Metafallacy

[Received]

Can our use of fallacies be fallacious?

Yes, if we throw down fallacies without justification as to how they fit. Using fallacies in this way means begging the question because you're assuming the conclusion without reasoning toward it.

Imagine that I argue for an increase in the minimum wage by making a complicated argument for it, including basic economic reasoning, human psychology, and along the way quote Paul Krugman. You turn around and say that my argument is fallacious, but you don't offer any justification as to how it's fallacious. Or you specify a fallacy -- let's say an appeal to the populace -- without saying how I'm appealing to the populace. In this case, your use of a fallacy would be fallacious.

it would be a metafallacy.

 

[variant]

Can our use of fallacies be fallacious?

Yes, if we throw down fallacies without justification as to how they fit. Using fallacies in this way means begging the question because you're assuming the conclusion without reasoning toward it.

Imagine that I argue for an increase in the minimum wage by making a complicated argument for it, including basic economic reasoning, human psychology, and along the way quote Paul Krugman. You turn around and say that my argument is fallacious, but you don't offer any justification as to how it's fallacious. Or you specify a fallacy -- let's say an appeal to the populace -- without saying how I'm appealing to the populace. In this case, your use of a fallacy would be fallacious.

it would be a metafallacy.

We just call this arguing poorly.

 

[Received]

We just call this arguing poorly.

Yeah, but it sounds cooler to say "metafallacy". "That's a very metafallacious argument." But seriously, the reason the argument (which involves a throwdown of a fallacy) is poor is because the fallacy being thrown down isn't justified.

 

[variant]

Yeah, but it sounds cooler to say "metafallacy". "That's a very metafallacious argument." But seriously, the reason the argument (which involves a throwdown of a fallacy) is poor is because the fallacy being thrown down isn't justified.

Is there phrase coining fallacy where we needlessly coin new terms in order to describe simple concepts that don't need their own phrase?

 

[Received]

Is there phrase coining fallacy where we needlessly coin new terms in order to describe simple concepts that don't need their own phrase?

Why needlessly?

 

[Chesterton]

Yeah, but it sounds cooler to say "metafallacy". "That's a very metafallacious argument." But seriously, the reason the argument (which involves a throwdown of a fallacy) is poor is because the fallacy being thrown down isn't justified.

But what if they fallaciously call your fallacious metafallacy a fallacy fallaciously? And what if they're being fallacious while they do it?

 

[Received]

But what if they fallaciously call your fallacious metafallacy a fallacy fallaciously? And what if they're being fallacious while they do it?

How many fallacious can a fallacious metafallacy fallacify if a metafallacy could fallaciously fallacify fallacies?

 

[variant]

Why needlessly?

I can use the word whimsically there if you prefer.

 

[Received]

I can use the word whimsically there if you prefer.

How is it whimsical?

 

[variant]

How is it whimsical?

Meta anything is usually given to arbitrary over-thinking and doubtful utility.

 

[Received]

Meta anything is usually given to arbitrary over-thinking and doubtful utility.

Metaphysics? Metaethics? Meta-what do you have in mind?

You keep putting up judgment-saturated words without explaining how these judgments are justified. Doubtful utility, over-thinking, arbitrary.

 

[variant]

Metaphysics? Metaethics? Meta-what do you have in mind?

You keep putting up judgment-saturated words without explaining how these judgments are justified. Doubtful utility, over-thinking, arbitrary.

That's because I am making a judgement about how useful the new Ideas you are bringing up are and it isn't up to me to prove them valuable.

You can combine posts #2 and posts #4 if you wish to see the full argument.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

In informal discussions I do not see the need for naming formal or informal fallacies most of the time.

Don't name fallacies. Show me how a line of reasoning is wrong.

"Where did anybody say A?" is more appropriate--and probably more effective--than "A is a straw man!", most of the time.

 

[quatona]

Can our use of fallacies be fallacious?

Yes, if we throw down fallacies without justification as to how they fit. Using fallacies in this way means begging the question because you're assuming the conclusion without reasoning toward it.

Imagine that I argue for an increase in the minimum wage by making a complicated argument for it, including basic economic reasoning, human psychology, and along the way quote Paul Krugman. You turn around and say that my argument is fallacious, but you don't offer any justification as to how it's fallacious. Or you specify a fallacy -- let's say an appeal to the populace -- without saying how I'm appealing to the populace. In this case, your use of a fallacy would be fallacious.

it would be a metafallacy.

