0

Example:

Alice - "I think that P"

Bob - "well, I think not P"

Alice - "The very fact that we are arguing about this is very indicative of P isn't it?"

Bob - "Of course not! You are making a [insert logical fallacy]"

What fallacy is Alice creating, is it basically just argument by assertion, or is there something more well-defined here?

EDIT:

To provide more context for the question, here is an example

I've seen feminist arguments being made claiming something along the lines of "the fact that we are arguing about rape culture is very indicative of the rape culture isn't it?"

or the same statement but insert "patriarchy" wherever you see "rape culture"

  • I don't know if there's a more specific name for this, but the general fallacy is non sequitur or argument from irrelevance. – Era Jun 28 '16 at 18:36
  • @Era hmm, I thought that all logical fallacies were a more specific type of non sequitur... – Sam Walls Jun 28 '16 at 19:00
  • The example needs more context. Virtually no one says it is obvious you are wrong just because you don't agree. What kind of thing is P? If it is a moral premise, they might be implying you are being defensive, and if you were not guilty, you would be less opposed. If it is a political observation, they may be implying that your opposition is knee-jerk. If it is "I constantly start stupid arguments.", then it might be logically sound. – user9166 Jun 28 '16 at 21:41
  • @jobermark you'd be surprised... I've seen feminist arguments being made claiming something along the lines of "the fact that we are arguing about rape culture is very indicative of the rape culture isn't it?"; or the same statement but insert "patriarchy" wherever you see "rape culture" – Sam Walls Jun 28 '16 at 22:36
  • @SamWalls In fact I would not be surprised... This falls into the second of the two categories I mentioned, and from there I can give you an answer – user9166 Jun 29 '16 at 0:05
2

I've seen feminist arguments being made claiming something along the lines of "the fact that we are arguing about rape culture is very indicative of the rape culture isn't it?";

This is a 'conspiracy theory' fallacy https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/74/Conspiracy_Theory. Put short, it is the belief that being silenced is proof you are onto something, an instance of a more general fallacy of 'confirmation bias' http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/logical-fallacies/confirmation-bias-logical-fallacies/ -- taking filtered feedback as evidence.

The fact that a majority player responds to an observation by making it into an argument logically backs up the notion that the minority player is being silenced. The reaction is a knee-jerk rejection of something the speaker did not expect to have to defend, in fact presuming it as a starting point. This turns an attempt to make an observation into the need to defend the framing in which it is stated, effectively preventing the point from being made until the argument is resolved.

On the other hand, when someone wants to wind out their elaboration of how the Illuminati brainwash us, it is easy to see refusal to admit the existence of the Illuminati as proof you are already brainwashed. You are resisting, so you must be complicit. The fact that the rich get richer, they claim, simply must be explained. Well, it is, just not that way...

The logic here is the same. She is attempting an appeal to authority, by pulling out a theory and expecting you to let her start from there, and you are rejecting her authority. But her theory predicts you will reject her authority, even when it is valid, so she sees the argument itself as validation of the theory.

In fact, it is only validation of the observed data that caused that theory to be formulated to begin with. Every time you drop a rock it is not additional support for the theory of gravitation. Theories have to predict more than they explain, in order to accrue credibility, and they need for new data to validate those predictions. More of the same data doesn't qualify. Otherwise, all those conspiracy theorists can just filter the incoming news for repetitions of the patterns that spawned the theory initially, and 'prove' themselves right on a daily basis.

The 'rape culture' paradigm falls into the same hole Popper pointed out swallows up Marxism and naive versions of psychoanalysis: It makes an audacious claim and predicts no new data, relying upon the degree to which it fits the known data and the elasticity of its explanatory mechanism, which allows other data that is encountered at random to be rolled up into the theory, while a bulk of specific predictions fail and are ignored. So while it continues to be an explanation, it fails to gain credibility as a theory.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.