It’s a bit more complicated. If you’re beating your wife, pointing to someone who kills his wife is no valid excuse.
However, if the police is coming after you while ignoring the murder case, then everybody is right to complain about this. Including the wife beater.
If your behaviour is bad, you should fix it even if others behave worse. But if someone ...
When we point out a fallacy or logical error in the argument, we should NOT say "... thus your thesis is false".At the most we can say "... thus I don't see any reason to believe that your thesis is true". Otherwise we will commit Fallacy Fallacy. And it's it, we can't use our knowledge of fallacies and logic to prove that our opponent has false thesis, at ...
The text box puts a much narrower question than the one in the title.
If someone responds with criticism of his country by pointing to some other less tolerant country and saying, 'See that country? That's called intolerance. And here's you criticizing us.'
I'm inclined to classify the ruse of pointing to some other less tolerant country - ...
The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises :
Premise 1: If A then B ( is equivalent to A implies B)
Premise 2: If B then A (is equivalent to B implies A).
Conclusion : therefore A
It does not make sense, it is a non-sequitur fallacy. You need a premise 3 (B or A).
A suggested Correction :
A implies B and B implies A can be written ...
The basic problem with the argument is that the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion. Irving Copi divides informal fallacies into those of relevance and those of ambiguity. This argument is not ambiguous. It is all too clear that the conclusion doesn't follow.
Reification does not fit because in reification one is not concluding that something exists ...
One of the questions the OP asks is whether there is a name for the following:
The assumption that because an argument contains an informal fallacy it must be false.
As Dennis mentions in a comment there is the "fallacy fallacy" or "argument from fallacy" that describes this deceptive argument. Here is how Bo Bennet describes it:
Concluding that the ...
If you had no ability to recognize that an argument you had made was flawed, then you a) wouldn't be "rational", b) would be perfectly "rational", and never make flawed arguments.
Not being perfectly rational may be a consequence of being human.
Recognizing that fact (in regards to both others, and ourselves) is a result of having "rationality".
(Premise: If you owned Fort Knox, you'd be rich.)
Suppose I write a program which generates every possible sentence in English. Some of these will be claims about the world. Some of them will even be right - eventually it shall say "Bill Gates is rich." We may note that it has no way of knowing that - but that doesn't make it wrong, in the sense that the ...
A lot depends on context. What issue or subject is being discussed? Does the fallacy appear to be unintentional?
Keep in mind that there's a HUGE difference between the scientific/philosophical arena and the political arena. In the former, we engage in discussions with peers, colleagues or (in philosophy) interlocutors. In the political arena, we're ...
If one is involved in a discussion such as the logical problem of evil or the logical possibility of philosophical zombies, if an opponent makes a formal logical error this needs to be corrected. The content of the argument is about the correctness of the logic. The audience expects both sides to correct the other's logical errors.
If one is faced with an ...