I ran across something I’m sure is a logical fallacy, but I can’t think of which one it would be. Here’s a hypothetical example:
Other person: “Star-bellied Sneetches are 30% more intelligent than regular Sneetches.”
Me: “You haven’t provided any evidence to support that assertion.”
Other person: “I can’t believe you would say regular Sneetches are as intelligent as Star-bellied Sneetches.”
Well I didn’t say that. I only said he didn’t prove his case. I haven’t proven his statement false, but neither has he proven it true. What do you call it when a person assumes you have taken the opposite position from his when you have not?
I believe that is “begging the question” (nothing to do with the phrase “which begs the question”). Since it relies only on its own assertion to prove its assertion.
Begging the question does seem to apply here, but there’s also the false dichotomy - “Other person” seems to assume that there are two possible opinions, when in fact there are several, including ones such as “we don’t know”.
A bold-faced statement isn’t exactly an argument… it could be a lot of things, from the beginning of a strawman, to false dichotomy… to anything really.
shrug
What the imaginary guy is accusing you of doing tho is an appeal to ignorance, and rightly so if that were your actual position.
You call it “A person assumes you have taken the opposite position from theirs, though you have not; you have merely pointed out that they have failed to make a compelling case for their position”. Nevermind finding a snappier name for it; what use would that be? Just say to the person exactly what you said to us; you haven’t taken the opposite position from them, you are merely pointing out that they have failed to provide evidence for their position.
Could the starbellian’s fallacy not be simply regarded as a straw man argument in that it misrepresents your position? He seems to be claiming that you said something in nitpicking his/her argument that you did not in fact claim.
From this site.“The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.”
But I am not by any means an expert on rhetoric, and would be interested if there’s a better description for what you describe.
The scenario described doesn’t involve a logical fallacy at all, but rather illustrates a rhetorical device attempting to misdirect the conversation. This scenario does not involve a strawman argument, because the first person is not arguing against any particular position, imagined or otherwsie. The first person is simply making up facts and when challenged, retreats to a meaningless attack hoping to bait the other person into an emotional discussion that ignores the initial statement.
ETA: I’ve noticed a lot of “what is this fallacy” questions on the board in the last couple of years. Just because a person says something ridiculous doesn’t always mean a logical fallacy is involved. A logical fallacy can only come into play when you are attempting to prove something true by a line of reasoning. There is no logical fallacy called “bullshitting.”
I’ll say it’s an Ad Hominem attack. (I like to use the glossary at Daily Kos.) Because the first person is attacking the 2nd person’s intelligence rather than the logic of the counter-argument, I would classify it as Ad Hominem.
Maybe the sneetch example is causing confusion? Let me try to reword it:
Him: GW Bush’s policies helped improve the economy.
Me: What evidence do you have for that?
Him: Oh, so you’re one of those that think he hurt the economy, are you?
Imho, when the response attacks the questioner, rather than the question, I would call it Ad Hominem.
Interesting that some of you don’t consider it fallacious. If a person argues against X, and I say that person’s argument isn’t valid, does that automatically mean my position is X? I would think not. I would think it possible for me not to know the veracity of X as a certainty, yet still recognize that an argument against X is not valid.
For example, let’s say the following argument is made: “It is going to rain tomorrow because my underwear is blue”. Now I can say that is not a valid argument, but that doesn’t mean I know whether or not it will rain tomorrow. I’m not disagreeing on the issue of whether or not it will rain; I am disagreeing on the validity of the argument. Anybody following me here?
Gil-Martin, I like your answer the best. Now that I think about it, it does seem like it’s simply a strawman argument.
The fallacy of ad hominem occurs when attacking the credentials of a person putting forth an argument, rather than attacking the argument itself. In the example in the OP, the second person is not making a counter-argument at all, so the first person’s response cannot be attempting to refute a counter-argument. The OP’s situation is basically this:
A: P is true.
B: Why?
