Calling someone 'chicken little' to dismiss their doom-related argument...

[Mangetout]

Logically fallacious, isn't it? Argument by children's story?

I mean, it completely fails to address whether or not the sky really is falling in the case in hand - it just assumes it can't be.

[Jackmannii]

My, aren't we Billy Goat Gruff today.

[Bryan Ekers]

I can only suggest that if someone really has a doom-leading argument, it'd be better to frame it in more graspable terms. Don't bother with "You children's children will be MUTANTS who envy the dead!". Rather, go with "If we don't address this issue in small easily-implementable steps, AAA battery prices will double over the next three years."


Of course, you'll still know the truth that a spike in battery prices is the first step to armageddon. There just isn't any particular value in harping on it.

[onions without tears]

I don't think it's a fallacy to point out reality.

[Mangetout]

I don't think it's a fallacy to point out reality.
Exactly, but if the predicted doom really is happening, or if it's possible that it may happen, then it's intellectually dishonest to just wave it away with an analogy of a childrens story about a chick frightened about something that could not happen

[Mangetout]

I can only suggest that if someone really has a doom-leading argument, it'd be better to frame it in more graspable terms. Don't bother with "You children's children will be MUTANTS who envy the dead!". Rather, go with "If we don't address this issue in small easily-implementable steps, AAA battery prices will double over the next three years."


Of course, you'll still know the truth that a spike in battery prices is the first step to armageddon. There just isn't any particular value in harping on it.
There may be classes of doom that are avoidable, if we heed the warnings.

[XT]

I think it hinges on exactly what the gloom and doom scenario is wouldn't you say? When scientists achieve a consensus about the dangers of, say, Global Warming, well then you have to take their arguments seriously. When someone starts ranting about Peak Oil or Alien Invasion or how the Trilateral Commission is out to rule the world...well, then you don't have to take it QUITE as seriously. Since I assume this thread was inspired by my tongue in cheek use of 'chicken little' in another thread I'll just say that I find the whole 'we are running out of resource <insert whatever resource is being frantically worried over de jour>!!' as something that doesn't worry me TOO much...as there is lots more of whatever resource we are talking about out in the solar system...if we ever need to go get it badly enough. For that matter there are alternatives right here to most of the supposed resource shortages usually mentioned.

I'm more worried about REAL emergencies like Global Warming than about Peak Oil or imminent Alien Invasion.

YMMV.

-XT

[Der Trihs]

It seems to be a fairly standard argument to just label something a "forbidden scenario" and everyone is supposed to pretend it's impossible. Labels like "chicken little", "conspiracy theorist", and "Godwinizing" are used to dismiss arguments without actually having to argue against them.

[XT]

Sort of like when you dismiss something out of hand based on theistic grounds, ehe? Or dismissing the same ole arguments about the supposed 9/11 CT(s) when someone else discovers Loose Change (again), or brings up the Kennedy CT (again), the Moon Landing Hoax (again), Peak Oil (again), Evolution vs ID vs out and out Creationism (again), etc etc...

-XT

[Antinor01]

Argumentem Ad Juvenis. I think we just created a new logical fallacy!

[Der Trihs]

Sort of like when you dismiss something out of hand based on theistic grounds, ehe? So you're saying that in all of history, there has never been a conspiracy, never been a disaster, never been concentration camps ? You are saying that it's impossible that such things will ever happen again ? Because there's never been any evidence of gods, nor that gods are even possible. Your comparison doesn't work.

Or dismissing the same ole arguments about the supposed 9/11 CT(s) when someone else discovers Loose Change (again), or brings up the Kennedy CT (again), the Moon Landing Hoax (again), Peak Oil (again), Evolution vs ID vs out and out Creationism (again), etc etc...Dismissing a specific claim known to be false isn't at all the same as dismissing a brand new claim without looking at it.

[XT]

So you're saying that in all of history, there has never been a conspiracy, never been a disaster, never been concentration camps ?

Did I say that?

Because there's never been any evidence of gods, nor that gods are even possible. Your comparison doesn't work.

Probably because that wasn't what I was comparing would be my guess...

Dismissing a specific claim known to be false isn't at all the same as dismissing a brand new claim without looking at it.

Well, you know, I agree with you there. I wasn't speaking to brand new claims. If that is what the OP is on about then...I misunderheard and will gladly chime in and say that new claims should be taken on their own merits, examined and not simply dismissed out of hand until they are proven to be in error.

-XT

[Der Trihs]

Did I say that? Yes, when you tried to lump in my dismissal of theological claims with the dismissal of claims of upcoming disasters, conspiracies, and Naziesque behavior.

[XT]

Yes, when you tried to lump in my dismissal of theological claims with the dismissal of claims of upcoming disasters, conspiracies, and Naziesque behavior.

Naziesque behavior, ehe? Ah...I am guessing you are referring to the Trilateral Commission thingy? Interesting. And interesting (and a bit funny to be honest) that you didn't get out of it what I actually put into it. C'est la vie....

