodological flaws & fallacies, and call them out when we see them, especially when used against others.
We need to promptly prune these flawed methods of discussion, so we can focus on actual productive, relevant, and yes, credible discussions.
#W3C #credweb #credibleWeb #authenticWeb #flaw #fallacy #fallacies #logicalFallacy #logicalFallacies
Glossary
Ad Hominem
attacking an attribute of the person making an argument rather than the argument itself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Politician's syllogism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism
Solutions Looking For Problems (related: #solutionism, #solutioneering)
Promoting a technology that either has not identified a real problem for it to solve, or actively pitching a specific technology to any problem that seems related. Wikipedia has no page on this but has two related pages:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_fix
Wikipedia does have an essay on this specific to Wikipedia:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Solutions_looking_for_a_problem
Stack Exchange has a thread on "solution in search of a problem":
* https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/250320/a-word-that-means-a-solution-in-search-of-a-problem
Forbes has an illustrative anecdote:
* https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephanieburns/2019/05/28/solution-looking-for-a-problem/
References
¹ https://www.w3.org/events/workshops/2025/authentic-web-workshop/
² https://credweb.org/ and https://www.w3.org/community/credibility/
Previously in 2019 I participated in #MisinfoCon:
* https://tantek.com/2019/296/t1/london-misinfocon-discuss-spectrum-recency
* https://tantek.com/2019/296/t2/misinfocon-roundtable-spectrums-misinformation -
I just participated in the first W3C Authentic Web Mini Workshop¹ hosted by the Credible Web Community Group² (of which I’m a longtime member) and up front I noted that our very discussion itself needed to be careful about its own credibility, extra critical of any technologies discussed or assertions made, and initially identified two flaws to avoid on a meta level, having seen them occur many times in technical or standards discussions:
1. Politician’s Syllogism — "Something must be done about this problem. Here is something, let's do it!"
2. Solutions Looking For Problems — "I am interested in how tech X can solve problem Y"
After some back and forth and arguments in the Zoom chat, I observed participants questioning speakers of arguments rather than the arguments themselves, so I had to identify a third fallacy to avoid:
3. Ad Hominem — while obvious examples are name-calling (which is usually against codes of conduct), less obvious examples (witnessed in the meeting) include questioning a speaker’s education (or lack thereof) like what they have or have not read, or would benefit from reading.
I am blogging these here both as a reminder (should you choose to participate in such discussions), and as a resource to cite in future discussions.
We need to all develop expertise in recognizing these logical and methodological flaws & fallacies, and call them out when we see them, especially when used against others.
We need to promptly prune these flawed methods of discussion, so we can focus on actual productive, relevant, and yes, credible discussions.
#W3C #credweb #credibleWeb #authenticWeb #flaw #fallacy #fallacies #logicalFallacy #logicalFallacies
Glossary
Ad Hominem
attacking an attribute of the person making an argument rather than the argument itself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Politician's syllogism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism
Solutions Looking For Problems (related: #solutionism, #solutioneering)
Promoting a technology that either has not identified a real problem for it to solve, or actively pitching a specific technology to any problem that seems related. Wikipedia has no page on this but has two related pages:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_fix
Wikipedia does have an essay on this specific to Wikipedia:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Solutions_looking_for_a_problem
Stack Exchange has a thread on "solution in search of a problem":
* https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/250320/a-word-that-means-a-solution-in-search-of-a-problem
Forbes has an illustrative anecdote:
* https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephanieburns/2019/05/28/solution-looking-for-a-problem/
References
¹ https://www.w3.org/events/workshops/2025/authentic-web-workshop/
² https://credweb.org/ and https://www.w3.org/community/credibility/
Previously in 2019 I participated in #MisinfoCon:
* https://tantek.com/2019/296/t1/london-misinfocon-discuss-spectrum-recency
* https://tantek.com/2019/296/t2/misinfocon-roundtable-spectrums-misinformation -
I just participated in the first W3C Authentic Web Mini Workshop¹ hosted by the Credible Web Community Group² (of which I’m a longtime member) and up front I noted that our very discussion itself needed to be careful about its own credibility, extra critical of any technologies discussed or assertions made, and initially identified two flaws to avoid on a meta level, having seen them occur many times in technical or standards discussions:
1. Politician’s Syllogism — "Something must be done about this problem. Here is something, let's do it!"
2. Solutions Looking For Problems — "I am interested in how tech X can solve problem Y"
After some back and forth and arguments in the Zoom chat, I observed participants questioning speakers of arguments rather than the arguments themselves, so I had to identify a third fallacy to avoid:
3. Ad Hominem — while obvious examples are name-calling (which is usually against codes of conduct), less obvious examples (witnessed in the meeting) include questioning a speaker’s education (or lack thereof) like what they have or have not read, or would benefit from reading.
