Pooh-pooh: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:01, 24 December 2023

In the context of rhetorical analysis, the term pooh-pooh refers to a fallacy in informal logic that consists of dismissing an argument as being unworthy of serious consideration.^[1] Scholars generally characterize the fallacy as a rhetorical device in which the speaker ridicules an argument without responding to the substance of the argument.^[2] It has been characterized as a form of a straw man fallacy, where an argument is described as inherently worthless or undeserving of serious attention.^[3] Some authors have also described the fallacy as the act of "ridicul[ing]" an argument as though it were "a myth",^[4] and some characterize it as the act of dismissing an argument "with insults without responding to its substance in any way".^[2] Other authors describe the fallacy as the act of dismissing an argument "with the wave of a hand".^[5] Some sources also suggest the fallacy is an expression that involves "sneer[ing]",^[5] "ridicule",^[1] or "malicious comments about the proponent of the argument".^[2] Some authors also suggest the term originated as a "representation of the act of spitting in sign of contemptuous rejection".^[6] There is no evidence of a relationship with the slang word for feces.

References

^ ^a ^b Munson, Ronald; Black, Andrew (2016). The Elements of Reasoning. Cengage Learning. p. 257. ISBN 1305886836.
^ ^a ^b ^c Virginia Tech Intellectual Prop. (1999). Language and Logic. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company. p. 119. ISBN 0787262439.
^ See, e.g., Munson, Ronald; Black, Andrew (2016). The Elements of Reasoning. Cengage Learning. pp. 149, 257. ISBN 1305886836.
^ Dwight, Joyce Ingle (1976). Is It Really So?: A Guide to Clear Thinking. Westminster Press. p. 115. ISBN 0664247830.
^ ^a ^b Stanley, Maurice (2002). Logic and Controversy. Wadsworth. p. 98. ISBN 0534573789.
^ Wedgwood, Hensleigh (1859). Dictionary of English Etymology, Vol. 1. p. xiv. ISBN 9781230255484.

This logic-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

[Munson257-1] Munson, Ronald; Black, Andrew (2016). The Elements of Reasoning. Cengage Learning. p. 257. ISBN 1305886836.

[VAtech119-2] Virginia Tech Intellectual Prop. (1999). Language and Logic. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company. p. 119. ISBN 0787262439.

[3] See, e.g., Munson, Ronald; Black, Andrew (2016). The Elements of Reasoning. Cengage Learning. pp. 149, 257. ISBN 1305886836.

[4] Dwight, Joyce Ingle (1976). Is It Really So?: A Guide to Clear Thinking. Westminster Press. p. 115. ISBN 0664247830.

[Stanley98-5] Stanley, Maurice (2002). Logic and Controversy. Wadsworth. p. 98. ISBN 0534573789.