-XT

[Magiver]

My, aren't we Billy Goat Gruff today. That made me laugh out loud. Glad I'm out of milk or I would have ruined my keyboard.

Mangetout, you left out which sky is falling. So far I've survived the global ice age, various pandemics including the most recent bird flu, asteroid collisions, and now global warming. I don't know whether to add extra heating, cooling or filters to my bunker.

[BrainGlutton]

Argumentem Ad Juvenis. I think we just created a new logical fallacy!

I believe it comes under the heading of "Appeal to ridicule." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule)

[Antinor01]

I believe it comes under the heading of "Appeal to ridicule." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule)

Probably, but I like my title better. It even has real latin in it....doesn't that automatically make it correct? :D

[Apollyon]

I believe it comes under the heading of "Appeal to ridicule." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule)Or is it a form of Ad hominem? One is, after all, calling ones opponent a brainless little chicken.

[Mangetout]

I think it hinges on exactly what the gloom and doom scenario is wouldn't you say? When scientists achieve a consensus about the dangers of, say, Global Warming, well then you have to take their arguments seriously. When someone starts ranting about Peak Oil or Alien Invasion or how the Trilateral Commission is out to rule the world...well, then you don't have to take it QUITE as seriously.No, that's the point - if something is unknown (perhaps only unknown to you, but understood better by others), that's not the same as it being as impossible or unlikely as the sky falling down. The response is a way to paint your opponent's argument as impossibly unlikely, without addressing any of its substance at all - and as such, must surely be logically fallacious.

Since I assume this thread was inspired by my tongue in cheek use of 'chicken little' in another threadPrompted by, yes, but not inspired by (I'm not getting at you personally, that is) - as I say, I meant to start this discussion a long time ago, but forgot until I saw your comment and it reminded me.

[Der Trihs]

Naziesque behavior, ehe? Ah...I am guessing you are referring to the Trilateral Commission thingy? Interesting.More of your garbage. I didn't say a thing about the Trilateral Commission. I mentioned concentration camps. Like the Nazis put people in. Thus the term "Naziesque".

And interesting (and a bit funny to be honest) that you didn't get out of it what I actually put into it. C'est la vie....Typical of you to substitute that for an actual point. "You disagree with me, and are therefore funny ! Hurhurhur !"

[XT]

More of your garbage.

Uh...whatever you say.

I didn't say a thing about the Trilateral Commission.

Well then what had this to do with anything I had to say? You really need to lay off the drugs there bro.

Like the Nazis put people in. Thus the term "Naziesque".

So...this had nothing to do with what I was saying. Glad we cleared that up then. To bad you couldn't be a touch more precise in your posts to avoid this kind of confusion in the first place, ehe?

Typical of you to substitute that for an actual point. "You disagree with me, and are therefore funny ! Hurhurhur !"

Well, different strokes for different folks I always say. I'd explain...but really, it's more funny this way so I think I'll leave it at that. Have a nice day. :)

-XT

[tomndebb]

xtisme and Der Trihs, I'm pretty sure you've made your points on each other (whatever they were). Knock off the hijack or take it to the Pit, please.


[ /Modding ]

[XT]

No, that's the point - if something is unknown (perhaps only unknown to you, but understood better by others), that's not the same as it being as impossible or unlikely as the sky falling down. The response is a way to paint your opponent's argument as impossibly unlikely, without addressing any of its substance at all - and as such, must surely be logically fallacious.

Well sure. But here is the thing...it depends on the context it's used in to see if it's a fallacy or and an attempt to dismiss a worthy subject by fiat...or if it's a funny way to say that it's been done to death already. I agree with you that it IS a fallacy depending on the context it's used in.

I use it a lot when dealing with certain of my cow-orkers who believe a number of questionable things concerning the US government which I think are pretty much off the deep end to mock their positions. This is after going over some of these things with them several times and showing them that, for example, there is no evidence that the US is colluding with Canada and Mexico to create a EU coalition in North America, or that, in fact, the US government isn't poised to outlaw guns and create a fascist dictator state (yeah, it's the same group), or create a US Euro type currency....etc etc. At a certain point you get tired of re-hashing the same hash over and over again...and at that point I think calling these folks 'chicken little' is appropriate. And it's kind of funny to, though I concede that different strokes have different folks and all that.

Prompted by, yes, but not inspired by (I'm not getting at you personally, that is) - as I say, I meant to start this discussion a long time ago, but forgot until I saw your comment and it reminded me.

No worries. :)

-XT

[XT]

xtisme and Der Trihs, I'm pretty sure you've made your points on each other (whatever they were). Knock off the hijack or take it to the Pit, please.

Well, I was confused as well (and I was a semi-participant), but no worries...I've already moved on. I don't think this warrants a(nother) pit thread unless Der would like to take me there.

-XT

[Knorf]

It's similar to the "King's New Clothes" argument which is much abused and misused. People use it to attack things they don't understand, as it allows them to dismiss what they don't understand (or have knowledge about) and retain a pompous feeling of superiority that they, alone and heroic amidst the masses, see the truth as it is.