I am blogging these here both as a reminder (should you choose to participate in such discussions), and as a resource to cite in future discussions.
We need to all develop expertise in recognizing these logical and methodological flaws & fallacies, and call them out when we see them, especially when used against others.
We need to promptly prune these flawed methods of discussion, so we can focus on actual productive, relevant, and yes, credible discussions.
#W3C #credweb #credibleWeb #authenticWeb #flaw #fallacy #fallacies #logicalFallacy #logicalFallacies
Glossary
Ad Hominem
attacking an attribute of the person making an argument rather than the argument itself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Politician's syllogism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism
Solutions Looking For Problems (related: #solutionism, #solutioneering)
Promoting a technology that either has not identified a real problem for it to solve, or actively pitching a specific technology to any problem that seems related. Wikipedia has no page on this but has two related pages:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_fix
Wikipedia does have an essay on this specific to Wikipedia:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Solutions_looking_for_a_problem
Stack Exchange has a thread on "solution in search of a problem":
* https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/250320/a-word-that-means-a-solution-in-search-of-a-problem
Forbes has an illustrative anecdote:
* https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephanieburns/2019/05/28/solution-looking-for-a-problem/
References
¹ https://www.w3.org/events/workshops/2025/authentic-web-workshop/
² https://credweb.org/ and https://www.w3.org/community/credibility/
Previously in 2019 I participated in #MisinfoCon:
* https://tantek.com/2019/296/t1/london-misinfocon-discuss-spectrum-recency
* https://tantek.com/2019/296/t2/misinfocon-roundtable-spectrums-misinformation -
I just participated in the first W3C Authentic Web Mini Workshop¹ hosted by the Credible Web Community Group² (of which I’m a longtime member) and up front I noted that our very discussion itself needed to be careful about its own credibility, extra critical of any technologies discussed or assertions made, and initially identified two flaws to avoid on a meta level, having seen them occur many times in technical or standards discussions:
1. Politician’s Syllogism — "Something must be done about this problem. Here is something, let's do it!"
2. Solutions Looking For Problems — "I am interested in how tech X can solve problem Y"
After some back and forth and arguments in the Zoom chat, I observed participants questioning speakers of arguments rather than the arguments themselves, so I had to identify a third fallacy to avoid:
3. Ad Hominem — while obvious examples are name-calling (which is usually against codes of conduct), less obvious examples (witnessed in the meeting) include questioning a speaker’s education (or lack thereof) like what they have or have not read, or would benefit from reading.
I am blogging these here both as a reminder (should you choose to participate in such discussions), and as a resource to cite in future discussions.
We need to all develop expertise in recognizing these logical and methodological flaws & fallacies, and call them out when we see them, especially when used against others.
We need to promptly prune these flawed methods of discussion, so we can focus on actual productive, relevant, and yes, credible discussions.
#W3C #credweb #credibleWeb #authenticWeb #flaw #fallacy #fallacies #logicalFallacy #logicalFallacies
Glossary
Ad Hominem
attacking an attribute of the person making an argument rather than the argument itself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Politician's syllogism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism
Solutions Looking For Problems (related: #solutionism, #solutioneering)
Promoting a technology that either has not identified a real problem for it to solve, or actively pitching a specific technology to any problem that seems related. Wikipedia has no page on this but has two related pages:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_fix
Wikipedia does have an essay on this specific to Wikipedia:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Solutions_looking_for_a_problem
Stack Exchange has a thread on "solution in search of a problem":
* https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/250320/a-word-that-means-a-solution-in-search-of-a-problem
Forbes has an illustrative anecdote:
* https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephanieburns/2019/05/28/solution-looking-for-a-problem/
References
¹ https://www.w3.org/events/workshops/2025/authentic-web-workshop/
² https://credweb.org/ and https://www.w3.org/community/credibility/
Previously in 2019 I participated in #MisinfoCon:
* https://tantek.com/2019/296/t1/london-misinfocon-discuss-spectrum-recency
* https://tantek.com/2019/296/t2/misinfocon-roundtable-spectrums-misinformation -
I just participated in the first W3C Authentic Web Mini Workshop¹ hosted by the Credible Web Community Group² (of which I’m a longtime member) and up front I noted that our very discussion itself needed to be careful about its own credibility, extra critical of any technologies discussed or assertions made, and initially identified two flaws to avoid on a meta level, having seen them occur many times in technical or standards discussions:
