35
votes
What type of rhetorical device is the offering of a source which is really long and not specifying what part of the source is relevant?
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 ...
- 22.9k
22
votes
Accepted
What type of rhetorical device is the offering of a source which is really long and not specifying what part of the source is relevant?
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 ...
- 356
17
votes
What kind of a logical fallacy is giving an example from the past - in order to justify present unjustice?
This is called an Appeal to tradition.
Wikipedia states
Appeal to tradition (also known as argumentum ad antiquitatem or argumentum ad antiquitam, appeal to antiquity, or appeal to common practice) ...
- 332
14
votes
What type of rhetorical device is the offering of a source which is really long and not specifying what part of the source is relevant?
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 ...
- 371
14
votes
Does this argument qualify as whataboutism?
No
This is a fallacy, but not a whataboutism. This is instead a Tu quoque fallacy, which is similar to an ad hominem. Rather than disputing Alice's accusation, Bob says that Alice is guilty of the ...
- 271
13
votes
What fallacy dismisses criticism of a bad law with "just don't break it"?
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....
- 42.5k
12
votes
Accepted
Why do people who subscribe to self-refuting skeptical philosophies still argue with others?
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 ...
- 42.5k
10
votes
Accepted
What fallacy excludes "outsiders" from discussing "insider" issue?
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 ...
- 42.5k
9
votes
What type of rhetorical device is the offering of a source which is really long and not specifying what part of the source is relevant?
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 ...
- 2,689
7
votes
Does this argument qualify as whataboutism?
It depends.
Whataboutism is about derailing the discussion about a particular problem by pointing out another problem. The focus is on the derailing, not on actually wanting to solve that other ...
- 935
7
votes
What kind of a logical fallacy is giving an example from the past - in order to justify present unjustice?
First, when you have a statement with assertoric force (in plain-speak, you have claims about truth being made), then you have at a bare minimum a rhetorical argument. Rhetoric since ancient times is ...
- 22.9k
6
votes
Accepted
What fallacy dismisses a conclusion because supporters give invalid arguments for it?
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 ...
- 42.5k
6
votes
Did Plato say "In order to argue, you must express your opponents argument better than they could?"
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 ...
- 7,311
6
votes
Is rhetoric philosophy?
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 ...
- 1,166
6
votes
What is the philosophical term for using half-truths to intentionally mislead?
Short Answer
Technically speaking, the intentional use of misleading language is more in the domain of rhetoric than logic and is known as sophistry. A fallacy is generally considered any persuasive ...
- 22.9k
6
votes
Accepted
What is the philosophical term for using half-truths to intentionally mislead?
The school board's negative phrasing like "found no evidence" or "hasn't recommended" suggests an intention to pass absence of evidence for evidence of absence. The relationship ...
- 42.5k
5
votes
Name for reverse Ad Hominem, (i.e. praising the defense)?
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 ...
- 6,140
5
votes
Accepted
Are mythological stories scientific explanations?
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 ...
- 27.1k
5
votes
Does this argument qualify as whataboutism?
Whataboutism is a fallacy in a formal debate, where
there are clear criteria/standards/values/premises against which the validity of the claims is evaluated
there are judges or another authority able ...
- 1,543
5
votes
What kind of a logical fallacy is giving an example from the past - in order to justify present unjustice?
As JD says, this is a false equivalence. But I disagree on what is being treated as equivalent.
The argument is essentially saying "better = good/adequate". Although it's true that we should ...
- 1,148
4
votes
Identifying logical fallacy in argument
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 ...
- 24.6k
4
votes
Identifying logical fallacy in argument
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 ...
- 6,140
4
votes
Accepted
What is the meaning of the term 'eúnoia'?
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 ...
- 35.4k
4
votes
Accepted
What is the proper response in a debate when your opponent ignores your counterarguments?
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/...
- 154
4
votes
Word-Pairing Rhetorical Tactic
It's called using loaded language. From WP:
Loaded language (also known as loaded terms, strong emotive language, high-inference language and language-persuasive techniques) is rhetoric used to ...
- 22.9k
3
votes
What fallacy dismisses a conclusion because supporters give invalid arguments for it?
Bad Reasons, or perhaps Fallacy Fallacy.
- 31
3
votes
Accepted
"That religion is not a race doesn't stop people who attack it from being racist!" Is this a logical fallacy?
There is a couple of fallacies at play here, all variations on the red herring. Bringing in racism is a red herring because racism is irrelevant to religion as Jack himself acknowledges. He then says ...
- 42.5k
3
votes
Why do people who subscribe to self-refuting skeptical philosophies still argue with others?
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 ...
- 631
3
votes
Money and Friendship - Is this a logical fallacy?
It's a fallacy: Appeal to pity. The conclusion that person B can afford "that" can't follows from the premise "friendship" between person A and person B.
Only top scored, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible