A message from our CEO about the future of Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange. Read now.

Tag Info

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 ...

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 ...

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 ...

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

Short answer You helpfully clarified in the comments that your question is about using the rhetorical strategy of cherry-picking. Since it involves the conscious use of an informal fallacy and leads to unsound reasoning, I would call it a form of disingenuous or consciously fallacious reasoning. Long answer Since we are in the sphere of how to convince a ...

3

It's a straw man argument: where you change an argument someone's made to make it weaker than it is, and then refute it as if it were the other person's argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

3

My version is: "Dear opponent, stop, if you constantly leave the answer you do not belong here, our conversation is useless and let's not spend more time on empty negotiations ..." Edit "Dear opponent, if scientists doctors and microbiologists could not come up with vaccines against plague, cholera or smallpox, the epidemics of which were spread in Europe ...

2

As a long-time political activist and student, I've encountered this situation countless times. I up voted Cyril's answer, because it hits the nail on the head. If an opponent isn't playing by the rules, you need to cry foul, and if it's a public discussion, make sure the audience understands what's going on. One more note, though - why are you having this ...

2

The silva rhetorica site has this to say about the audience as an encompassing term in rhetorical discourse: All rhetorically oriented discourse is composed in light of those who will hear or read that discourse. Or, in other words, rhetorical analysis always takes into account how an audience shapes the composition of a text or responds to it. If one ...

2

There has been an emerging literature within the field of logic and computer science engaged with solving the problems encountered in the reasoning area of artificial intelligence which has consequently led to the construction and presentation of new 'computational models of argumentation' which contains material pertaining to the role of redundancy in ...

2

I believe that as a general rule, repetition actually aids rhetoric. This is recognized in quotations about repeating lies. Repetition is required for learning generally, so it makes sense that repetition and redundancy makes it easier for people to repeat that which has been repeated. Persuasion and repetition go hand in hand.

1

What you have said is that the referenced source or citation does not support the claim. This happens all the time, and editors of journals will send you requests for changing the writing. It isn't really a logical fallacy since the author isn't providing a formal logical reasoning for his statement. It might be considered misstating the reference. This ...

1

One problem is the term "common sense." Exactly what is common sense? The first two statements are almost mirror reflections of each other. Both can be considered largely true in the broad sense, yet they both have some problems. Is it OK to spit in another person's face? I think most people around the world would say "No," and would further classify that ...

1

Yes, given the text, the third statement is ad hominem. A fallacy is determined by three criteria according to T. Edward Damer in Attacking Faulty Reasoning. A fallacy is an argument which attempts to show truth by using irrelevant claims, unacceptable claims, or providing an inadequate grounds for drawing an inference. An ad hominem in particular is ...

1

A related idea in epistemology is this. Suppose you want to believe that X is true. Is there any strategy that could guarantee that you would be rational to believe that X is true, regardless of what X is? Here's an example. Suppose I want to believe that people like me, whether or not it is true. But I also want to believe it rationally, in a way that is ...

1

So I came to the internet searching for this quote, found this post and then finally found the actual quote in the Philosophy section of my own bookshelf. "True dialogue requires us to see our opposite at his best." "The best thing, if it were possible, would be to make our adversaries better: but if this is impossible, let us try in our conversation to ...

1

Argument from Exaggerated Authority The question that was asked, whether there is an appropriate term to describe an "ad hominem" argument that elevates, rather than denigrates a person holding a particular view, is very valid and timely. In an age when "tribal epistemology" is playing an increasingly dominant role in public discourse, it's important to ...

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