Language desk
< June 23	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 24

Looking for a word similar to a Strawman fallacy

I wanted to post on IMDB, but they want to authenticate all accounts by sending a code to your cellphone. Anyway that aside, in the "Why Authenticate" section there's a mini FAQ, and one of the questions is,

Q: Why do I need to do this? A: You don't. Providing additional authentication for your account is completely voluntary, but doing so will allow you to post on the message boards, report abuse on the message boards system, send private messages to other users, contribute information on our IMDb FAQ pages, and other cool features on this site restricted to users with authentication status.

I have a problem with that answer, it's like asking why you need a driver's license and then answering with "you don't, but you need it in order to drive", or asking why you need a passport and then answering, "you don't, but you need it in order to travel", it doesn't actually answer the question, it's more of a facile answer that doesn't provide any elucidation. Is there a word for this kind of response? I'm thinking it's a strawman, but there might be a better word for it. Malamockq (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fallacy-expert, but the word that came to mind (well, second, after dickism) was sophism, the way it's used in modern colloquial speech. It certainly sounds like a type of relevance fallacy. I agree that the good old straw man looks like its cousin. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madsen Pirie calls it "extensional pruning" - this is the relevant entry from his book (a blatant copyvio, I'm afraid). See extensional definition. Tevildo (talk) 07:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just "facile" - from Google's dictionary "(especially of a theory or argument) appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial." Shorter wiktionary def here: [1]? The thing is, the argument/explanation as stated is not a formal fallacy. The logic has both soundness and logical validity. It does feign to be comprehensive, but it does not actually explain "why do I need to do this in order that I may do other things. So you might be able to consider it an informal fallacy, because it is essentially a Question_dodging. The answer given is correct, sound, and valid, but it ignores the spirit of the question, and focuses instead on an over-literal reading of "Why do I need to do this." So it's not a handy well-known one-word concept, but you'd be correct to say "IMDB's so-called explanation is really just facile question dodging". All of this is also in total agreement with Tevildo's suggestion of "extensional pruning", which is also a great concept, but not that well known. Upon reading the link above, I think it's fair to say that extension pruning can be used as facile way to dodge a question, but not all facile question dodging is extensional pruning. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That argument can also be extended to "you can die instead", as in "Why won't my medical insurance cover a medically necessary procedure ?". They usually avoid saying it directly, though. StuRat (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One justification I often hear thrown about is that X, say "driving", is a privilege, not a right, therefore they don't need to worry about denying you X for trivial reasons. The corollary to that is that many things should probably be rights that aren't, at least according to the US Constitution, like drinking water, food, air, shelter, education, etc. The drinking water one was recently a problem in Detroit, where they made the news by turning off the water for anyone who couldn't pay. There were protests by human rights organizations who feel that access to safe drinking water is, or should be, a basic human right. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Empowerment. (We also have a weak article.) When people consider joining a community, they expect rules from their leaders, but rather make their own choices than volunteer to serve under authoritarian rule. This sort of answer "self-actualizes" them, and no that's not a "real thing". But it works, so it can't be a total fallacy. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have a fallacy about fallacies there. That is, "it works", meaning it is widely accepted, doesn't mean it's valid logic. There have been many such widespread fallacies. StuRat (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but I doubt IMDB intended a logical argument at all, just a rhetorical. It's a recruitment FAQ, not a debate, after all. The whole idea of "Frequently Asked Questions" has become a gimmick to frame rules as something more inclusive and interactive. Only one side to these "discussions", asking and answering. It's akin to the "some people say" trick. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chevrons to convey thoughts?

Hi, I've been trying to find any kind of source for the claim at Bracket#Angle_brackets that:

Chevrons are infrequently used to denote words that are thought instead of spoken, such as: ⟨ What an unusual flower! ⟩

Is there any basis or examples for this that anyone could find? (The whole section has been flagged for lacking references, so it's not just this part that lacks sources.) Any help is appreciated. Thanks. --CesarFelipe (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A thought balloon is the usual method. I see Speech_balloon#Foreign_languages states: "In many comic books, words that would be foreign to the narration but are displayed in translation for the reader are surrounded by angle brackets or chevrons <like this>." StuRat (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that is the traditional use in comic books. But I'm wondering the quote is referring to cases in literature, where thoughts would need to be conveyed, like telepathy perhaps? --CesarFelipe (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the issue with comics/graphic novels is the need to convey a lot of info in a short space (one pane). In a novel, space is less constrained, so they could just say it outright as "X sent this message telepathically to Y". Of course, repeating that full explanation each time could get old, so some type of shortcut like brackets might then make sense. Not sure if there is a general standard for it, though. StuRat (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angle brackets and double angle brackets are also used in French (and perhaps other languages, but I only know French and English) where English uses apostrophe and double apostrophe as quote marks. See Quotation_mark#French. --Jayron 32 20:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get a specific use "in the wild", but this page [2] supports the claim. IMO a not-great source is better than no source. This one isn't that bad or anything, I just think there must be better ones out there. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, nice find either way! Thanks for the help everyone. --CesarFelipe (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In A Song of Ice and Fire, every chapter is from a character's POV, and their full-phrase thoughts are in italics. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]