Fun Stuff > CHATTER

naming logical fallacies

(1/3) > >>

mahlernut:
Maybe this is a totally weird place to post this (or I'm just weird for wanting to ask about it at all), but there's a logical fallacy that's been driving me nuts for ages and that I swear must have a name.  The best I've been able to manage in terms of narrowing it down is this:

A can only do Y if “unproven proposition” (e.g. "they cheat")
If A does Y, it proves “unproven proposition”
As a result:
If A does Y, Y is inherently invalid
But if A doesn’t Y, Y is valid

Is it just two distinct fallacies stapled together?  Something that's too specific for anyone to have bothered with?  Why do I feel like naming it will somehow make it bug me less?

Logos gives me migraines!
 :psyduck:

LTK:
I don't understand, can you give a more concrete example?

It might not help to put a name on it, as long as you can identify it when it's used and refute the argument if it's invalid.

Cornelius:
An example (or even a couple of them) would be welcome. I've been trying to fill in the gaps, but I don't really arrive anywhere, either.

Also, what is the value of "can": is able to, or is allowed to?

mahlernut:
Yeah, I couldn't tell how clear my compression of the thing was.  Also, was trying to avoid the politics, since it's basically about the claim that:

A Democrat can only win the presidency if they cheat
If they win the presidency, it proves that they cheated
so
If a Democrat wins the presidency, the election is invalid
But if a Democrat doesn't win, the election is valid

One of the more problematic/frightening toxins added to the national discourse since 2016, since it's accepted as a self-evident truth by an awful lot of people.

Tova:
I was going to say it's just a faulty premise. Probably, it's begging the question, which is where you take as a premise the thing you're trying to prove. Your example seems to be the most basic form of that since it sounds like it's some kind of logical chain when really it's just rewording the same premise over and over (except maybe for the very last statement which is a non sequitur - it does not follow from A -> B that ^A -> ^B).

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page