Logical Fallacies

[Meatros]

Is there a name for the following type of Fallacy?

My friend and I were arguing over something and he said to me, “yeah, if it’s on the internet it HAS to be true”. He doubts any information I give him, simply becuase it’s on the internet.

Even information from Cecil himself!:eek: !

I know he’s an ignorant :wally , but I was wondering what type of fallacy that would be called (assuming it’s a fallacy to begin with).
I’m thinking it’s an ad-hom, but it’s so broad that I don’t know if it applies…

[pravnik]

It could be a form of the ad hominem, the genetic fallacy. He’s attacking the source or genesis of the assertion rather than the assertion itself.

[UDS]

Yup, it’s the ad hominem fallacy in its purest form. The person presenting the argument is attacked, rather than the argument itself.

[Whack-a-Mole]

I don’t see this as ad hominem at all. The speaker isn’t being attacked…just any information the speaker mentions came from the internet is automatically discounted.

You might try Stephen’s Guide to the Logical Fallacies and see for yourself whic one applies. At a guess I’d say it’s the following fallacy:

Accident

Definition:
A general rule is applied when circumstances suggest that an
exception to the rule should apply.

Examples:
(i) The law says that you should not travel faster than 50
kph, thus even though your father could not breathe, you
should not have travelled faster than 50 kph.
(ii) It is good to return things you have borrowed. Therefore,
you should return this automatic rifle from the madman you
borrowed it from. (Adapted from Plato’s Republic, Book I).

Proof:
Identify the generalization in question and show that it is not
a universal generalization. Then show that the circumstances
of this case suggest that the generalization ought not to apply.

[Desmostylus]

You sure about that UDS? Isn’t it tu quoque? You’re wrong because you’ve been wrong before?

[Desmostylus]

I tend to agree with Whack-a-Mole.

[Captain_Amazing]

Nah, it’s an argument from authority. “X says it, so it must be true.” In this case, X is “the internet”.

[Captain_Amazing]

Err…sorry, didn’t read the OP closely enough. However, if it had been the other way around, it would have been an argument from authority.

[Urban_Ranger]

Hasty Generalization

HASTY GENERALIZATION (SECUNDUM QUID)

Description: An argument in which a proposition is used as a premise without attention given to some obvious condition that would affect the proposition’s application. This fallacy is also known as the “hasty generalization.” It is a fallacy that takes evidence from several, possibly unrepresentative, cases to a general rule; generalizing from few to many. Note the relation to statistics: Much of statistics concerns whether or not a sample is representative of a larger population. The larger the sample size, the better the representativeness. Note also that the opposite of a hasty generalization is a sweeping generalization.

[Whack-a-Mole]

*Originally posted by Captain Amazing *
**Nah, it’s an argument from authority. “X says it, so it must be true.” In this case, X is “the internet”. **

I think you have it backwards. I read the OP your way too the first time but the “HAS to be true” was meant as sarcasm. The poster is saying that his friend will NOT believe anything said if the source is the internet.

[Desmostylus]

I think Captain Amazing is on to something here. Argument from stupidity. (Not personal, Captain)

[Whack-a-Mole]

*Originally posted by Meatros *
**He doubts any information I give him, simply becuase it’s on the internet.

Even information from Cecil himself!:eek: !
**

Of course we all know that Cecil is the font of all knowledge and wisdom but not everyone knows that. You’ll notice that Cecil doesn’t present his reasoning as ‘because I said so’ but rather taps a variety of sources which can be checked by anyone.

Likewise so should you. It’s silly to say any info from the internet should be discounted but saying it comes from the internet doesn’t make it true either. Rather, cite the sources from the internet. If you say (for instance), “The National Transportation Safety Board’s web site states that XX% of all highway accidents are caused by drunk drivers” then it is incumbent on your friend to show why the NTSB shouldn’t be trusted or to cite a different statistic. The fact that the info resided on the internet is meaningless.

[UDS]

*Originally posted by Desmostylus *
**You sure about that UDS? Isn’t it tu quoque? You’re wrong because you’ve been wrong before? **

Couple of points.

(1) Tu quoque is one form of the ad hominem argument. “You say “excessive drinking is bad” but I don’t believe that because you’re constantly drunk.” Other forms are the abusive ad hominem (You say “excessive drinking is bad” but I don’t believe that because you’re a shit.") and the circmstantial ad hominem (You say “excessive drinking is bad” but I don’t believe that because you have a Coca-Cola franchise, and have a vested interest in discouraging the sale of alcohol").

(2) “You’re wrong because you’ve been wrong before” is not really an example of tu quoque. Tu quoque is an argument that, because the speaker has previously made arguments or taken actions which are inconsistent with the argument he is making now, therefore the argument he is making now must be false.

[Desmostylus]

Point taken UDS.

[Liberal]

Because he was sarcastic, what he really was saying was “just because it was on the Internet, that does not make it so.” No fallacy in that.

[Meatros]

*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole *
**Of course we all know that Cecil is the font of all knowledge and wisdom but not everyone knows that. You’ll notice that Cecil doesn’t present his reasoning as ‘because I said so’ but rather taps a variety of sources which can be checked by anyone.

Likewise so should you. It’s silly to say any info from the internet should be discounted but saying it comes from the internet doesn’t make it true either. Rather, cite the sources from the internet. If you say (for instance), “The National Transportation Safety Board’s web site states that XX% of all highway accidents are caused by drunk drivers” then it is incumbent on your friend to show why the NTSB shouldn’t be trusted or to cite a different statistic. The fact that the info resided on the internet is meaningless. **

I totally agree with you, and I don’t usually just make assertions with him. I will provide a length explanation, a few sites (such as snopes, straight dope, or a government agency if it applies) and he will wave his hand in ignorance dismissing it because it’s on the internet and, “could’ve been posted by anyone”. My next step is to do a whois search to tell him who the site belongs to, and HE STILL WON’T LISTEN:eek:
He won’t even listen to basic logic about things…

The reason I bring this up is because he has been sending me junk forwards telling of the terrors of spiders in phones, missing kidneys, a woman masterbating with a lobster and producing brine shrimp, and the like. The sad thing is, he’s older than I am.

[Meatros]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**Because he was sarcastic, what he really was saying was “just because it was on the Internet, that does not make it so.” No fallacy in that. **

I agree that just because it was on the internet, or for that matter, TV, the radio, books, doesn’t make it so.

You know, I’m really starting to wonder if it’s my “evidence” that he doesn’t believe, instead of the evidence by itself.

[Liberal]

What evidence are you offering besides “I saw it on the Internet”?

[zwaldd]

*Originally posted by Meatros *
The reason I bring this up is because he has been sending me junk forwards telling of the terrors of spiders in phones, missing kidneys, a woman masterbating with a lobster and producing brine shrimp, and the like.

Wait…so he’s forwarding you urban legend internet spam and claiming that he internet sites debunking them are not credible? Sounds kind of circular. Ask him if he’s done any of the research that Snopes does - contact the alleged source…see if there’s a police report, contact Microsoft to see if they’re paying people to beta test email systems, etc.

[KidCharlemagne]

Sort of an inverse appeal to authority.