Is there a name for this argumentative fallacy?

Page 1 of 2 [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,135
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

12 Dec 2011, 2:27 pm

Its a fallacy that's initially fed in by an underhanded debate trick. It starts with stacking burdon of proof to a debate opponent in such a way where you're asking them to essentially rewrite War and Peace, on their own time, and the only compensation being - your apponent will have a rebuttal that meets your metrics. The fallacy component of it comes with the implication that, if they aren't rewilling to rewrite War and Peace - for nothing, you just proved that they didn't have a leg to stand. The desired end result is that you win the debate because they have no desire to spend several months working the fields of your plantation to remedy little more than a flimsy pedestrian accusation from someone they barely know anyway.

There has to be a swanky three-word Latin phrase for this but nothing's coming to me...


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin


Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

12 Dec 2011, 2:39 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Its a fallacy that's initially fed in by an underhanded debate trick. It starts with stacking burdon of proof to a debate opponent in such a way where you're asking them to essentially rewrite War and Peace, on their own time, and the only compensation being - your apponent will have a rebuttal that meets your metrics. The fallacy component of it comes with the implication that, if they aren't rewilling to rewrite War and Peace - for nothing, you just proved that they didn't have a leg to stand. The desired end result is that you win the debate because they have no desire to spend several months working the fields of your plantation to remedy little more than a flimsy pedestrian accusation from someone they barely know anyway.

There has to be a swanky three-word Latin phrase for this but nothing's coming to me...


I am not sure, can you give an example?



rabryst
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 19 May 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 113
Location: Canada

12 Dec 2011, 2:49 pm

Isn't this begging the question? Your description isn't that clear.


_________________
If you break a crumb in half, you have two crumbs - George Carlin


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,135
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

12 Dec 2011, 3:03 pm

rabryst wrote:
Isn't this begging the question? Your description isn't that clear.

Mmm...no. Begging the question is where, say, you have an argument over an ultimate outcome but its sneakily hidden in the a priori or basis of the debate or conversation itself as already settled.

The situation I'm talking about where a person is asking you to cough up a proponderance of evidence that no sane person would be willing to spend the amount of time being requested to fulfill. Perhaps its a one-way burden of proof assumption but that's executed by essentially asking the other person to bring you a mountain in a wheelbarrel or to bring you that mountain wheelbarrel by wheelbarrel.


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,135
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

12 Dec 2011, 3:06 pm

Robdemanc wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Its a fallacy that's initially fed in by an underhanded debate trick. It starts with stacking burdon of proof to a debate opponent in such a way where you're asking them to essentially rewrite War and Peace, on their own time, and the only compensation being - your apponent will have a rebuttal that meets your metrics. The fallacy component of it comes with the implication that, if they aren't rewilling to rewrite War and Peace - for nothing, you just proved that they didn't have a leg to stand. The desired end result is that you win the debate because they have no desire to spend several months working the fields of your plantation to remedy little more than a flimsy pedestrian accusation from someone they barely know anyway.

There has to be a swanky three-word Latin phrase for this but nothing's coming to me...


I am not sure, can you give an example?

There are a lot of different ways it can be done; one of the least inspired is professional 'credit check' when you're asking for a case study on things that have no case studies. Sources cited in that case will by myriad, complex, and the debater who this is being requested of also realizes, aside from how much work it will involve, how flimsy it will be to try and present ten, twenty, or thirty sources with their thoughts marked, mapped, and highlighted across the sources without having all of their work invalidated by "Meh, you cherry picked that and I still don't see a consolidated source by a professional".

I guess in another light too it could be construed as demanding perfect information of a debator even when that perfect third party information simply will not likely be available for several hundred years to come let alone within a day or two.


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin


Moog
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,671
Location: Untied Kingdom

12 Dec 2011, 3:09 pm

I get it. Telling someone to go to extreme lengths in order to be correct in an argument on the internet. Not that it would change anything, people think what they like despite any evidence contrary.