[6] Wedgwood, Hensleigh (1859). Dictionary of English Etymology, Vol. 1. p. xiv. ISBN 9781230255484.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{short description|Fallacy in informal logic}}
-{{Other uses|Poo poo (disambiguation){{!}}Poo poo}}
+{{For|similar-sounding terms|Poo poo (disambiguation){{!}}Poo poo}}
-A '''pooh-pooh''' (also styled as '''poo-poo''') is a [[informal fallacy|fallacy in informal logic]] that consists of dismissing an argument as being unworthy of serious consideration.<ref name = Munson257>{{cite book |last1=Munson |first1=Ronald |last2=Black |first2=Andrew |date=2016 |title=The Elements of Reasoning |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fr4aCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA257 |publisher=Cengage Learning |page=257 |isbn=1305886836}}</ref> Scholars generally characterize the fallacy as a rhetorical device in which the speaker ridicules an argument without responding to the substance of the argument.<ref name = VAtech119>{{cite book |last=Virginia Tech Intellectual Prop. |date=1999 |title=Language and Logic |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Z1Y1YmNj_q0C |publisher=Kendall Hunt Publishing Company |page=119 |isbn=0787262439}}</ref> It has been characterized as a form of a [[straw man]] [[fallacy]], where an argument is described as inherently worthless or undeserving of serious attention.<ref>See, e.g., {{cite book |last1=Munson |first1=Ronald |last2=Black |first2=Andrew |date=2016 |title=The Elements of Reasoning |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fr4aCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA257 |publisher=Cengage Learning |pages=149, 257 |isbn=1305886836}}</ref> Some authors have also described the fallacy as the act of "ridicul[ing]" an argument as though it were "a myth",<ref>{{cite book |last=Dwight |first=Joyce Ingle |date=1976 |title=Is It Really So?: A Guide to Clear Thinking |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1vkQAQAAIAAJ |publisher=Westminster Press |page=115 |isbn=0664247830}}</ref> and some characterize it as the act of dismissing an argument "with insults without responding to its substance in any way".<ref name = VAtech119/> Other authors describe the fallacy as the act of dismissing an argument "with the wave of a hand".<ref name = Stanley98>{{cite book |last=Stanley |first=Maurice |date=2002 |title=Logic and Controversy |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=o816AAAAMAAJ&dq |publisher=Wadsworth |page=98 |isbn=0534573789}}</ref> Some sources also suggest the fallacy is an expression that involves "sneer[ing]",<ref name = Stanley98/> "ridicule",<ref name = Munson257/> or "malicious comments about the proponent of the argument".<ref name = VAtech119/> Some authors also suggest the term originated as a "representation of the act of spitting in sign of contemptuous rejection".<ref>{{cite book |last=Wedgwood |first=Hensleigh |date=1859 |title=Dictionary of English Etymology, Vol. 1 |url=https://archive.org/details/adictionaryengl03wedggoog |page=xiv |isbn=9781230255484}}</ref> There is no evidence of a relationship with the slang word for [[feces]].
+In the context of rhetorical analysis, the term '''pooh-pooh''' refers to a [[informal fallacy|fallacy in informal logic]] that consists of dismissing an argument as being unworthy of serious consideration.<ref name = Munson257>{{cite book |last1=Munson |first1=Ronald |last2=Black |first2=Andrew |date=2016 |title=The Elements of Reasoning |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fr4aCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA257 |publisher=Cengage Learning |page=257 |isbn=1305886836}}</ref> Scholars generally characterize the fallacy as a rhetorical device in which the speaker ridicules an argument without responding to the substance of the argument.<ref name = VAtech119>{{cite book |last=Virginia Tech Intellectual Prop. |date=1999 |title=Language and Logic |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Z1Y1YmNj_q0C |publisher=Kendall Hunt Publishing Company |page=119 |isbn=0787262439}}</ref> It has been characterized as a form of a [[straw man]] [[fallacy]], where an argument is described as inherently worthless or undeserving of serious attention.<ref>See, e.g., {{cite book |last1=Munson |first1=Ronald |last2=Black |first2=Andrew |date=2016 |title=The Elements of Reasoning |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fr4aCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA257 |publisher=Cengage Learning |pages=149, 257 |isbn=1305886836}}</ref> Some authors have also described the fallacy as the act of "ridicul[ing]" an argument as though it were "a myth",<ref>{{cite book |last=Dwight |first=Joyce Ingle |date=1976 |title=Is It Really So?: A Guide to Clear Thinking |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1vkQAQAAIAAJ |publisher=Westminster Press |page=115 |isbn=0664247830}}</ref> and some characterize it as the act of dismissing an argument "with insults without responding to its substance in any way".<ref name = VAtech119/> Other authors describe the fallacy as the act of dismissing an argument "with the wave of a hand".<ref name = Stanley98>{{cite book |last=Stanley |first=Maurice |date=2002 |title=Logic and Controversy |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=o816AAAAMAAJ&dq |publisher=Wadsworth |page=98 |isbn=0534573789}}</ref> Some sources also suggest the fallacy is an expression that involves "sneer[ing]",<ref name = Stanley98/> "ridicule",<ref name = Munson257/> or "malicious comments about the proponent of the argument".<ref name = VAtech119/> Some authors also suggest the term originated as a "representation of the act of spitting in sign of contemptuous rejection".<ref>{{cite book |last=Wedgwood |first=Hensleigh |date=1859 |title=Dictionary of English Etymology, Vol. 1 |url=https://archive.org/details/adictionaryengl03wedggoog |page=xiv |isbn=9781230255484}}</ref> There is no evidence of a relationship with the slang word for [[feces]].
 ==See also==