RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2120Goal: $3500

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! 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)