Fallacy this, Fallacy that

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
Post Reply
Haterkid69
Newbie
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 11:03 pm

Fallacy this, Fallacy that

Post by Haterkid69 »

Anytime I see any arguments it seems vegans cannot think for themselves and must resort to "appeal to *insert convenient blanket fallacy*" then disregard whatever the argument. I'm surprised that there isn't a fallacy fallacy, where your argument is just fallacies. Popular ones I see on the internet is "appeal to authority,futility,etc." I wonder what the arguments would look like if there were no fallacies to be argued
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3897
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: To the Depths, in Degradation

Re: Fallacy this, Fallacy that

Post by Red »

Hey, I remember you. Why the absence?
Anyways, can you give an example?

Just because an argument might be based on a fallacy, tha doesn't automatically make it false. The best examplr is probablythe appeal to authority fallacy.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Fallacy this, Fallacy that

Post by brimstoneSalad »

To be clear, it doesn't make the conclusion false.

There is a "fallacy fallacy", and that is assuming the conclusion is false because a fallacy was used in the argument.

1. Santa claus wears a blue hat.
2. Santa claus flies in the sky.
3. Therefore the sky is blue.

The fallacy fallacy would claim that the sky is not blue because a fallacy was employed in the argument.

Obviously the sky IS blue, but that argument is bad. Just because there's fallacious reasoning in the argument does not prove the opposite conclusion to be true, it just means the argument has not demonstrated the conclusion (that is, from that argument we still don't know if the conclusion is true or false, we just know it has not been proved).
It may provide evidence that the person making the argument doesn't know what he or she is talking about.

When meat eaters claim that eating meat is morally permissible, that's a claim that needs to be proved (see the burden of proof). When they try to do that and employ fallacies, they have failed to prove the claim.

It doesn't mean the claim is false, but it means it hasn't been substantiated which means that person failed in the argument; if we're talking debate here, that's very meaningful and typically means the person employing the fallacies loses the debate.

Making claims and refusing to prove them, or worse making dishonest arguments for them using fallacies, just makes you an intellectually dishonest asshole. If you're cool with being on par in terms of intellectual honesty with a Kent Hovind or a Ted Haggard, go for it. Nobody can stop you from using fallacies any more than they can stop you from lying about anything else.
Haterkid69 wrote: Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:45 pm Anytime I see any arguments it seems vegans cannot think for themselves and must resort to "appeal to *insert convenient blanket fallacy*" then disregard whatever the argument.
Identifying a fallacy is thinking; it means you have to break down the structure of the argument and find a logical flaw.
Not everybody correctly identifies fallacies, though.

You can and should disregard an argument if it is actually fallacious. It's the job of the person making the argument to correct it, and make an argument without fallacies, or to explain why the person claiming there is a fallacy is mistaken. Maybe you just don't understand what a fallacy means. Again, it doesn't mean the conclusion is false, but it means the reasoning is not correct so the argument has no value.
Haterkid69 wrote: Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:45 pm Popular ones I see on the internet is "appeal to authority,futility,etc." I wonder what the arguments would look like if there were no fallacies to be argued
Appeal to authority is actually "appeal to unqualified authority". Appeal to a qualified authority is not a fallacy.

For example, when I appeal to the academy of nutrition and dietetics (the foremost authority on nutrition in the world, and highly qualified), that is NOT a fallacy. However, it only applies to the scope of their qualifications:
http://www.eatrightpro.org/resource/practice/position-and-practice-papers/position-papers/vegetarian-diets
It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage.
The stuff in green would not be a fallacy. The stuff in red might be, because the academy is not an expert body of climate scientists. However, I could appeal to one of the scientific bodies to show that (which the academy got that info from).

Appeal to futility is usually used correctly and it indicates a contradiction for most people, i.e. the argument that we can't be perfect so we should not try at all, which is not an argument people accept in other cases. If you were some kind of nihilist, however, it may not apply to you.

If you just understood what these fallacies meant, you might be able to follow the conversations on these issues better and see how debate works.
User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1209
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Re: Fallacy this, Fallacy that

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz »

Santa Claus wears a blue hat??? That's news to me!
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Fallacy this, Fallacy that

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:49 pm Santa Claus wears a blue hat??? That's news to me!
The red outfit is Coca-Cola propaganda.
User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1209
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Re: Fallacy this, Fallacy that

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:05 pm
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:49 pm Santa Claus wears a blue hat??? That's news to me!
The red outfit is Coca-Cola propaganda.
Santa had worn red suits before Coca-Cola:

Image
Image
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Fallacy this, Fallacy that

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Here is a random wordpress site that conclusively proves otherwise:
https://cowanglobal.wordpress.com/tag/coca-cola/
User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1209
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Re: Fallacy this, Fallacy that

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Thu Aug 17, 2017 6:25 pm Here is a random wordpress site that conclusively proves otherwise:
https://cowanglobal.wordpress.com/tag/coca-cola/
I don't think it does. Sure, it has a picture of Santa Claus dressed in blue. But this does not mean he wore specifically blue, there are drawings of him wearing many colours. I have shown you drawings of him wearing red. There are also drawings of him wearing green and many other colours.

This blog does not cite its sources for Santa wearing specifically blue, and even admits itself that the story of Coca-Cola changing the way we see Santa Claus may in fact be a myth.

It's also notable that the colours red and white that nowadays are synonymous with Santa Claus may in fact not have originated from Coca-Cola but from the colours worn by St. Nicholas (red and white are traditionally bishop clothes, however, some historians argue St. Nick may have worn different colours).
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Fallacy this, Fallacy that

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Technicolor Santa. You can take whatever color you like, but my Santa is blue. :)

Anyway, back to the topic.
User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1209
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Re: Fallacy this, Fallacy that

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Thu Aug 17, 2017 11:17 pm Technicolor Santa. You can take whatever color you like, but my Santa is blue. :)

Anyway, back to the topic.
Sure!

I think pointing out fallacies is fine, because often people base their whole argument on a fallacy. However, in some cases, people unjustly claim there is a fallacy, when the argument is not based on a fallacy:

Example:

Person #1: I believe that the sky is pink.
Person #2: Well, actually, world-famous Dr. Bendrick Blingmington, the man who invented a pill that makes your farts smell fragrant, has pointed out that if you go outside and look at the sky, it is blue.
Person #1: Aha! You are using the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy by claiming that because a smart man said something, it must be true.
Person #2: Hogwash! I am not appealing to authority! I am using the argument that he made to debunk your belief that the sky is pink!
Post Reply