1. Politician’s Syllogism — "Something must be done about this problem. Here is something, let's do it!"
2. Solutions Looking For Problems — "I am interested in how tech X can solve problem Y"
After some back and forth and arguments in the Zoom chat, I observed participants questioning speakers of arguments rather than the arguments themselves, so I had to identify a third fallacy to avoid:
3. Ad Hominem — while obvious examples are name-calling (which is usually against codes of conduct), less obvious examples (witnessed in the meeting) include questioning a speaker’s education (or lack thereof) like what they have or have not read, or would benefit from reading.
I am blogging these here both as a reminder (should you choose to participate in such discussions), and as a resource to cite in future discussions.
We need to all develop expertise in recognizing these logical and methodological flaws & fallacies, and call them out when we see them, especially when used against others.
We need to promptly prune these flawed methods of discussion, so we can focus on actual productive, relevant, and yes, credible discussions.
#W3C #credweb #credibleWeb #authenticWeb #flaw #fallacy #fallacies #logicalFallacy #logicalFallacies
Glossary
Ad Hominem
attacking an attribute of the person making an argument rather than the argument itself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Politician's syllogism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism
Solutions Looking For Problems (related: #solutionism, #solutioneering)
Promoting a technology that either has not identified a real problem for it to solve, or actively pitching a specific technology to any problem that seems related. Wikipedia has no page on this but has two related pages:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_fix
Wikipedia does have an essay on this specific to Wikipedia:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Solutions_looking_for_a_problem
Stack Exchange has a thread on "solution in search of a problem":
* https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/250320/a-word-that-means-a-solution-in-search-of-a-problem
Forbes has an illustrative anecdote:
* https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephanieburns/2019/05/28/solution-looking-for-a-problem/
References
¹ https://www.w3.org/events/workshops/2025/authentic-web-workshop/
² https://credweb.org/ and https://www.w3.org/community/credibility/
Previously in 2019 I participated in #MisinfoCon:
* https://tantek.com/2019/296/t1/london-misinfocon-discuss-spectrum-recency
* https://tantek.com/2019/296/t2/misinfocon-roundtable-spectrums-misinformation -
The #WashingtonPost opinion columnist Eugene Robinson expresses well the (intended) confusion caused by the #LogicalFallacy called #Equivocation: “Now we know, apparently, that Trump and the MAGA base don’t mean the Tuskegee Airmen when they excoriate DEI. But exactly what do they mean?”
This shows a #CriticalQuestion to ask before believing someone. “What do they mean?”
From: What the Air Force’s Tuskegee Airmen mishap reveals about Trump’s DEI war https://wapo.st/4hazEH7
-
The #WashingtonPost opinion columnist Eugene Robinson expresses well the (intended) confusion caused by the #LogicalFallacy called #Equivocation: “Now we know, apparently, that Trump and the MAGA base don’t mean the Tuskegee Airmen when they excoriate DEI. But exactly what do they mean?”
This shows a #CriticalQuestion to ask before believing someone. “What do they mean?”
From: What the Air Force’s Tuskegee Airmen mishap reveals about Trump’s DEI war https://wapo.st/4hazEH7
-
The #WashingtonPost opinion columnist Eugene Robinson expresses well the (intended) confusion caused by the #LogicalFallacy called #Equivocation: “Now we know, apparently, that Trump and the MAGA base don’t mean the Tuskegee Airmen when they excoriate DEI. But exactly what do they mean?”
This shows a #CriticalQuestion to ask before believing someone. “What do they mean?”
From: What the Air Force’s Tuskegee Airmen mishap reveals about Trump’s DEI war https://wapo.st/4hazEH7
-
The #WashingtonPost opinion columnist Eugene Robinson expresses well the (intended) confusion caused by the #LogicalFallacy called #Equivocation: “Now we know, apparently, that Trump and the MAGA base don’t mean the Tuskegee Airmen when they excoriate DEI. But exactly what do they mean?”