A: Asshole!
“A” is not committing a fallacy because he is not even attempting to argue his point. A fallacy can exist only if there is a an attempt to create a chain of reasoning to support a conclusion. He is attempting to deflect the argument altogether.
This is an ad hominem attack:
A: P is true.
B: Why?
A: Because Mr. X says it is false, and everybody knows that Mr. X is a lying sack of shit.
No fallacy here. There’s no argument. The other person said “I can’t believe that you…”. There’s no chain or reasoning there, so there’s no logical fallacy.
People seem to think that if I say “The moon is made of cheese” that I must have committed some sort of logical fallacy. That isn’t true. An incorrect statement does not prove the existence of such a fallacy.
Not to turn this into a debate, but I don’t think that’s the same thing at all. The person in my example doesn’t just make an incorrect statement, he makes an assumption about what MY position is, based on a statement that I made. The implied argument, as I see it would be:
I believe SBS’s are more intelligent than RS’s
You have asked me for evidence
Therefore, you must believe that SBS’s and RS’s are equally intelligent <- does not follow
I don’t think a chain of reasoning has to be stated as a formal argument for there to be an argument implied.
I would agree that the FIRST statement in my example in the OP, that SBS’s are more intelligent than RS’s, is not a fallacy, but simply an assertion. But in the third statement, there is definitely a chain of reasoning implied. How else would he be purporting to know my position if not by having reasoned it?
I think there is an argument being made in the statement, even though the premises and the conclusion are implied. “Implied” in this case meaning “barely detectable through all the BS.”
If I start with the statement: “I can’t believe you would say regular Sneetches are as intelligent as Star-bellied Sneetches,” one could diagram the argument in several ways, but one might be:
Premise 1: Star-bellied Sneetches are smarter.
Premise 2: Anyone who denies such is not worth listening to.
Conclusion: Only idiots don’t believe that Star-bellied Sneetches are not smarter.
In that argument, there would be several fallacies mixed together, including ad hominem (including the poisoning the well variety), a red herring, and definitely begging the question.
I would say begging the question is the principal fallacy here, because the overall point that is being argued is that Star-bellied Sneetches are smarter because regular Sneetches are not as smart."
Like I said… it’s just a beginning of a strawman argument.
To qualify IMO, he would have to go into debunking the position he claims you hold. Showing evidence and then claiming you are wrong would make the strawman complete.
As it stands now, the last part is more like the first premise of a new doxastic (or epistemic) logic argument.
He claims to be “unable to believe”… which will lead you into modal logic… and from there to epistemic logic… and on to doxastic logic. And nobody wants that.
There’s a reason why normal conversations aren’t analyzed with propositional logic… and why claiming something to be fallacious is… pointless outside the realm of logic. That reason is, most commonly used expressions fall outside the strict limitations of first order logic; I believe, it must be, possible, perhaps… none of those can be expressed properly. You can’t have it both ways, you’re either having a discussion, or you’re dealing with a logical argument. If it’s a discussion, it’s not fallacious. If it’s logic, then you need to take a look at higher order logic systems… I recommend “Knowledge and Belief” by Hintikka. Or if books aren’t your thing, try SEP-online.
The best course of action in discussions like your example is always to ask for cites. That way you can establish a a common axiomatic base to work from. That’s the only way you can conduct a conversation that will somewhat stay within the parameters of first order logic. Things are either true, false or unproven… you’re not dealing with beliefs, guesses, feelings when there’s something concrete on the table.
…again, not a philosopher me… I’m just killing time, but there’s a non-trivial chance I might not be completely wrong.
Does everyone at least agree that if I ask what a person’s evidence is for X, that it does not necessarily mean I believe not-X? That would be a good start.
What you said is true, but accusing you of having a position that is the opposite of his is not a logical fallacy, it’s just wrong. And he does not use that accusation to further his own position.
Not every false statement can be attributed to a logical fallacy.