Dunno if it has a name. Ask Dox


_________________
Not currently a moderator


Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

12 Dec 2011, 3:16 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Its a fallacy that's initially fed in by an underhanded debate trick. It starts with stacking burdon of proof to a debate opponent in such a way where you're asking them to essentially rewrite War and Peace, on their own time, and the only compensation being - your apponent will have a rebuttal that meets your metrics. The fallacy component of it comes with the implication that, if they aren't rewilling to rewrite War and Peace - for nothing, you just proved that they didn't have a leg to stand. The desired end result is that you win the debate because they have no desire to spend several months working the fields of your plantation to remedy little more than a flimsy pedestrian accusation from someone they barely know anyway.

There has to be a swanky three-word Latin phrase for this but nothing's coming to me...


I am not sure, can you give an example?

There are a lot of different ways it can be done; one of the least inspired is professional 'credit check' when you're asking for a case study on things that have no case studies. Sources cited in that case will by myriad, complex, and the debater who this is being requested of also realizes, aside from how much work it will involve, how flimsy it will be to try and present ten, twenty, or thirty sources with their thoughts marked, mapped, and highlighted across the sources without having all of their work invalidated by "Meh, you cherry picked that and I still don't see a consolidated source by a professional".

I guess in another light too it could be construed as demanding perfect information of a debator even when that perfect third party information simply will not likely be available for several hundred years to come let alone within a day or two.


Well it sounds like they are just being unreasonable if they are asking for evidence that doesn't exist. But if there is evidence that can be found, but finding it will be long and labourious then you should throw back the burdon onto them and send them a link to the source. Or if the source is varied and wide and you cannot summarise in a way that will be accepted by the openent then list as may sources as possible.

If they are still not happy then I don't know. But I see what you get at, we need a new term for this type of thing and a latin word would be good. But I don't know much latin.

I suppose what they are asking is "unreasonable effort to provide proof".

But sometimes its worth considering if the original assertion should have been made or not if proving it would be difficult.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,726
Location: Stendec

12 Dec 2011, 3:16 pm

"Stacking the Deck" involves some mix of the following:

Confirmation Bias: This refers to a form of selective thinking that focuses on evidence that supports what believers already believe while ignoring evidence that refutes their beliefs. Confirmation bias plays a stronger role when people base their beliefs upon faith, tradition and prejudice. For example, if someone believes in the power of prayer, the believer will notice the few "answered" prayers while ignoring the majority of unanswered prayers (which would indicate that prayer has no more value than random chance at worst or a placebo effect, when applied to health effects, at best).

Slanting: This error occurs when the issue is not treated fairly because of misrepresenting the evidence by, say, suppressing part of it, or misconstruing some of it, or simply lying.

Suppressed Evidence: Intentionally failing to use information suspected of being relevant and significant is committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence. This fallacy usually occurs when the information counts against one’s own conclusion. Perhaps the arguer is not mentioning that experts have recently objected to one of his premises. The fallacy is also called "Cherry-Picking the Evidence".



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,135
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

12 Dec 2011, 3:24 pm

Robdemanc wrote:
I suppose what they are asking is "unreasonable effort to provide proof".


That's exactly it. I don't think it would need to be Latin, a witty three or four word hyperbole/metaphor would be good as well. If there isn't a particular name I'll keep thinking; I've been known to have neurons fire in such a way from time to time.


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

12 Dec 2011, 3:53 pm

I don't think it's so much a fallacy as it is an inappropriate standard of proof.


_________________
--James


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

12 Dec 2011, 4:08 pm

It happens a lot in debates on a complex issue in which there may be a very few experts, or maybe no one at all, who truly understands the issue in it's entirety. It's much easier to simply choose a side and then put the burden of proof on the other to show you wrong. It's the easy way to claim victory.