This shows a #CriticalQuestion to ask before believing someone. “What do they mean?”
From: What the Air Force’s Tuskegee Airmen mishap reveals about Trump’s DEI war https://wapo.st/4hazEH7
-
The #WashingtonPost opinion columnist Eugene Robinson expresses well the (intended) confusion caused by the #LogicalFallacy called #Equivocation: “Now we know, apparently, that Trump and the MAGA base don’t mean the Tuskegee Airmen when they excoriate DEI. But exactly what do they mean?”
This shows a #CriticalQuestion to ask before believing someone. “What do they mean?”
From: What the Air Force’s Tuskegee Airmen mishap reveals about Trump’s DEI war https://wapo.st/4hazEH7
-
"Very important to vote Republican ... to prevent voting fraud." -- Elon Musk
This is the worst kind of relevance fallacy. NEVER infer towards an unknown. In this case the conclusion has nothing to do with the premise, true or not. It's a clever lie told by a clever liar.
-
Randomly reminded of one of my favorite terms: Schrodinger's Douchebag
Definition: someone who is or is not "joking" depending on whether or not people around them agree with the statement
Related: See Poe's Law
-
"False Dichotomy": Answers In Reason
https://www.tiktok.com/@answersinreason/video/7175918490019269894
- erm no it's not. this person doesn't know what a dichotomy is let alone a false one.
#Philosophy #Logic #LogicalFallacy #Fallacies #InformalFallacies #FalseDichotomy
-
Remember that Lemm.ee post I posted about 2 days ago that got brigaded to hell by the toxic tankie troll instance hexbear.net? well, it’s still ongoing because, of course, they’re sociopaths that just can’t stop inflicting their hate and hurt upon their victims. One user just had enough and compiled a list of hexbear posts that proves who these users really are. (CW/TW)
https://lemm.ee/comment/2443771
#lemmy #lemmee #hexbear #trolls #toxic #shitshow #hate #tankies #bullying #logicalfallacy #crybully
-
Admin of Lemmy instance lemm.ee contemplates defederating from toxic tankie troll instance hexbear.net in community post open for discussion to lemm.ee users.
hexbear users promptly brigade post, heavily trolling any- and everyone who says anything they don’t like for 24 hours, quickly proving every criticism of them true in massive shitshow of bullying and toxicity.
#lemmy #lemmee #hexbear #trolls #toxic #shitshow #hate #tankies #bullying #logicalfallacy #crybully
-
New Portuguese-Language pages created on #RationalWiki in July:
#Português #PortugueseApelo à fé #appealtofaith #logicalfallacy #FaláciaLógica
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Apelo_%C3%A0_f%C3%A9#TDK (acrônimo para Tirei Do Ku) #PIDOOMA
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/TDKViés de sobrevivência #survivorshipbias
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Vi%C3%A9s_de_sobreviv%C3%AAnciaViés de seleção #selectionbias
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Vi%C3%A9s_de_sele%C3%A7%C3%A3oEvidência suprimida #cherrypicking
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evid%C3%AAncia_suprimidaFalácia do holofote #spotlightfallacy
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fal%C3%A1cia_do_holofoteTeoria da cegueira deliberada #willfulignorance #denialism
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Teoria_da_cegueira_deliberadaPost hoc, ergo propter hoc #posthocergopropterhoc
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Post_hoc,_ergo_propter_hoc_(portugu%C3%AAs)Superstição #Superstition
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Supersti%C3%A7%C3%A3o -
New Portuguese-Language pages created on #RationalWiki in July:
#Português #PortugueseApelo à fé #appealtofaith #logicalfallacy #FaláciaLógica
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Apelo_%C3%A0_f%C3%A9#TDK (acrônimo para Tirei Do Ku) #PIDOOMA
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/TDKViés de sobrevivência #survivorshipbias
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Vi%C3%A9s_de_sobreviv%C3%AAnciaViés de seleção #selectionbias
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Vi%C3%A9s_de_sele%C3%A7%C3%A3oEvidência suprimida #cherrypicking
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evid%C3%AAncia_suprimidaFalácia do holofote #spotlightfallacy
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fal%C3%A1cia_do_holofoteTeoria da cegueira deliberada #willfulignorance #denialism
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Teoria_da_cegueira_deliberadaPost hoc, ergo propter hoc #posthocergopropterhoc
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Post_hoc,_ergo_propter_hoc_(portugu%C3%AAs)Superstição #Superstition
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Supersti%C3%A7%C3%A3o -
New Portuguese-Language pages created on #RationalWiki in July:
#Português #PortugueseApelo à fé #appealtofaith #logicalfallacy #FaláciaLógica
