Too many questions fallacy?

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I find that a skeptic has the easy way out of any debate. Usually a skeptic is someone that hear's a positive truth claim and then thinks its untrue. But because the skeptic isn't the one making the positive truth claim, the burden of proof is never on the skeptic and the skeptic instead asks questions upon questions against the claimant.

Is there some sort of "too many questions fallacy" that voids a debate between two people when one person just continues to ask questions? Because I often see skeptics on this forum and others asking question upon question to someone making a positive claim. I think this should be some sort of fallacy because you can always ask more questions. There will always be more questions, and every answer will have some aspect which is incomplete, miscommunicated, assumed or biased. I feel like asking question after question without making any positive claim yourself isn't really even facilitating a discussion nor does the conversation ever actually get anywhere. Its basically the cheaters way to "win" a debate.

Can you create an answer to a question such that another question cannot be asked of you?

 

[Davian]

I find that a skeptic has the easy way out of any debate. Usually a skeptic is someone that hear's a positive truth claim and then thinks its untrue. But because the skeptic isn't the one making the positive truth claim, the burden of proof is never on the skeptic and the skeptic instead asks questions upon questions against the claimant.

Is there some sort of "too many questions fallacy" that voids a debate between two people when one person just continues to ask questions? Because I often see skeptics on this forum and others asking question upon question to someone making a positive claim. I think this should be some sort of fallacy because you can always ask more questions. There will always be more questions, and every answer will have some aspect which is incomplete, miscommunicated, assumed or biased. I feel like asking question after question without making any positive claim yourself isn't really even facilitating a discussion nor does the conversation ever actually get anywhere. Its basically the cheaters way to "win" a debate.

Can you create an answer to a question such that another question cannot be asked of you?

Not that I am aware of.

However, there is a means of potentially stopping the questioner in his/her tracks:

Demonstrate that your positive truth claim is true.

 

[Ken-1122]

I find that a skeptic has the easy way out of any debate. Usually a skeptic is someone that hear's a positive truth claim and then thinks its untrue. But because the skeptic isn't the one making the positive truth claim, the burden of proof is never on the skeptic and the skeptic instead asks questions upon questions against the claimant.

Is there some sort of "too many questions fallacy" that voids a debate between two people when one person just continues to ask questions? Because I often see skeptics on this forum and others asking question upon question to someone making a positive claim. I think this should be some sort of fallacy because you can always ask more questions. There will always be more questions, and every answer will have some aspect which is incomplete, miscommunicated, assumed or biased. I feel like asking question after question without making any positive claim yourself isn't really even facilitating a discussion nor does the conversation ever actually get anywhere. Its basically the cheaters way to "win" a debate.

Can you create an answer to a question such that another question cannot be asked of you?

The truth should always be up for question.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Can you create an answer to a question such that another question cannot be asked of you?

How about providing proof for your claim, that should work.

K

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I find that a skeptic has the easy way out of any debate. Usually a skeptic is someone that hear's a positive truth claim and then thinks its untrue. But because the skeptic isn't the one making the positive truth claim, the burden of proof is never on the skeptic and the skeptic instead asks questions upon questions against the claimant.

Is there some sort of "too many questions fallacy" that voids a debate between two people when one person just continues to ask questions? Because I often see skeptics on this forum and others asking question upon question to someone making a positive claim. I think this should be some sort of fallacy because you can always ask more questions. There will always be more questions, and every answer will have some aspect which is incomplete, miscommunicated, assumed or biased. I feel like asking question after question without making any positive claim yourself isn't really even facilitating a discussion nor does the conversation ever actually get anywhere. Its basically the cheaters way to "win" a debate.

Can you create an answer to a question such that another question cannot be asked of you?

Most skeptics (sceptics is the proper spelling ) are fairly reasonable people; it kind of goes with the territory. As the person making the claim, it is upon the claim-maker to provide positive evidence for the claim. However, asking for evidence carries with it the responsibility that the sceptic have a reasonable threshold of evidence for said claim. The level of evidence required depends on the prior plausibility (Bayesian-style) of the claim. To give you an idea of what I, personally, consider a reasonable threshold, look at the Scandinavian 4S study; that provides a reasonable level of evidence for the claim that simvastatin reduces mortality compared to placebo.

More plausible claims (such as "the sun will rise tomorrow") require less evidence; by extrapolation, it seems reasonable based on the overwhelming evidence of prior sidereal days that the same will be true. Less plausible claims (such as "chelation therapy is effective for atherosclerosis) based on the current medical evidence, would require far more than a single 4,444-participant randomised controlled trial would be able to provide.

The fallacy you mention could possibly fall under either special pleading (for using a double standard for certain claims compared to others), or moving the goalposts (if actual goalpost-moving is involved). You could, I guess, also claim it is a variant of the nirvana fallacy; in this case, it is the evidence, not the claim, that is imperfect and is therefore rejected.

 

[juvenissun]

I find that a skeptic has the easy way out of any debate. Usually a skeptic is someone that hear's a positive truth claim and then thinks its untrue. But because the skeptic isn't the one making the positive truth claim, the burden of proof is never on the skeptic and the skeptic instead asks questions upon questions against the claimant.

Is there some sort of "too many questions fallacy" that voids a debate between two people when one person just continues to ask questions? Because I often see skeptics on this forum and others asking question upon question to someone making a positive claim. I think this should be some sort of fallacy because you can always ask more questions. There will always be more questions, and every answer will have some aspect which is incomplete, miscommunicated, assumed or biased. I feel like asking question after question without making any positive claim yourself isn't really even facilitating a discussion nor does the conversation ever actually get anywhere. Its basically the cheaters way to "win" a debate.

Can you create an answer to a question such that another question cannot be asked of you?

It is not so easy to ask follow-up questions if one tried to stay on the issue.
Serious Q/A is not chatting.
The key is: one question at a time, and don't shifting the goalpost.

 

[Gottservant]

I foudn th is hilarious and fully agree with you, it is now in my vocabulary whether other people agree or not

But be careful about how you say it, because in a healthy conversation there are also times where people ask more questions than there are answers, ultimately you can make the accusation sure, especially in debate, but it is up to the questioner to say whether they are making that fallacy on the basis of their own conscience.

DEfFinitely in my vocabularY

 

[Dave Ellis]

There is such thing as having an unreasonable requirement for evidence.

For example, if I made the claim to a friend of mine that my middle name was Robert, and he didn't believe me, he would be justified in asking for evidence.

If I then provide a birth certificate, drivers license, health card and testimony from my parents that shows my name is Robert, and then get confirmation from the government that I have not changed my name ever, and that is still my legal name, and my friend still will not accept the claim, that is an unreasonable position. Under any reasonable circumstance, I would have met my burden of proof in that case.

In the case of Theological claims, there are plenty of things offered up as evidence for God, however every one I have been presented with has identifiable and serious flaws within them. In that case, further questioning is absolutely reasonable to see if the flaws can be addressed.

If the flaws can be addressed, then any reasonable person would be compelled to accept the evidence as shown. However, if the flaws can not be addressed, the reasonable person will continue to question, and not accept the claims as true until it can be demonstrated.


So, there is no fallacy in asking too many questions in and of itself. The questions being asked could be good, logical and reasonable ones, even if there are lots of them.

 

[Gadarene]

I find that a skeptic has the easy way out of any debate. Usually a skeptic is someone that hear's a positive truth claim and then thinks its untrue. But because the skeptic isn't the one making the positive truth claim, the burden of proof is never on the skeptic and the skeptic instead asks questions upon questions against the claimant.

Right. That's kinda how it goes. If you make a claim, be prepared to defend it or not be taken seriously.

Is there some sort of "too many questions fallacy" that voids a debate between two people when one person just continues to ask questions? Because I often see skeptics on this forum and others asking question upon question to someone making a positive claim. I think this should be some sort of fallacy because you can always ask more questions. There will always be more questions, and every answer will have some aspect which is incomplete, miscommunicated, assumed or biased. I feel like asking question after question without making any positive claim yourself isn't really even facilitating a discussion nor does the conversation ever actually get anywhere. Its basically the cheaters way to "win" a debate.

Can you create an answer to a question such that another question cannot be asked of you?

As far as I know, no.

How many questions are "too many" is entirely subjective, of course.

The "problem" isn't that skeptics are asking "too many" questions, it's that they ask more than many believers evidently have of their own beliefs.

I also suspect that if many Christians were debating someone who held to a religious belief they didn't believe in, they would also be asking "too many" questions according to the other religious person. So really, for skeptics it's a matter of being more consistent than anything else.

Now, it is entirely possible to have unreasonable standards, but again, I don't think the problem is that skeptics have unreasonable standards, it's that the people they frequently pick up on their mistakes have inconsistent standards.

 

[ChristianT]

There is a fallacy (I'm paraphrasing) where the person asks so many questions that they can't be fully answered due to how many there are. Check the fallacy list on Wikipedia.

