Talk:Rejected by their own kind

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This phrase has nothing specifically to do with quacks or pseudoscientists. im not sure this is a thing that requires an article. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's an interesting question though: this reasoning is fallacious, but I can't pin down what fallacy it represents. "Even X says you're wrong and X should agree with you because of their bias" is a recurring internet argument. It's not quite an argument from authority, because there's no rectitude invested in the rejecter's role. But it's similar to that. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
is it not some variant of the not a true scotsman thing? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Let's try an example.
"even other democrats like Nancy Pelosi oppose the green new deal" is not suggesting that AOC is not a "true" democrat. It's trying to frame internal disputes as signs of invalidity. By that logic it might live somewhere in the space of bandwagon, I guess. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Pretty pointless article[edit]

Was never really on board with it. Potential to be useful is low, but I also feel this article is ripe to become some useless trivia dump. I do agree with the above discussion that the logic is faulty, though I think the point of it is to illustrate something is so crazy that even others who are traditionally crazy and don't reject crazy theories find it crazy. I just don't see the point of creating an article just around that phenomenon though. And now I think about it, it has some problems with inverse stopped clock and the misapplication of stopped clock that implies some person has to has beliefs consistent with a group the person is pigeonholed in. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 23:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Here is how I envisioned this concept when I created this article: it's not really a fallacy or an argument at all so much as a phenomenon. Specifically the phenomenon of member of a crank/fringe group proposing an idea so absurd and inaccurate that even those who share their commitment to most of this group's crank/fringe/pseudoscientific/etc. ideas recognize the flaws in this specific proposal. Furthermore, this kind of rejection is not a matter of inconsistency with the views accepted by the group the individual is a member of, but a matter of the individual's views going too far in the direction of pseudoscience even for members of the fundamentally pseudoscience-centered group (anti-vaxers, creationists, etc.) to accept. In other words, this is not something that happens as a matter of someone's opinion being disagreed with by the group, but instead when the person's ideas are so bad the group rejects them. Jinx (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)