6 ms·

A related concept is the association fallacy [1], which is a more subtle form of the ad hominem fallacy. It works like this: A. You believe X. B. A crazy per

A related concept is the association fallacy [1], which is a more subtle form of the ad hominem fallacy. It works like this: A. You believe X. B. A crazy person also believes/believed X. C. Since you believe X and a crazy person also believed X, you are a crazy person. D. Optionally: I won't consider your argument unless you tell me why being a crazy person is ok. Why do you support doing crazy people things like being a serial killer? Example: A. You are against cigarette smoking. B. The Nazis were also against cigarette smoking[2]. C. Therefore you are a Nazi. D. Optionally: I won't consider your argument unless you tell me why being a Nazi is ok. Why do you support anti-semitism? The latest updated version of this is: What you believe is arbitrarily labeled a conspiracy theory. People that believe in conspiracy theories believe the earth is flat. Why do you believe the earth is flat? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Guilt_by_association_as_an_ad_hominem_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Guilt_by_a... [2] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/251213.The_Nazi_War_on_Cancer https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/251213.The_Nazi_War_on_C...

pjc50 5y ago
> A crazy person also believes/believed X. This is more a form of spam filtering; given finite intellectual effort, strangers who talk about certain subjects get ruled out of consideration. Just as sending a lot of mail about Cialis will get your IP on a list.
- miteyironpaw 5y ago
  Isn't spam filtering a large part of what these clichés are used for, or at least what the people using them think they're for? e.g. "That's just your opinion." "Now is not the time." "Here we go again."
rspeele 5y ago
On the other end, how about: A. The mainstream media, M, is biased and sometimes delivers incomplete or inaccurate information. They tell $mainstream_story. B. Alternative source, A, rejects $mainstream_story and says that actually, $alternative_story is the truth. C. Any data M points to to debunk $alternative_story and support $mainstream_story is assumed to be fake or manipulated, because M lies. D. There is no need to apply the same skepticism to A and their arguments, because by going against M, they have already demonstrated that they are "good guys".
- potta_coffee 5y ago
  This is why I trust precisely zero media.
- etchalon 5y ago
  This is so very much a thing and I love how it's structured here.
threatofrain 5y ago
I find that the use of "logical fallacies" to be an intellectual smell as well. For example, the ad hominem fallacy, where we might trust a doctor just because they are a doctor. Or when we might avoid a restaurant just because of popular opinion (bandwagon fallacy). It's strange that people would seek out these fancy words when we can just say credibility. Similarly, we culturally expect that judges are not receiving re-election funds from the parties that appear before their court, and not because money necessarily damages their judgment, but rather for the sake of judicial credibility. The effective judgment of credibility is not as simple as logic.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- narrator 5y ago
  The modern trend in political discussion is to ignore the finer points of the issue and just look at who is backing what side of the argument. The finer points are only for properly accredited specialists debating in private so as to not confuse the public. One's job as a member of the public is blind faith in their authorities and denigration of dissenters. However, the idea of a logical fallacy is one can take an argument apart and out it back together and identify bad arguments without relying on an authority figure's arbitrary pronouncements. If one reads a restaurant review and the reviewer said they didn't like the restaurant because some hated person said they liked the food there, we can easily conclude that this is the association fallacy at work and disregard that review. If we see 1000 1 star reviews because A Bad Person said he liked the food there, and we believe it, we are falling for the bandwagon effect fallacy, by a bunch of people who believed the association fallacy.
- lisper 5y ago
  > the ad hominem fallacy, where we might trust a doctor just because they are a doctor That's not an ad hominem fallacy. At worst it's an argument from authority. Ad hominem is something like: the person advancing this argument has done something bad, therefore the argument they are advancing must be false (or the converse -- the person advancing this argument has done something good, therefore the argument they are advancing must be true). An argument-from-authority fallacy is a kind of ad hominem, usually employed with respect to some third party not involved in the dispute: "This person has a credential, and they say X, therefore X must be true." The problem is that this might not be a fallacy depending on the specific credential and the value of X. If someone is a doctor, then what they have to say about medicine is actually more likely to be true than someone who is not, all else being equal. Asking your doctor for advice on how to fix your car, on the other hand, is something you probably ought to avoid, unless your doctor also happens to be into cars.

pjc50 5y ago

> A crazy person also believes/believed X. This is more a form of spam filtering; given finite intellectual effort, strangers who talk about certain subjects get ruled out of consideration. Just as sending a lot of mail about Cialis will get your IP on a list.

miteyironpaw 5y ago
Isn't spam filtering a large part of what these clichés are used for, or at least what the people using them think they're for? e.g. "That's just your opinion." "Now is not the time." "Here we go again."

rspeele 5y ago

On the other end, how about: A. The mainstream media, M, is biased and sometimes delivers incomplete or inaccurate information. They tell $mainstream_story. B. Alternative source, A, rejects $mainstream_story and says that actually, $alternative_story is the truth. C. Any data M points to to debunk $alternative_story and support $mainstream_story is assumed to be fake or manipulated, because M lies. D. There is no need to apply the same skepticism to A and their arguments, because by going against M, they have already demonstrated that they are "good guys".

potta_coffee 5y ago
This is why I trust precisely zero media.
etchalon 5y ago
This is so very much a thing and I love how it's structured here.

threatofrain 5y ago

I find that the use of "logical fallacies" to be an intellectual smell as well. For example, the ad hominem fallacy, where we might trust a doctor just because they are a doctor. Or when we might avoid a restaurant just because of popular opinion (bandwagon fallacy). It's strange that people would seek out these fancy words when we can just say credibility. Similarly, we culturally expect that judges are not receiving re-election funds from the parties that appear before their court, and not because money necessarily damages their judgment, but rather for the sake of judicial credibility. The effective judgment of credibility is not as simple as logic.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
narrator 5y ago
The modern trend in political discussion is to ignore the finer points of the issue and just look at who is backing what side of the argument. The finer points are only for properly accredited specialists debating in private so as to not confuse the public. One's job as a member of the public is blind faith in their authorities and denigration of dissenters. However, the idea of a logical fallacy is one can take an argument apart and out it back together and identify bad arguments without relying on an authority figure's arbitrary pronouncements. If one reads a restaurant review and the reviewer said they didn't like the restaurant because some hated person said they liked the food there, we can easily conclude that this is the association fallacy at work and disregard that review. If we see 1000 1 star reviews because A Bad Person said he liked the food there, and we believe it, we are falling for the bandwagon effect fallacy, by a bunch of people who believed the association fallacy.
lisper 5y ago
> the ad hominem fallacy, where we might trust a doctor just because they are a doctor That's not an ad hominem fallacy. At worst it's an argument from authority. Ad hominem is something like: the person advancing this argument has done something bad, therefore the argument they are advancing must be false (or the converse -- the person advancing this argument has done something good, therefore the argument they are advancing must be true). An argument-from-authority fallacy is a kind of ad hominem, usually employed with respect to some third party not involved in the dispute: "This person has a credential, and they say X, therefore X must be true." The problem is that this might not be a fallacy depending on the specific credential and the value of X. If someone is a doctor, then what they have to say about medicine is actually more likely to be true than someone who is not, all else being equal. Asking your doctor for advice on how to fix your car, on the other hand, is something you probably ought to avoid, unless your doctor also happens to be into cars.