This happens all the time in debates on economics or climate change, for instance. It always turns into a debate where people post endless links to authorities on which ever side they happen to agree with. It's because the level of knowledge and understanding required to have a real debate is simply way over the heads of 99.9% of the population, yet it doesn't stop them from having an opinion. Then even if you do happen to have in depth knowledge, it's not possible to get someone to read a 40 page research paper with all kinds of technical language and references to science that only people who've taken graduate courses on the subject can fully comprehend.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,135
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

12 Dec 2011, 4:10 pm

visagrunt wrote:
I don't think it's so much a fallacy as it is an inappropriate standard of proof.

Well, right, but when that's used (perhaps knowingly) to sort of coerce or blackmail a person in a thread to forfeiting the validity of their stance it stops being as innocent and really becomes more of a wedge or plot device.


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,135
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

12 Dec 2011, 4:58 pm

marshall wrote:
It happens a lot in debates on a complex issue in which there may be a very few experts, or maybe no one at all, who truly understands the issue in it's entirety. It's much easier to simply choose a side and then put the burden of proof on the other to show you wrong. It's the easy way to claim victory.

This happens all the time in debates on economics or climate change, for instance. It always turns into a debate where people post endless links to authorities on which ever side they happen to agree with. It's because the level of knowledge and understanding required to have a real debate is simply way over the heads of 99.9% of the population, yet it doesn't stop them from having an opinion. Then even if you do happen to have in depth knowledge, it's not possible to get someone to read a 40 page research paper with all kinds of technical language and references to science that only people who've taken graduate courses on the subject can fully comprehend.

Yeah, things like that are - even in their respective fields and among their experts - realms dualing theory.


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

12 Dec 2011, 5:27 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Its a fallacy that's initially fed in by an underhanded debate trick. It starts with stacking burdon of proof to a debate opponent in such a way where you're asking them to essentially rewrite War and Peace, on their own time, and the only compensation being - your apponent will have a rebuttal that meets your metrics. The fallacy component of it comes with the implication that, if they aren't rewilling to rewrite War and Peace - for nothing, you just proved that they didn't have a leg to stand. The desired end result is that you win the debate because they have no desire to spend several months working the fields of your plantation to remedy little more than a flimsy pedestrian accusation from someone they barely know anyway.

There has to be a swanky three-word Latin phrase for this but nothing's coming to me...


Giving the opponent an irrelevant proposition to rebut is a special case of ignoratio elenchi

It is argument by diversion. The straw man is another form of this fallacy.

ruveyn



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

12 Dec 2011, 6:08 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Its a fallacy that's initially fed in by an underhanded debate trick. It starts with stacking burdon of proof to a debate opponent in such a way where you're asking them to essentially rewrite War and Peace, on their own time, and the only compensation being - your apponent will have a rebuttal that meets your metrics. The fallacy component of it comes with the implication that, if they aren't rewilling to rewrite War and Peace - for nothing, you just proved that they didn't have a leg to stand. The desired end result is that you win the debate because they have no desire to spend several months working the fields of your plantation to remedy little more than a flimsy pedestrian accusation from someone they barely know anyway.

There has to be a swanky three-word Latin phrase for this but nothing's coming to me...


It is called a proof by intimidation or an argumentum ad verbosium. Also the burden of proof usually sits with the person making the proposition. Though this does not mean that you can just laundry list 1000 red herrings and poor objections and get away with it. One needs to substantiate each objection and point hot how it works and why it is relevant, otherwise it can be reasonably concluded that the objection is disingenuous.

http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/2009/02/ ... wn-as.html
(interestingly the link when discussing the fallacy basically encourages that you commit fallacy in the face of one...)


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Last edited by 91 on 12 Dec 2011, 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,135
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

12 Dec 2011, 6:17 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Giving the opponent an irrelevant proposition to rebut is a special case of ignoratio elenchi

It is argument by diversion. The straw man is another form of this fallacy.

ruveyn

I don't know if that's exactly it but, its a good reason not to break your back doing a month of research for one guy who wants to claim that a person has no fundamental expertise or valid accrued knowledge. That person could do all that work, post it for them, and if that person really wants to say "Oh yeah, well you just licked my boots!! !" all they have to respond with is "Paragraph 3, line 2 - its 'they're', not 'there'" and not say another word.


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin