Talk:Catchy fallacy name fallacy

Can this be used recursively? Ptomblin (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, because "catchy fallacy name fallacy" is anything but catchy. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 23:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A million times this. I can't stand this name. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Should we rename it? This is kind of awkward to use. I vote for something like 'professed fallacy.'±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR critical thinking is the key to success! 23:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How about "the fallacy of profession"... ooh, that sounds nice and pompous! 00:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Armondikov: No, but with a little work, it could be a tongue twister.   23:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's still shorter than "just because you know the Dog Latin for a logical fallacy doesn't mean you know how to use it", which seems to crop up 90% of the time when people say the words "ad hominem". Scarlet A.pngpostate 23:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice ad hominem. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I proposed the name, "name-a-fallacy fallacy" for this, although I don't think that's particularly catchy either. I guess the catchy name is yet to be concocted. Thinking caps on... 00:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My proposal...AceModerator 00:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's so nice to know that I'm loved and wanted. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Thanks Ace! 00:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it is all about you, after all. sterileevolutionist story telling 00:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The "warm fuzzy inside" feeling your experiencing is in fact a tape worm burrowing itself deep. AceModerator 00:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

We have an article on this crud.....
Yet we still don't have an article on denying the antecedent. You know an actual logical fallacy, not butthurt cos yours gets called out on you all the time. Pi 3:14 (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, incidentally. Scarlet A.pngbomination 00:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Funnily enough, a similar discussion happened between the two of us a while back, in which you told me I was relying on special pleading. I didn't understand what you were saying, and you didn't provide a very clear explanation to me.  While it's not really a fallacy, I think the premise of this article is that you can't just wave your hand and say someone is incorrect, you have to explain to them why and how they're incorrect- and that's certainly something that should be covered on this website if it isn't already.  And I just brought up that past discussion as a relatable real world example (who better to relate to than yourself?), and I currently have no interest in resuming that discussion.  I conceded/pulled out for a reason-- 00:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You still wanking over the fact you had a debate with no other than TMTYOULOUOSESEESSAEESAEWS!!!!??? Lord and savior! AceModerator 00:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what?-- 00:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You fucking heard me, Butter-Ball. AceModerator 00:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you've used all the tape worms, can we use the pit of fire ants? ArchieGoodwin (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Failure to understand why a quoted fallacy might apply to the debate does not mean that it does not apply either. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because your conclusion is correct doesn't mean you've argued the point properly. I see people in the discussion Brxbrx links to accusing him of special pleading. It's hard for me to evaluate if those accusations are accurate, since I'm struggling to follow what Brxbrx's actual arguments are, but I think he's arguing that science has a limited domain of application, and at least some religious beliefs like outside that domain, which is something I agree with. People seem to think this is special pleading, but they don't seem to have clearly explained why they think that. Even if they are right, they've failed to argue their point properly. 07:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Failure to explain to Maratrean's satisfaction why a quoted fallacy might apply isn't itself a fallacy any more than saying anything else unresponsive might but need not necessarily be. I guess it could be a non-sequitor if we're being generous in assuming the objection is incorrect, but we're not. This is just more pointless Maratrean wankery. Delete it. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 07:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's nothing to do with Maratrean, even if he did proudly poop all over the talk page - David Gerard (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine. Then change his name to anyone else's and it's still not a logical fallacy. If it deserves to exist at all it's as a brief discussion of a rhetorical failure and, apparently, something that annoys LessWrongers. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 08:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if the claimed fallacy exists, to claim it does without any reasons provided is to commit the fallacy of argument by assertion. Or is that not a real fallacy either? 08:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Please don't move it until we have a better name
It does have a name, slightly, and this is it. Moving it to something that isn't actually an improvement is not great. Is there anything obviously better? - David Gerard (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Tmtoulouse hates this fallacy." At least as a redirect.   06:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, dropping the "name" bit at the very least because it's pretty redundant. Scarlet A.pngtheist 07:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete it

 * [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 07:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Poor arguing is not a fallacy, it is just poor arguing. Pi 3:14 (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or rename. It seems pretty arbitrary, and I don't think "being wrong" and "not explaining your argument" are fallacies. 09:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Not explaining your argument" can be a form of argument by assertion, which is a fallacy. Argument by assertion is a fallacy even when you are right. 09:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The underlying argument isn't by assertion, though; it just looks like that because it's unexplained. It's more of a communication issue than a logical one. 10:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not explaining your argument is not a necessary or sufficient condition of failing to make a logically valid argument, which is the definition of arguing by assertion. Neither is it a necessary or sufficient condition of stating a falsehood. Unrelated to validity or truth, it is at most a rhetorical failure. You're stretching the loose concept of informal logical fallacy to the point of meaningless. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Kupochama: you have to distinguish the underlying argument from the meta-argument. The underlying argument might have conclusion "God exists". The meta-argument has conclusion "That argument contains special pleading". If my argument for "God exists" is nothing more than "God exists", I'm guilty of arguing by assertion. But if your meta-argument for "That argument contains special pleading" is nothing more than "That's special pleading", then you are guilty of arguing by assertion. 22:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol bullshit artistry. How's that for a catchy fallacy name? [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * sterileevolutionist story telling 14:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC) It's not a fallacy. You can be correct about identifying a fallacy without explaining it, even if it's a poor way to have a discussion. The comments at LessWrong even say that.  Rename if you must (to explain your argument is the best way approach an argument), but let's not confuse the issues.
 * Pretty much what nutty said-- il' Dictator   Mikal  15:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * On the side of Pi way up there. 01:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't delete it

