34

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 ...


21

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 ...


17

This is officially called the fallacy of relative privation, colloquially better known as appeal to worse problems, or "children are starving in Africa" argument. The implication is that anything short of starving children is not worthy of serious discussion. More precisely the fallacy is "arguing that expressing concern about a (relatively) small problem ...


13

The form of the reasoning is this: Thesis: Punishing X in this way is wrong Rebuttal: Don't do X and you won't be punished On the surface, this is ignoratio elenchi (ignorance of refutation), a.k.a. irrelevant conclusion or missing the point, presenting a possibly valid argument, which is not a proof/refutation in the relevant sense, while intended to be ...


13

This is not a logical fallacy. Just because someone is wrong does not mean they are committing a logical fallacy If you're asking where the logical fallacy is, you have to analyse the discussion logically. The argument appears to be about this: Question: Is there a lot of evidence that vaccines cause autism? Bob is using a very basic Argument from ...


9

Your position would be reasonable against the kind of absolute relativists and radical skeptics that you describe. Unfortunately, those are only convenient straw men that are easy to refute, which is good sport for didactic purposes. Philosophers who actually hold positions so caricatured are savvy enough to nuance them so as to make them immune to self-...


8

There does not seem to be a specific name for this particular fallacy, see related discussion: "The other person's response was that I have never had to live on my own therefore my opinion on the subject was invalid. I feel like this is wrong, I'm using data given on federal websites to make my assertions so I feel like personal experience is irrelevant". ...


8

I agree with J.D.'s Inappropriate Shift of Burden of Proof. Since Bob is making the claim, Bob should have the burden of making the argument and evidence really clear, but Bob inappropriately shifts it to Alice. But Alice does not have the burden of proof here, Bob does. But I also smell a bit of Appeal to Authority here: Bob is pointing to the article (and ...


6

The question of sarcasm is a complex one for which I think it's justified to give a quick definition, so as to help in this debate. Sarcasm, of the ancient greek σαρκασμός / sarkasmos; designates an ironic mockery, a jest that puts its target in derision. It is biting, even bitter and hurtful. It can be considered as a form of "spicy" irony, which consists ...


6

The question is vague, so it can be several different things. Generally, dismissing an argument based on who is supporting it is called ad hominem, "attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly". It might also be what is more specifically ...


6

Rhetoric is closely connected to Sophism and Sophistry Rhetoric is usually described as an art of persuading (some audience about something). It is not particularly interested with truth, only with appearance of it. Rhetoric appeals not only to the reason, but much more to the emotions. In this regards, rhetoric is close to the psychology - many good ...


5

Seems like the "straw man" to me. It's attacking a position that nobody is actually defending. Edit: In response to a comment below. It's worth noting that what S is encouraging his or her listeners to do is to commit a use-mention error.


5

Is there a standard name for a fallacy of the same form as an ad hominem, except that instead of denouncing the opposition, it praises the defense? The example is: "Bill favors not-Y", and Bill is a distinguished person, so not-Y is true. This argument is a form of appeal to authority, where "a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to ...


5

Quine famously drew a comparison between mythology and science as being different only in degree, not in kind. In his 1951 paper "Two Dogmas of Empiricism", he states: As an empiricist I continue to think of the conceptual scheme of science as a tool, ultimately, for predicting future experience in the light of past experience. Physical objects are ...


4

There are many good guides to clear philosophical writing available online. Probably the best is Jim Pryor's, and you should also take a look at his guide to reading philosophy, as the processes of learning to think, read, and write clearly about philosophy are intimately related. There's a very long, but interesting guide to philosophical writing from ...


4

An appeal is, in basic terms, an argument of last resort. In philosophy, ideally, there is no appeal. Either the logic of your premises read out your conclusion or it does not. In a more etymological sense, an appeal is a call out for assistance from a higher power. The word comes from the the Latin appelltus, meaning to entreat. In a very basic sense, we ...


4

I second SAHornickel's reply above. And, here are some examples from Part V of Wittgenstein's Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics that he was specifically thinking about: §1. It is of course clear that the mathematician, in so far as he really is 'playing a game' does not infer. For here 'playing' must mean: acting in accordance with certain rules. ...


4

I think I disagree with @David Schwartz. I'd read Aristotle's claim differently. I don't think he's offering a definition of ``good'' here per se (and despite what he says).* It's more that he's giving three different examples of the kind of thing that it is proper to attribute the property of goodness to. In other words, I think he's saying there are ...


4

If your formalization is correct, then your friend is affirming the consequent as you describe, per the following structure: If Jesus exists, then churches exist. Churches exist. Therefore Jesus exists Formalized: J -> C C Therefore J. But before we assume that's what's happening there's two issues worth mentioning. First, many normal language ...


4

Perhaps your friend is arguing as follows: 1. If Jesus did not exist, then churches would not exist. 2. Churches exist. 3. Therefore, Jesus existed. This line of reasoning denies the consequent and is valid. However, your friend's task is not finished. They still have to show the validity of the premise, "If not J, then not C." There could be many ...


4

I'm not sure about Plato, but the interpretive principle that is described in the question has been discussed in modern analytic philosophy, and has been nicknamed the principle of charity. In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best,...


4

I don't think there's a technique you can apply or a practically useful set of rules. The best way to learn the clear, concise and accurate expression of ideas in philosophy is to read, and assimilate from, philosophers who have these virtues of expression. Descartes has it in Meditation I; the later Meditations do not possess the same clarity. Later ...


4

welcome to PSE ! Jacqueline de Romilly offers help on the rendering of eúnoia EUNOIA, in Greek, is something more than good will: it means approval, sympathy and readiness to help. Having such meanings, it soon came to be applied to politics in a number of ways, as describing one's feeling towards a person, or a party, or the city-or even another ...


4

Simplify your statements by providing only one argument per statement. Rules of thumb are: Resist the temptation to fight all of the opponent's wrong points (address only one of his arguments/claims/points) and resist the temptation to bring out your full arsenal of arguments from several perspectives (provide only one counterargument). Pick one point and ...


3

Normative ethics is the study of prescriptive ethics, what should be done, as opposed to descriptive ethics, which studies ideas of the good. Normative ethics studies purposive action. It is also referred to as morality. Here is the Wikipedia There is also some good rounded out info here: Britanica


3

"You can trust that academics know the truth because they have tenure and are free to think for themselves." I presume that statement was preceded by a certain claim made by an academic, which was then said to be credible simply because an academic said so. If this is the case: this form of fallacy is an Argument from Authority. It generally goes as ...


3

Rhetoric has three modes of persuasion: logos, ethos and pathos. These modes may appear alone, but usually they are combined. The subject of the speech will define which modes are adequate. If someone is talking about mathematics, probably it will be based on logos alone, but when someone is talking about subjective issues, there's no way it can be done ...


3

For Buddhists, one of the meanings of the word Dharma or Dhamma is 'universal law' (analogous to for example the Law of Gravity). Dhamma might be equated with "things the Buddha said". aren't they admitting that reality itself is an absolute and that at least one thing is absolutely knowable I think "they" argue that descriptions of reality are ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible