Forum:Logical Fallacy help

< Index | RW Article discussion

So I'm a bit new to this, but something I see a lot of when arguing certain topics (let's say gun control or global warming) is the idea that you're wrong or can't have an opinion if you don't know lots of technical minutia or you can't list exact laws or lots of specific data. Basically the idea that you have to be a scholar or an expert in the area to argue or discuss something related to it. Like I can't just point to the scientific consensus on AGW, I have to be well versed in physics and chemistry and understand how CO2 is distributed in the atmosphere or something like that. Is there a fallacy or logical trick that covers this? Seems kind of like a Gish Gallop but not quite. Sacrelicio (talk)

You might be looking for credentialism, though not quite. FuzzyCatPotato of the Uptight Sock tuckers (talk/stalk) 23:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, what I'm thinking of seems like a lot of different fallacies or fallacious argument tactics but doesn't match any of them exactly. The idea that I have to understand the minutiae and technical workings and jargon, but not quite to the level of having a degree.

Like earlier I was discussing Obama's executive actions on gun control, and the pro-gun side asked if anyone who was in favor of more gun control could list ten specific federal gun laws on the books right now. Or when discussing guns they drag you into a discussion about definitions of the definition of assault rifles and whether you can identify various ammo types. Or when discussing global warming, one has to have done extensive research in order to think that AGW is happening and/or have a list of specific laws that will curb the problem. Or when talking about economic policy, you have to basically write your own detailed legislation, which they can them pick apart.

See it a lot these days. Sacrelicio (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This would be an interesting fallacy to document, if only it had a name. It seems like a combination of credentialism-ad hominem (you're wrong because you don't know everything about an issue) and shifting the burden of proof (you have to prove that something is entirely true, inclusive of a complete knowledge of the issue, neither of which I have to do). Any ideas for a new neologism? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

"Drag-you-into-the-weeds-and-strangle-you?"Sacrelicio (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The other aspect of it is that people using it will pepper you with requests to produce statistics or statutes on the spot. Even an expert can't always do that. "On the spot data request?" Of course someone using this always has some factoid or discredited research at the ready. It's also used as a springboard into several other fallacies or fallacious arguments, because once you've fallen for the trap, they can throw their fallacious spells at each thing you cite. Maybe "Minutiae Trap?"Sacrelicio (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I quite like "On the spot fallacy" (since the issue isn't that you can't get the evidence they request, it's that it's unreasonable for you to have it immediately), though "minutiae trap" also work well. Do you have any examples of this behavior, or articles discussing how people do this? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I made a draft, using comment from this page, here. If you can provide any sources, that'd be great. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 21:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!! I like the term. I'm looking for sources now. Here's something that describes what I'm talking about in another way: "14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely." http://www.nowandfutures.com/spew_tools.html. Here another stab at a summary: It's the idea that I, as a layperson, have to have done all of my own research on the topic and I have to understand lots of minutiae and technical details before having any opinion on the matter, and also that I then can regurgitate that information on the spot. Another way that I've seen this argument presented is around election time, that you basically shouldn't vote unless you understand everything about a candidate's platform. Obviously, being informed is good, but I shouldn't have to write a doctoral thesis on each one of their policies in order to have a say or have an opinion. Maybe it's two fallacies? One that demands that I be an expert before having an opinion, and one that demands that I produce supporting information on the spot?Sacrelicio (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)