2 added 397 characters in body
source | link

Two other possibly fallacy names spring to mind, but it's also important to keep in mind that fallacies fall into two types (formal and informal) and this type is the less useful for arguments (informal).

False equivocationequivalence -- calling two things the same that aren't (here, this is going to be an informal version of a fallacy that has both formal and informal variants)

In a sense false equivocation is a species of poor analogy since the parallels that make arguments by analogy work would be out of whack in these cases.

or

whataboutism - this is a type of red herring where rather than resolving the alleged problem, a similar problem is mentioned as equally applying to others.

arguably, this is a form of tu quoque but the precise definition of tu quoque is not clear (sure you can claim it means "you as well"), but given that definition I've seen it applied to ad hom responses to ad hom and the sort of "your view has this problem too".

Largely, it's irrelevant what it's properly called however because "identify the fallacy" is largely a waste of time.


Returning to my earlier point about formal vs informal fallacies, a big problem with "identifying" informal fallacies is that the person you are arguing with may disagree about whether the usage is fallacious. They may think the two are in fact parallel cases or some how material to the argument at hand. In other words, raising a "ha, fallacy!" point does little to end this sort of debate.

Thinking about it in terms of argument by analogy, arguments by analogy don't have the same proof methods as deductive arguments. There can always be disagreement about the suitability of an argument by analogy or disagreement about quite what it proves or what is analogous between cases.

Two other possibly fallacy names spring to mind, but it's also important to keep in mind that fallacies fall into two types (formal and informal) and this type is the less useful for arguments (informal).

False equivocation -- calling two things the same that aren't (here, this is going to be an informal version of a fallacy that has both formal and informal variants)

In a sense false equivocation is a species of poor analogy since the parallels that make arguments by analogy work would be out of whack in these cases.

or

whataboutism - this is a type of red herring where rather than resolving the alleged problem, a similar problem is mentioned as equally applying to others.


Returning to my earlier point about formal vs informal fallacies, a big problem with "identifying" informal fallacies is that the person you are arguing with may disagree about whether the usage is fallacious. They may think the two are in fact parallel cases or some how material to the argument at hand. In other words, raising a "ha, fallacy!" point does little to end this sort of debate.

Thinking about it in terms of argument by analogy, arguments by analogy don't have the same proof methods as deductive arguments. There can always be disagreement about the suitability of an argument by analogy or disagreement about quite what it proves or what is analogous between cases.

Two other possibly fallacy names spring to mind, but it's also important to keep in mind that fallacies fall into two types (formal and informal) and this type is the less useful for arguments (informal).

False equivalence -- calling two things the same that aren't (here, this is going to be an informal version of a fallacy that has both formal and informal variants)

In a sense false equivocation is a species of poor analogy since the parallels that make arguments by analogy work would be out of whack in these cases.

or

whataboutism - this is a type of red herring where rather than resolving the alleged problem, a similar problem is mentioned as equally applying to others.

arguably, this is a form of tu quoque but the precise definition of tu quoque is not clear (sure you can claim it means "you as well"), but given that definition I've seen it applied to ad hom responses to ad hom and the sort of "your view has this problem too".

Largely, it's irrelevant what it's properly called however because "identify the fallacy" is largely a waste of time.


Returning to my earlier point about formal vs informal fallacies, a big problem with "identifying" informal fallacies is that the person you are arguing with may disagree about whether the usage is fallacious. They may think the two are in fact parallel cases or some how material to the argument at hand. In other words, raising a "ha, fallacy!" point does little to end this sort of debate.

Thinking about it in terms of argument by analogy, arguments by analogy don't have the same proof methods as deductive arguments. There can always be disagreement about the suitability of an argument by analogy or disagreement about quite what it proves or what is analogous between cases.

1
source | link

Two other possibly fallacy names spring to mind, but it's also important to keep in mind that fallacies fall into two types (formal and informal) and this type is the less useful for arguments (informal).

False equivocation -- calling two things the same that aren't (here, this is going to be an informal version of a fallacy that has both formal and informal variants)

In a sense false equivocation is a species of poor analogy since the parallels that make arguments by analogy work would be out of whack in these cases.

or

whataboutism - this is a type of red herring where rather than resolving the alleged problem, a similar problem is mentioned as equally applying to others.


Returning to my earlier point about formal vs informal fallacies, a big problem with "identifying" informal fallacies is that the person you are arguing with may disagree about whether the usage is fallacious. They may think the two are in fact parallel cases or some how material to the argument at hand. In other words, raising a "ha, fallacy!" point does little to end this sort of debate.

Thinking about it in terms of argument by analogy, arguments by analogy don't have the same proof methods as deductive arguments. There can always be disagreement about the suitability of an argument by analogy or disagreement about quite what it proves or what is analogous between cases.