Because they expect arguments, not inflammatory noise
No, I am calling them an idiot because that's ... just my bloody opinion.
Exactly that: just your opinion. An opinion is not an argument; it is not a syllogism, it is not reasoning, it is not fact, it is not evidence, it is not anything other than just that: your [expletive] opinion.
So why do ...
It may very well be a poor argument, but it's not a logical fallacy
People are too quick to jump on the "fallacy" bandwagon. There is no logical fallacy occurring here. It may very well be an argument that is not particularly convincing (In fact, I wouldn't use the argument), but there is nothing logically fallacious about it.
If a person asks
"If you ...
It is the False Dilemma or Bifurcation Fallacy.
If you don't like it, then move.
Let's say you have caused some problems by questioning the decisions, speech, and actions of someone who is actively seeking social, economic, and/or political power. And you're confident that you have every right -- or even duty -- to do so. Those in power who are profiting ...
If an opinion isn't intended as an argument, it is noise
Frankly, nobody wants to hear your opinion unless you have some point to make about it.
You can have the opinion that a person is an idiot, but if you're putting in the effort to type it in then you obviously have some point to it.
I don't state every opinion I have on every post I make on the ...
Circular reasoning doesn't "discredit" any point of view --if anything, it demonstrates internal consistency. However, it also doesn't provide any external support for a point of view. It has no legitimate force against anyone not already convinced of the conclusion. This is a structural issue entirely independent of the question of whether we're ...
The issue here, as it often is, is that colloquial English is horribly ambiguous, which makes any sort of precise and rigorous discussion difficult. But with sufficient effort, it is possible to make claims precisely, and once you do that, the problem disappears.
Alice states that the sky is blue. Bob states that we live in a simulation. Let's assume for ...
If you are so smart why aren't you rich? If this country is so bad why don't you leave? If it is so easy why aren't you doing it? These types of rhetorical barbs rely on what is called an enthymeme, and argument with implicit parts. If X then why not Y? relies on Y not being in evidence, and suggests that X must not be the case. Enthymemes can be valid, when ...
Geoffrey refers to feedback loops as a valid example of circular reasoning. This is not correct: they can be valid but they are not circular. Instead they are an example of reasoning by induction.
It is not a implies b and b implies a. Instead it is an implies bn and bn implies an+1. That is valid so long as you can start it off with a0. For example, it is ...
There is no argument, therefore there can be no fallacy
There is no fallacy here, no logical error in argument as e.g. in affirming the consequent. This is so because there is no argument here at all - only an expression of viewpoint. Fallacy presupposes argument. No argument, no fallacy : the concepts are tied.
A fallacy in an argument requires that there be an argument at all.
What you're describing:
Then someone counters, "What do you mean by 'bites'? Define 'biting people'. Define 'dog'."
is not even an argument. There is no fallacy there, because it doesn't even make a claim.
What it does – in the example you present – is bog down the discussion with ...
Marx, socialism and communism
Neither Marx nor Engels provided a blueprint for the socialist state. There could in their view be no such thing as a communist state since under communism, with no class-rule or management needed, there would be no state because no classes. Even the Soviet Union described and understood itself as socialist, not communist : ...
There are multiple good answers here, including references to modus tollens and the contrapositive (both of which are correct).
What helps me understand this concept is a more intuitive/layman's perspective.
Say that if it's raining, you ALWAYS bring an umbrella outside. (Assume that you have a perfect memory). Therefore we have:
Raining -> Umbrella
One fallacy that might fit is proof by intimidation. Here is Bo Bennett's description:
Making an argument purposely difficult to understand in an attempt to intimidate your audience into accepting it, or accepting an argument without evidence or being intimidated to question the authority or a priori assumptions of the one making the argument.
An arguer ...
In general, if your opponent insists on claiming that her source provides substantiation in a way it clearly does not, that is false attribution, however, it should be noted that such a counterclaim is largely contextual.
Now, since your opponent insists it is evidence, she has shifted the burden of proof to you. If you ask for where the proof is in the ...
When you say "the phenomenon of cats being born into this world is natural," what that means is, "the phenomenon of cats being born into this world is part of the set of natural phenomena." In other words, "is" here indicates belonging to a particular set, as it often does when there is only a predicate adjective. There is more than one element in this set (...
All informal fallacies take their force from their similarity to strong arguments. In this case, if you say "This boy lied 19 days in a row, therefore we have good reason to disbelieve him on Day 20," that is a perfectly good argument (assuming it isn't suppressing other relevant information).
But if you say "This boy lied 19 days in a row, therefore what ...
Generally speaking, in philosophical discussions, it is often required to provide definitions for words that seem obvious otherwise, let me give you an example:
When you say : The King of France is bold . Russell may ask you, what do you mean by The? (I will not talk about the theory of descriptions here).
And Russell's question here would be legitimate, ...
This fallacy is generally called argument from incredulity, or argument from failure of imagination. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity It also is a subset of the argument from ignorance. Informal fallacies often overlap, and bleed into each other.
This fallacy is a common one,even among respected philosophers, as it is a ...
Here is the argument:
No N is not-N.
No not-N is N.
All C are N.
No R are C.
Thus: No R are N.
The syllogism is invalid for two reasons. First, the third premise denies the antecedent (cats) of the fourth. There can be other animals that are normal. Wikipedia: Denying the antecedent; Formal fallacy.
Second, a term that is distributed in the conclusion (...
What do you call the fallacy of thinking that if A statistically causes B, then A implies B?
For the original title quoted above, the closest is probably correlation implies causation, deducing a cause-and-effect relationship solely on the basis of an observed statistical correlation. The Latin name is cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because ...
Basically, my question is, why do people assume that any insult is an ad-hominem fallacy, when, according to the definition, only certain insults are ad-hominem fallacies.
The simplest answer here is that people do not all assume that any insult is an instance of an ad-hominem fallacy, and those that do are sometimes mistaken. Firstly, an ad-hominem fallacy ...
The second premise is false unless "heinous crime" and "insane" are defined to make it true by definition, in which case the definitions are question begging. But because people committing heinous crimes are convicted despite the insanity defense, premise 2 fails at least on the legal definition of "insanity".
The third premise is also false; otherwise ...
In any communication, there is a context in which that communication is occurring. If they believe they are in a context of debate, and that your statement is intended to be part of the debate, then they are justified in declaring your statement to be an ad-hominem within that context. If you believe you are not engaging in a debate, and are instead merely ...
After some thought I realized this is a denying the antecedent fallacy. Put another way we have
If the person is a teenager then they are bad
If the person is a non teenager then they are not bad
In mathematics, this is sometimes called a proof by intimidation.
As Wikipedia puts it:
Proof by intimidation (or argumentum verbosum) is a jocular phrase used mainly in mathematics to refer to a style of presenting a purported mathematical proof by giving an argument loaded with jargon and appeal to obscure results, so that the audience is simply ...
This seems like a false dilemma:
major premise: "either X is good and Y is bad, or X is bad and Y is good".
minor premise: "Y is bad".
conclusion: "X is good".
Because the major premise is fallacious, the syllogism (though perfectly valid) is not sound.
In your examples it's elaborated slightly: the interlocutors both seem to agree, on some level, that ...
I think I found something that comes close:
Appeal to probability (Wikipedia)
An appeal to probability (or appeal to possibility) is the logical fallacy of taking something for granted because it would probably be
the case (or might possibly be the case).
An appeal to probability argues that, because something probably will
happen, it is ...
The OP presents a situation wondering if a logical fallacy has been committed.
The following claim is made:
Fossil fuel consumption due to mobile phone usage is similar to that of private transportation, so if you think we should switch to electric/bike to fight climate change, then you should also stop using your mobile.
The claim is denied without ...