 * It's an actual problem and deserves an article IMO - David Gerard (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't make this up. See "JGWeisman" at LessWrong, almost 2 years ago. You may think I am a crank, but where is your evidence that (s)he is? And 2009 is not something "just made up". 07:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It was in fact created by ListenerX - David Gerard (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that ListenerX created it because Maratrean was bumbling around posting this horseshit sophistry on at least aSK and CP. Maratrean, you are indeed the crank I'm referring to. JGWeisman is at best using the term "fallacy" colloquially. We don't have to, do we? [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That would seem to suggest that it isn't well accepted in the circles of people who study logic and rhetoric. Mind you, there may be reasons to have such an article. sterileevolutionist story telling 14:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Can't we just rename it "The Fallacy Fallacy", or the "Fallacy Quote Fallacy"? Crundy Talk nerdy to me 08:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fallacy fallacy already exists, and refers to something different. 08:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Bugger! Crundy Talk nerdy to me 09:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reason for deleting is invalid. It is an informal fallacy, a special case of the argument by assertion. 02:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Kinda meh

 * I agree with Gerard that it's a real thing and I've seen it. But 95% of it seems to be people confusing the term "ad hom" with "crass insult" because they've just learned the fancy word for it - something covered already in the relevant article. Scarlet A.pngsshole 07:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So rewrite it - it's better than no article at present and can surely be improved - David Gerard (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'mma thinking about it. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 09:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking it should be renamed a "being a stupid tosser fallacy" because it's not a failure in logic, it's just not knowing what you're talking about. There's another possible name, the "not knowing what you're talking about fallacy". Nah, on second thoughts I go for the "being an ignorant git" fallacy. Whatever it's called, it's not really a fallacy in the sense that I understand it any more that saying 3 + 4 = 8 is the "bad at sums fallacy". Bad Faith (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See the difference between "formal" and "informal" fallacies. Formal is the error in the formal logic, e.g., P ⇒ Q, Q, ∴P or some such. The informal ones are errors with the content rather than form, e.g., ad hom and so on. From what you've said above, pretty much all of them can be reduced to "not knowing what you're talking about fallacy". Scarlet A.pngd hominem 09:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Boom. Armondikov is right. You could also call it Maratrean's Bullshit Sophistry. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I can see how this would maybe make a great article if people work to make it so. But I certainly needs a better name and, should there be failure to give it needed improvements as far as quality and content go, I say kill it with fire! 11:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge it into a subsection of fallacy fallacy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They are two different things though. "Fallacy fallacy" is "your argument is fallacious, so your conclusion is wrong". This is "I'm accusing of your argument being fallacious, but I'm not giving any reasons why, and I could well be wrong". 23:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * When I first saw the name, I thought that it was the rhetorical ploy of tagging an argument with a novel fallacy name, rather than actually rebutting the argument. Accuse Smith of committing

"Smith's fallacy". TomS TDotO (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Anywho
I put a version into a sandbox and tried to generalise it a bit more. Still can't think of a name but I thought "false positive" was the most broad. moral 15:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh....argument from fallacy assertion, misappropriated fallacy argument...maybe make some cute dog Latin name for some nice ironic hypocrisy. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Argumentum ad fallacia. Scarlet A.pngsshole 16:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Or is that too easily confuddled with argumentum ad fellatio? Scarlet A.pngd hominem 16:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about ad fallacia might work, but then I was thinking about how its more about the failure of the person to understand the fallacy, or to include why it was used or whatever. I started trying to play with other words that I liked perspicientia or conscius but since the imperative negative is the only negation i know in latin I have failed to come up with anything. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fallacia argumentum is "the fallacy argument", apparently, and abusi fallacia is "misused fallacy" Scarlet A.pngmoral 16:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * abusi fallacia is pretty cool actually. Do we want to stick an "argumentum" in there somewhere or roll it out as that phrase? Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm having fun with Google Translate right now, it's in alpha but it's coming up with some good ones. "Fallacy of the argument for the abused" for instance, but I'm not sure what is "correct" - not that it matters with Dog Latin anyway. Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>pathetic 17:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Argumentum ad fallacia = argument that sucks?
 * Dog latin is worse than the present name in English - David Gerard (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But everything sounds so much more pretentious in Latin! Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>gnostic 03:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

callidus fallacia nomen fallacia--24.251.69.25 (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * [Smirk] Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>d hominem 18:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Fuck
Yeah. Swearing. AceModerator 23:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This whole article could be reduced to one line...
If in the article fallacy fallacy under the section titled prevalence a sentance such as "sometimes they don't even bother explaining where the fallacy is". Pi 3:14 (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, this is a different fallacy altogether. The fallacy fallacy is to say validly that argument A has fallacy X, but thence invalidly infer that A's conclusion is false. In this fallacy, by contrast, the statement that argument A has fallacy X is false. 01:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)