This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of fallacies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
We seem to be missing that one. In childish terms it's "You said the sky is blue because it's full of sapphires; that's not true, ergo the sky isn't blue." It's extremely common in more subtle forms, especially in political and similar discussion (e.g. rejection of a position with 10 rationales because one of them is questionable; rejection of one with a single premise because the statistics behind it are off by a trivial amount; rejection of an entire system because one aspect of it is unreliable even though the rest is working and the isolated problem is fixable; etc.) It's even common on Wikipedia: "We should keep [some trivia that violates WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE] in this article; you argued to remove it per WP:Notability, but that only applies to whether a subject can have its own article not whether it can be included in an article." — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 13:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! That's it; I was looking too far down the page (I'm used to the ones near the top being the technical ones from maths and philosophy). Derp. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think its a form of denying the antecedent formal falacy. The common textbook version is; if it rains, then lawn is wet. It hasn't rained, therefore the lawn isn't wet. (Obviously the lawn could have been watered). Formally, If A, then B. Not A, therefore Not B.
In the example it is something like If the sky is full of sapphires it is blue. It isn't full of sapphires, therefore it isn't blue.
I think that will be hard because a lot of these are individual applications of listed fallacies (ad hom, appeal to authority, etc) as well so it probably means finding well regarded secondary sources will be hard (they will tend to call them by the accepted names) and that we would have to "dedup" them internally as well. Squatch347 (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fallacy that disagreement is itself a problem
Is there name for this fallacy (or is it a sub-type of an existing one)? It comes in many flavors (some of which may be tinged with argument to authority, argument to ridicule, credentialism, and some other fallacies):
"By continuing to argue against this law being just, you're simply proving you're on the side of the criminals."
"Refusing to accept that this well-accept premise that all the experts agree on applies in this case just shows you don't know what you're talking about."
"Questioning the Bible is heresy, and heretics are agent of the devil, so you tongue will be cut out and you will burn at the stake."
"Contradicting the police should itself be a crime."
On-Wikipedia example, falsely assuming that consensus can't change: "An RfC decided that already in 2007, so you're being anti-consensus and having a WP:CIR problem by bringing it up again."
It's basically an argument to authority, of sorts, in which the opposing premise (or the person making it) is claimed to be/have the authority, rather than some third-party being the alleged authority cited. Has elements of might-makes-right (and thus also of argumentum ad baculum). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is the logical form of "disagreement is itself a problem"?
"You disagree, therefore you are wrong?" If so, then none of the examples match the form, because they all give a reason for the particular instance of disagreement being wrong.
OTOH, reading it as "All disagreement is wrong, therefore you are wrong" would make sound reasoning fallacious, in case there is disagreement about the conclusion.
OTGH, "The matter has already been settled, therefore any challenge to it is wrong" matches only some of the examples, so we still have no overarching concept unifying the examples. Paradoctor (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the examples, 1) "guilt by association", a form of circumstantial ad hominem similar to reductio ad Hitlerum, or Godwin's Law, and opposed by "honor by association", 2) "appeal to conventional wisdom/people/authority/force", or argumentum ad consensus gentium/populum/verecundiam/baculum, as mentioned above, or 3) any of the following; "appeal to closure" (Fait Accompli), "status quo bias" ("If it ain't broke, don't fix it"), "standard version fallacy" (similar to "Othering"), "non-recognition fallacy" or "non-cooperation fallacy" ("The Pout"), "appeal to inertia" ("Stay the course"), "taboo" (a form of dogmatism), "invincible ignorance", ("I don't want to hear it!"), or even "blind loyalty" ("Nuremberg Defense"). There's little context so it's not clear which of these apply. There's no named fallacy (which I'm aware of) specifially arguing that argument itself is invalid; its an autocratic (ipse dixit) position rather than a logical one and therefore unlikely to be useful or popular. - Thrif (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved