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.
My, aren’t we Billy Goat Gruff today.
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.
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
There may be classes of doom that are avoidable, if we heed the warnings.
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
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.
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
Argumentem Ad Juvenis. I think we just created a new logical fallacy!
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.
Dismissing a specific claim known to be false isn’t at all the same as dismissing a brand new claim without looking at it.
Did I say that?
Probably because that wasn’t what I was comparing would be my guess…
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
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
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.
I believe it comes under the heading of “Appeal to ridicule.”
Probably, but I like my title better. It even has real latin in it…doesn’t that automatically make it correct? 
Or is it a form of Ad hominem? One is, after all, calling ones opponent a brainless little chicken.
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.
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.
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”.
Typical of you to substitute that for an actual point. “You disagree with me, and are therefore funny ! Hurhurhur !”