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Apelo_%C3%A0_f%C3%A9#TDK (acrônimo para Tirei Do Ku) #PIDOOMA
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/TDKViés de sobrevivência #survivorshipbias
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Vi%C3%A9s_de_sobreviv%C3%AAnciaViés de seleção #selectionbias
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Vi%C3%A9s_de_sele%C3%A7%C3%A3oEvidência suprimida #cherrypicking
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evid%C3%AAncia_suprimidaFalácia do holofote #spotlightfallacy
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fal%C3%A1cia_do_holofoteTeoria da cegueira deliberada #willfulignorance #denialism
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Teoria_da_cegueira_deliberadaPost hoc, ergo propter hoc #posthocergopropterhoc
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Post_hoc,_ergo_propter_hoc_(portugu%C3%AAs)Superstição #Superstition
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Supersti%C3%A7%C3%A3o -
New Portuguese-Language pages created on #RationalWiki in July:
#Português #PortugueseApelo à fé #appealtofaith #logicalfallacy #FaláciaLógica
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Apelo_%C3%A0_f%C3%A9#TDK (acrônimo para Tirei Do Ku) #PIDOOMA
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/TDKViés de sobrevivência #survivorshipbias
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Vi%C3%A9s_de_sobreviv%C3%AAnciaViés de seleção #selectionbias
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Vi%C3%A9s_de_sele%C3%A7%C3%A3oEvidência suprimida #cherrypicking
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evid%C3%AAncia_suprimidaFalácia do holofote #spotlightfallacy
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fal%C3%A1cia_do_holofoteTeoria da cegueira deliberada #willfulignorance #denialism
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Teoria_da_cegueira_deliberadaPost hoc, ergo propter hoc #posthocergopropterhoc
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Post_hoc,_ergo_propter_hoc_(portugu%C3%AAs)Superstição #Superstition
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Supersti%C3%A7%C3%A3o -
New Portuguese-Language pages created on #RationalWiki in July:
#Português #PortugueseApelo à fé #appealtofaith #logicalfallacy #FaláciaLógica
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Apelo_%C3%A0_f%C3%A9#TDK (acrônimo para Tirei Do Ku) #PIDOOMA
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/TDKViés de sobrevivência #survivorshipbias
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Vi%C3%A9s_de_sobreviv%C3%AAnciaViés de seleção #selectionbias
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Vi%C3%A9s_de_sele%C3%A7%C3%A3oEvidência suprimida #cherrypicking
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evid%C3%AAncia_suprimidaFalácia do holofote #spotlightfallacy
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fal%C3%A1cia_do_holofoteTeoria da cegueira deliberada #willfulignorance #denialism
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Teoria_da_cegueira_deliberadaPost hoc, ergo propter hoc #posthocergopropterhoc
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Post_hoc,_ergo_propter_hoc_(portugu%C3%AAs)Superstição #Superstition
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Supersti%C3%A7%C3%A3o -
I took great pains on Sunday to explain for the Nth time why the "argument from ignorance" is false, manipulative, and arrogant. It involves circular reasoning, proof-burden shifting, self-deception, and using the presence of uncertainty--*to assert other unjustified certainty.*
I then got a response that was a most *beautiful* boiler-plate, texbook restatement of the same argument that I had just debunked! And you've heard it all before. Here goes:
//Science's ability to document the 'how' does not necessarily explain it, and partially explaining it doesn't illuminate the 'why.'//
This is "we can't explain" all over again, the classic core of the argument from ignorance. It usually means "I can't explain, because I haven't studied the subject in depth, and I have no idea what I'm talking about."
What makes anyone think that there IS a "why" to the universe? Everything that happens has a cause, but not necessarily a purpose. Saying we don't know something's "purpose" is a straw man through and through. We *can't* know purpose because purpose implies a mind we can't read, and represents a not-so-subtle argument for a "creator."
Take the question "Why does the Sun exist?" This demonstrates this absurdity of intent. Unless "gawd" directly *willed* the Sun into existence with a wave of their hand, it's there for the same reason as any other star. Why does any star in the universe exist? Because gravity coalesced gas and ignited a fusion reaction. Why did that happen? For the same reason you might climb a mountain--because it was there.
