Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'm looking for if there's a term for a particular style of logically fallacious argument, somewhat similar to both No True Scotsman — in that it involves the rejection of a counterexample – and circular reasoning — in that the proposition under contention is used to ground the argument — but it differs in that rather than redefining the category at question to exclude the counterexample, it uses its membership in the category to deny the elements that make it a counterexample.
For two toy examples, consider the classic "all swans are white" or the original "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Then the counterparty presents a black swan in the former case, and in the latter says "but my friend Angus MacFadden is as Scottish as he comes, and I see him put sugar on his porridge all the time." Now the "No True Scotsman" fallacy would be, in the former case, to try to redefine "swan" to exclude the black swan; and, in the latter to say "no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." That is, to engage in an ad hoc redefinition defying the swans "swanness" or Angus's Scottishness.
I'm talking instead about the argument that accepts that the black swan is indeed a swan, and instead denies that it's black. It's a photographic error, or it got some soot or ink on it's naturally-white feathers, or your eyes are playing tricks on you, but all swans are white, therefore we know with absolute logical certainty that your "black" swan is white, and all evidence that it is black can and must be summarily dismissed. Angus MacFadden, as a Scotsman, never puts sugar on his porridge. You may think you've seen him do so, but assuming you didn't just hallucinate it, then however much whatever Angus put on his porridge looked like sugar, we know indisputably that it wasn't actually sugar; Q.E.D., full stop, end of discussion.
(Before anyone asks, yes, I have actually seen this style of "argumentation" — with all it's resemblance to a fancified version of a small child's "nuh-uh" — in the wild, most notably with a Tumblr tankie defending East Germany and the Berlin wall proceeding, in an obnoxiously smarmy and condescending manner — to call various people's relatives literal Nazis.)
I would just call it denial of evidence.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not aware of a particular term to describe that argument type, but at least you could successfully communicate the idea more succinctly by referring to trapped priors.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link