1

Has any name been assigned for a class of informal fallacy (or cognitive bias) in which someone shifts in dialog between use of various premises to support an argument, without ever allowing any to be adequately examined?

For example, consider the following hypothetical exchange:

Speaker A: Hypothesis H is supported by premises P1 and P2, either of which would be sufficient independently.
Speaker B: Support for P1 is rather weak at best.
Speaker A: H is still supported by P2.
Speaker B: Have you considered common objections to P2?
Speaker A: No, but they would be irrelevant, because no one ever refuted P1.

(Also, is any source available giving a recommendation for how to confront use of this fallacy for an audience or speaker who may not otherwise recognize it?)

8
  • 2
    Gish gallop:"a rhetorical technique in which a debater attempts to overwhelm an opponent by excessive number of arguments, without regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments".
    – Conifold
    Sep 16 '21 at 2:46
  • 1
    @Conifold: I think the Gish gallop is different, because it is a confusing monologue, rather than a shifty dialog.
    – epl
    Sep 16 '21 at 2:49
  • 1
    The form of delivery makes no difference to the substance of the tactic. And Gish gallop is used in both debate formats.
    – Conifold
    Sep 16 '21 at 2:51
  • @Conifold: The term may represent, as you say, situations both of monologue and dialog, but it also emphasizes specifically the large volume of information and the short span of time. For such reasons, I am still doubting the applicability to the kind of scenario under discussion, which relates to a tendency retreat to a new issue, of which there may be only a few in total, without acknowledging how it may have been weakened by previous objections.
    – epl
    Sep 16 '21 at 3:14
  • 2
    Here is something about fallacies, it's a game of loose associations. They do not have precise definitions, only vague descriptions, often overlapping and with different sources drawing lines in different places. There are no names for every little variant people come up with either. There is not even a cogent description of what "fallacy" means, the original meaning of "mistake in reasoning" does not fit many named "fallacies", where there is no reasoning intended. This area is a wrong place to look for precision.
    – Conifold
    Sep 16 '21 at 3:33

Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.