//there are notable gaps in the historical record//
So, what? Another core reference to ignorance. If there's a gap, that means a GAP. You don't get to fill it with whatever you want, or assert that the absence of knowledge somehow supports other knowledge we don't have. This is the blind leading the blind.
//the record is being rewritten constantly as new evidence comes to light//
Which is it? Are there gaps, or is the entire record suspect? You see how this is used to undermine the totality of science? Not only are we missing data, in this view, but the data we do have is supposedly suspect. And it's not suspect because of some specific error in a given experiment or paper this person discovered. That would take work. According to these buffoons, all scientific data is suspect--IN GENERAL.
Constant revision is *science functioning as designed.* Revisions to science ONLY happen when someone shoulders an extremely heavy burden of proof. It's not enough merely to question existing evidence. When challenging an existing theory, you have to provide *better* evidence, along with a new theory to explain it--and that's the tough part. That's why gaps in our knowledge persist, because probing those gaps is difficult.
And it's also why evidence that has stood the test of time will usually continue to do so. The way science advances usually has to do with discovering data that requires refinements of earlier theories, such as how Einstein's Relativity modified Newtonian mechanics. Nothing Newton discovered was overturned. His laws remain an excellent approximation for how matter behaves, except at near-light (relativistic) speeds.
//any scientist that does not accept the possibility of missing evidence cannot claim they understand the limits of possible knowledge.//
It's far worse than that: Any "scientist" who does not accept the possibility of missing evidence IS NOT A SCIENTIST.
//Absent evidence of intent....we are likely not going to get closer to the truth, because it's ineffable.//
There it is again, the insistence on knowing intent, or the "why." What makes anyone think that there is a "why" to the universe at all? (This is getting repetitive). "Ineffable" is one of the worst words in the English language. (Someone used to run a blog called "Effing the Ineffable." HA) The problem with the word is that it's obscurantist. It means "can't be known, described, or expressed." Once again this is a reference to the core of the argument from ignorance. "We can't know THIS--therefore we know THAT (which I just made up)."
//I simply am not going to accept that because [evidence of] something is missing means it isn't possible.//
Of course an infinite number of things are possible. The question is, WHICH THINGS are true or likely to be true??? And that's why evidence is all-important. Science doesn't rule things out, it rules them IN. With evidence! Once again this takes the form "We don't know that _______ is NOT true, so that means it's possibly true."
According to the argument from ignorance, you can fill in the blank with anything you want! Purple Chupacabras? Can't prove they don't exist. If they don't exist on Earth, they could exist on some other planet, right? Folks, this is unforgivable self-dishonesty. Until you find the purple Chupacabra, there's nothing to talk about. Then you could shift the criteria to orange Chupacabras we "can't prove don't exist," and on it goes.
Bertrand Russell's famous teapot thought experiment demonstrated the absurdity of this tactic.
//I know that many believe they know the limits of what is true. I do not.//
This is frankly the most arrogant form of the argument from ignorance. Because if you finish the thought what it really means is "I refuse to be held accountable to the body of work produced by the scientific method, or for any standards of evidence or burden of proof it imposes."
//The history of scientific investigation is one of the frequent need to reset and recalibrate what "truth" actually is.//
Yes, that's abundantly clear as previously stipulated. And that recalibration is done according to the strictest rules of evidence--not according to personal doubt. Doubt is effortless. Proof is difficult.
I'm sad to say that I've found that the "argument from ignorance" forms the core of the most stubborn and widely-held popular epistemology. You've heard all this from ignorant peopple, but also from so-called educated people who aren't trained in the probabilistic methods of the hard sciences.
The reason it's so popular is because it allows people to feel that their opinion "might" someday be proven true, even if it contradicts every single bit of current knowledge (pointy-headed, know-it-all) scientists spent centuries accumulating.
It's a total intellectual "get ouf of jail free" card.
This is the apocalypse Carl Sagan warned us about. It's all happening just like he said. Because of this mental rot, we're losing our ability to sustain a technological civilization. Because we forgot the rigor and mental discipline that got us here in the first place.
Do better, hoomons!
#ignorance #scientificmethod #logicalfallacy #burdenofproof #god #purpose #NOMA #universe #reality #teleology #creationism #argumentfromignorance #godofthegaps #sagan #russellsteapot