Countless counterfeits fallacy

Cogito ergo sum Logic and rhetoric

Key articles

Logical fallacy Syllogism Argument

General logic

Spider-Man fallacy Wronger than wrong Regression fallacy Creationist escape hatch Canard (português) Falácia do holofote

Bad logic

Danth's Law Ham Hightail Word magic Willful ignorance Phantom distinction False dilemma v - t - e

“”Simply put, the true believer mistakenly thinks that whether or not a piece of evidence is good is a matter of chance, so that the more pieces of evidence there are, the more likely it is that one is reliable. “Throw the dice long enough and eventually you’ll get a Yahtzee.” But this is not how evidence works. I can’t pile up a 1000 pieces of bad evidence that you committed a murder and claim it’s likely that one proves you did. Whether a piece of evidence is good is not a matter of chance; it either is or it isn’t.

—David Kyle Johnson

The countless counterfeits fallacy is an informal logical fallacy in which the existence of a lot of bad evidence is treated as if it implies the existence of some good evidence. "Surely it can't all be false?", the credulous who fall victim to this fallacy may ask.

While the existence of counterfeit money may imply the existence of real money, the same isn't generally true of other things; for example fake paranormal events and abilities don't imply the existence of real ones, but rather lead to the question of why there's such a need to fake them if there supposedly also exists something real. This fallacy is often used to argue for ghosts, alien UFOs, demons, alternative medicine, and conspiracy theories, notes David Kyle Johnson who coined the term.

At the heart of the fallacious thinking is a mistaken approach to evidence and its nature. A true believer arguing for a belief tends to start with the most compelling thing they can mention, and if it's convincingly argued against, move on to the next, then the next, and so on, until they run out. Thereafter the general idea remains that there's many more cases or examples that could potentially be made or found. This "bottom of the barrel" being scraped, the vague idea that there's something more out there that would do it, feels like a huge thing, since there's so many claims and rumors floating around yet to be discussed and yet to be personally looked at in detail.

Already believing, the true believer may simply treat it as a matter of chance whether or not a particular piece of evidence or argument they may use will turn out good or not. One or another thing ought to do it, it's just a matter of finding it if you're already sure of the big picture. Even if skeptics shoot down many pieces of evidence, it's never quite good enough, since there's always more that could potentially be found and pointed to – for example among all the rumors passed around on social media.

Statistically, things work better in the opposite direction – the more things of a kind are shown to be fake, the likelier it is that the rest also are. And a skeptical explanation that successfully rules out a large portion of claimed evidence – such as exposing a common variety of fraud or fakery – makes it more likely that something similar is the case for the rest.

Late to be described

In a 2020 Skeptic's Magazine article, Johnson makes his case for seemingly being the first to describe this fallacy, relating how a conversation with a believer in alien UFOs led to exploring the matter. Whether or not Johnson is truly first (no counterexample is known), it is clearly a less-described fallacy, not found in prominent older lists of logical fallacies.

Evidence for how large a role this fallacy plays in the world remains without much study. Anecdotally, it seems to fit the reasoning in many crank communities RationalWiki looks at. For people who believe in "suppressed knowledge", common in conspiracy theory, its mixing with New Age and spirituality, alternative medicine, and a great deal of contrarian culture in general, it may seem a matter of luck whether or not some favorable evidence has been left available to be clearly seen in the world – rather than suppressed by the nefarious they. It may be that belief in conspiracy theory easily leads to this fallacy. Note here that belief in invisible conspiracy by paranormal alien or Satanic forces works the same way as belief in fleshly or nuts-and-bolts actors.

Combining counterfeits fallacy

“”As Arkowitz and Lilienfeld make clear, it is now known that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Perception and human memory is far more unreliable than we assume and can even be molded by something as simple as leading questions. Knowing this, a juror might not be convinced by the testimony of a single eyewitness who was not carefully questioned. But what if the prosecution produced 50 such testimonies? Would he be convinced then? Probably, but he shouldn’t. By asking leading questions, I could produce as many such witnesses as you like, but that doesn’t mean the defendant is guilty – it just means I’m good at asking leading questions. “Weak evidence” plus “weak evidence” does not equal “strong evidence.”

—David Kyle Johnson

A different yet related variety of fallacy that tries to turn bad evidence into good evidence is called the combining counterfeits fallacy by David Kyle Johnson, though it also has other names. It is when multiple pieces of bad evidence, instead of being seen as implying that some good evidence also exists, are combined into a bogus "good" collection or synthesis as an argument.

In rhetoric, this is also known as the Gish Gallop, a favorite of creationists arguing against the scientific understanding of evolution.

See also

• Gish Gallop — rhetorical tactic using many bad arguments as one compelling argument
• Argumentum ad populum (a.k.a appeal to popularity) — suggesting that something is true because it's popular
• Balance fallacy — considering both sides equally regardless of their merits; for example, insisting on looking for the truth between a lie and the truth