# Is there a name for this fallacy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 12, 2013, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-fallacy/671083 "2013-10-12T18:56:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2013, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-fallacy/671083/21 "2013-10-14T00:59:42Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I don’t think you are getting the point at all. It’s real simple: Just because you have made your point clearly and the other person understands it fully _doesn’t_ mean the other person will now agree with you. This part I got: agree to disagree > [@](#): > > This is why I think saying “The _only_ reason you disagree with me is because you do not understand me” is a fallacy-by using the word “only” it excludes the very real possibility of understanding yet still disagreeing. It is very hard to tell, but on this last statement I think you are making a judgement call here (IMHO risky but possible), perhaps out of frustration based on your own personal experience, and you could be correct. If you are correct, I would say that you win the debate by reason of intentional deception of your ‘opponent’. They have knowingly put forth a lie (as you stated they understand it fully), and destroyed their creditability in the process. But it is very hard to determine their intention so very hard to determine if this can apply. Again not skilled in any debate tactics,so YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2013, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-fallacy/671083/22 "2013-10-14T01:08:46Z")
The [Courtier’s Reply](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply) comes close. It has the element of “you have not studied [x field] for long enough, or else you would truly understand the mysterious truths contained within”. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2013, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-fallacy/671083/23 "2013-10-14T01:44:46Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > The [Courtier’s Reply](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply) comes close. It has the element of “you have not studied [x field] for long enough, or else you would truly understand the mysterious truths contained within”. This one comes closer than any others, I think. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2013, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-fallacy/671083/24 "2013-10-14T03:23:32Z")
> [@Kyrie\_Eleison](#): > > I’d say that’s not a fallacy; it’s merely an assertion which may or may not be correct. I agree, and wanted to post this. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > I think it’s more of a fallacy. It is an assumption that with understanding comes agreement. An assumption/assertion which may or may not be correct. If you argue: 1) All dogs are mammals, 2) All mammals give birth to live young…Therefore…dogs give birth to live young. AND THEN I argue that my dog saw a fish that didn’t give birth to live young…and you reply with the statement that I didn’t understand the argument, then (hang with me here) Your statement is not a fallacy; whether it is correct or incorrect in its assumption. The assumption stated must rise or fall on its own logic (which in this case is obviously correct) but the overall argument or restatement that “you just don’t understand my argument” is not logically invalid. ---
**Author:** ![Zeke\_N.Destroi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/4af34b/32.png) [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeke_N.Destroi)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2013, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-fallacy/671083/25 "2013-10-14T10:01:20Z")
> [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > … If someone disagrees with me on an issue, either **they don’t have all the facts** on the issue, **they aren’t evaluating or processing those facts correctly** , or **they have values that significantly diverge from mine**. emphasis mine > [@Ronald Reagan](#): > > Facts are such useless things In my experience the important one is number three. If the discussion is about facts that are easily discernible - annual production of potash in Saskatchewan - there is no real discussion. I say it’s one megaunit and you say its two megaunits. Quick Google and problem solved. Turns out its one and a half megauntis. It gets thorny when you discuss the effect on the environment versus the effect on the economy for instance. Here values (I’m using values as synonymous with beliefs) come into play. I am pretty left-wing and I will always view information from that perspective. If you show me facts proving that corporate tax-cuts benefit everyone I will show you facts proving that they only benefit the upper echelon and in fact hurt the workers. From there we will devolve into arguments about the reputability of the sources / studies / observations etc. The discussion may be interesting but in the end it is unlikely to move either of us from our position because of our respective values. No one has all the facts; so matter how many _facts_ are thrown around no one will likely move anywhere because few people will abandon their core. Beliefs and value-systems are the spiritual (non-physical) spine of any person and a threat to that is a threat as real as a fist. And that threat recruits ego to its rescue. From there it becomes, “I’m right and you’re wrong.” ---
**Author:** ![Sifsclub](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@Sifsclub](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sifsclub)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-fallacy/671083/26 "2014-07-16T18:35:44Z")
It’s not a fallacy in itself, but it stems from the mind projection fallacy. Assuming one’s own views and thoughts are absolute often comes with the consequence of assuming that anyone who is of a rational/understanding mind _must_ come to the same conclusion/agree, or otherwise they simply don’t understand or aren’t being rational. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-fallacy/671083/27 "2014-07-16T18:39:43Z")
> [@Sifsclub](#): > > It’s not a fallacy in itself, but it stems from the mind projection fallacy. Assuming one’s own views and thoughts are absolute often comes with the consequence of assuming that anyone who is of a rational/understanding mind _must_ come to the same conclusion/agree, or otherwise they simply don’t understand or aren’t being rational. Dayum! Good point. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-fallacy/671083/28 "2014-07-16T18:54:46Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > Best I can make out, it’s either ad hominem because it focuses on the reasoning skills of the arguer and not on the argument itself, or no fallacy because the arguer may genuinely not understand the argument being made. Possibly, the other party might in fact not understand the original argument. If this is claimed (“you disagree only because you don’t understand”) then that is, itself a _new_ argument that would need to be rebutted (if it were to be taken seriously at all). Otherwise, it’s just an _ad hominem_ argument, since it attacks the other arguer and does not actually, y’know, address the original argument whatever that was. If the other arguer is a _feminem_ then it’s an _ad feminem_ argument. (I actually wrote this on a test in Logic class once – the teacher asked us to identify various fallacies, and one of them was a scenario in which one arguer made a personal attack against the other arguer, who was identified with feminine pronouns.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-fallacy/671083.md?page=1)