Essay:New informal fallacies

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Essay.svg This essay is an original work by Vorarchivist (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC).
It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in RationalWiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas.
Unless otherwise stated, this is original content, released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or any later version. See RationalWiki:Copyrights.
Feel free to make comments on the talk page, which will probably be far more interesting, and might reflect a broader range of RationalWiki editors' thoughts.

When travelling the internet I have found fallacious arguments that I think fit into an archetype of fallacies that have not been written down yet and this essay is part of me trying to change it. The list of fallacies is ongoing and will include a brief description and an example

list of new fallacies[edit]

Broken telephone fallacy[edit]

the Broken telephone fallacy is a fallacy where someone tries to argue that their ideas are right, just that the way its being explained makes it look wrong and usually point to some sort of leader of their idea as the proper explainer. If you still deny the idea as true after watching the suggested video they will bring up another video or writing or another explanation as the one true explanation.

example: Person 1: And that's why the world is flat. Person 2: that didn't make any sense at all. Person 1: I just didn't explain it correctly, just read the flat earth society's explanation. That will really convince you

context fallacy[edit]

The context fallacy is a fallacy where someone argues that you are missing context in order to properly interpret an event. This is common when arguing about a person's character or beliefs and often is part of an attempt to make debate too lengthy to continue.

example: person 1:I can't believe you'd frame peterson this way. If you read all of "12 rules to life" you would think differently. person 2:How so, can't you just explain the context? person 1: No, you must read the entire book.