 

[Gadarene]

There is a fallacy (I'm paraphrasing) where the person asks so many questions that they can't be fully answered due to how many there are. Check the fallacy list on Wikipedia.

Argumentum ad verecundiam.

I don't think that's quite what's being described though. I thought the OP was referring to lots of sequential questions.

Argumentum ad verecundiam/Gish Galloping is lots of questions in one go.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Gish Gallop.

ETA: Gadarene beat me.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Not that I am aware of.

However, there is a means of potentially stopping the questioner in his/her tracks:

Demonstrate that your positive truth claim is true.

One person's demonstration that it is true is another person's lack of demonstration that it is true.

That's been my observation anyway, on these forums specifically.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

How about providing proof for your claim, that should work.

K

One person's proof is another person's lack of proof.

That's been my experience anyway, on these forums specifically.

 

[Loudmouth]

I find that a skeptic has the easy way out of any debate. Usually a skeptic is someone that hear's a positive truth claim and then thinks its untrue.

Not quite. A skeptic is someone who hears a positive claim and wants to see the positive evidence that supports the claim.

Is there some sort of "too many questions fallacy" that voids a debate between two people when one person just continues to ask questions?

No. If the person making the claim refuses to supply evidence then the continual questions are called for. It is a continual reminder that the claimant has not supported their claims.

Because I often see skeptics on this forum and others asking question upon question to someone making a positive claim. I think this should be some sort of fallacy because you can always ask more questions.

You might actually have a point if the claimants were answering the questions with evidence. What you should be asking the skeptic is what kind of evidence they are looking for, and then present that evidence for them.

 

[Loudmouth]

One person's proof is another person's lack of proof.

Then you have not supplied objective evidence.

 

[Gadarene]

One person's demonstration that it is true is another person's lack of demonstration that it is true.

That's been my observation anyway, on these forums specifically.

One person's proof is another person's lack of proof.

That's been my experience anyway, on these forums specifically.

One person's too many questions is another person's not enough questions.

So?

Again - the issue is quality of the standards used to determine correctness of idea, and whether they are adhered to consistently. Not "this group I disagree with ask too many questions!"

 

[ChristianT]

One person's too many questions is another person's not enough questions.

So?

Again - the issue is quality of the standards used to determine correctness of idea, and whether they are adhered to consistently. Not "this group I disagree with ask too many questions!"

It's fun when we ask what objective is and it's just a plural version of subjective.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Argumentum ad verecundiam.

I don't think that's quite what's being described though. I thought the OP was referring to lots of sequential questions.

Argumentum ad verecundiam/Gish Galloping is lots of questions in one go.

No, the OP was referring to actual, completely relevant questions. The Gish Gallop is more of a red herring fallacy - have so many questions (talking points, actually) that you disguise and shift the purpose of the debate entirely.

Also, argumentum ad verecundiam is argument from authority.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I find that a skeptic has the easy way out of any debate. Usually a skeptic is someone that hear's a positive truth claim and then thinks its untrue. But because the skeptic isn't the one making the positive truth claim, the burden of proof is never on the skeptic and the skeptic instead asks questions upon questions against the claimant.

Is there some sort of "too many questions fallacy" that voids a debate between two people when one person just continues to ask questions? Because I often see skeptics on this forum and others asking question upon question to someone making a positive claim. I think this should be some sort of fallacy because you can always ask more questions. There will always be more questions, and every answer will have some aspect which is incomplete, miscommunicated, assumed or biased. I feel like asking question after question without making any positive claim yourself isn't really even facilitating a discussion nor does the conversation ever actually get anywhere. Its basically the cheaters way to "win" a debate.

Can you create an answer to a question such that another question cannot be asked of you?

First off, I just want to say that I love this post. I have to give you credit for at least recognizing the burden of proof is upon the positive claim. However, do you understand what makes a particular line of reasoning a logical fallacy? It isn't merely a matter of choosing a side of a debate you disagree with and hoping that their line of reasoning is flawed.

If you think that there are "always more questions to ask" consider this. Suppose I made a claim that certain plants get energy from sunlight. I then explain the process of photosynthesis, I give you a veritable mountain of evidence, and then I give you several methods for checking this evidence yourself. What questions would be left for the skeptic?

Saying that god exists is a rather large claim, especially considering what claims are being made about god himself. Shouldn't this require fairly convincing evidence? To repeat what so many have already said, were such evidence provided, skepticism would be the weaker position.