And falsely accusing someone of committing a meta-fallacy would be a hyper-meta-fallacy.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

There is something called the fallacy fallacy, where you correctly identify a fallacy in an argument and then assume that the conclusion is false.

 

[quatona]

Can our use of fallacies be fallacious?

Yes, if we throw down fallacies without justification as to how they fit.

I don´t think this is a logical fallacy. In order to commit a logical fallacy you must at least pretend to make a logical deduction.
It´s just an unsubstatiated claim, which doesn´t necessarily render it a logical fallacy.

Using fallacies in this way means begging the question because you're assuming the conclusion without reasoning toward it.

That´s not exactly the definition of the "begging the question"-fallacy, to begin with.
But more importantly, since no recognizable attempt at making a progress from premises to a conclusion has been made, a logical fallacy can´t have been committed.
A mere single statement can´t be a logical fallacy.

Imagine that I argue for an increase in the minimum wage by making a complicated argument for it, including basic economic reasoning, human psychology, and along the way quote Paul Krugman. You turn around and say that my argument is fallacious, but you don't offer any justification as to how it's fallacious. Or you specify a fallacy -- let's say an appeal to the populace -- without saying how I'm appealing to the populace. In this case, your use of a fallacy would be fallacious.

Not really. It would merely be an unsubstantiated claim.

On another note, I often find it hard to explain how an argument is logically fallacious.
E.g.: The grass is green. Therefore moskitos exist.
Doesn´t follow (non sequitur). But how to explain that - beyond merely pointing out the obvious?

 

[Received]

And falsely accusing someone of committing a meta-fallacy would be a hyper-meta-fallacy.

Only if you did it without justification.

 

[Received]

That's because I am making a judgement about how useful the new Ideas you are bringing up are and it isn't up to me to prove them valuable.

You can combine posts #2 and posts #4 if you wish to see the full argument.

Let's get to the quick here (and I apologize if my questions extended this). You seem to be saying that it's pointless to add a new term, whether or not meta- is a suffix.

I say that any time you reduce the number of words for something to one word, you're using words well. Saying "you're committing a fallacy by not justifying your fallacy" is much more easily expressed by saying "metafallacy". I even checked with my PhD candidate friend in philosophy in Wisconsin and he found it useful (which, of course, is his opinion). And think of how many fancy polysyllabic words really don't save any words in expressing an idea under a new word; if you're saying my use of "metafallacy" is superfluous, then you might as well say a significant amount of the English language is superfluous.

That and I just like putting morphemes together. It's fun. It doesn't have to be to you. And there is even a bit of ridiculousness I find in using the term "meta". It just sounds ridiculous, but that doesn't mean it can't be useful; that said, I'm not seriously expecting for a new word to pick up.

Relax.

 

[Received]

I don´t think this is a logical fallacy. In order to commit a logical fallacy you must at least pretend to make a logical deduction.
It´s just an unsubstatiated claim, which doesn´t necessarily render it a logical fallacy.

That´s not exactly the definition of the "begging the question"-fallacy, to begin with.
But more importantly, since no recognizable attempt at making a progress from premises to a conclusion has been made, a logical fallacy can´t have been committed.
A mere single statement can´t be a logical fallacy.

A statement made within the confines of an argument is fair ground for being fallacious. Otherwise half a million fundamentalists aren't being fallacious when they say "Jesus is God, you know" when they're discussing the existence of God.

On another note, I often find it hard to explain how an argument is logically fallacious.
E.g.: The grass is green. Therefore moskitos exist.
Doesn´t follow (non sequitur). But how to explain that - beyond merely pointing out the obvious?

You can follow up by saying "I don't get how the grass being green means mosquitos exist."

ETA: I'd also say that logic is implicit in any exchange between individuals (and inherent to all thinking as well) so long as you're not just thinking or exchanging ideas descriptively. So in this case, fallacies abound whether or not we're having a formal discussion. Just be at one of my staff meetings and see the reason why I pull out my hair every week.

 

[variant]

Let's get to the quick here (and I apologize if my questions extended this). You seem to be saying that it's pointless to add a new term, whether or not meta- is a suffix.

I say that any time you reduce the number of words for something to one word, you're using words well. Saying "you're committing a fallacy by not justifying your fallacy" is much more easily expressed by saying "metafallacy". I even checked with my PhD candidate friend in philosophy in Wisconsin and he found it useful (which, of course, is his opinion). And think of how many fancy polysyllabic words really don't save any words in expressing an idea under a new word; if you're saying my use of "metafallacy" is superfluous, then you might as well say a significant amount of the English language is superfluous.

That and I just like putting morphemes together. It's fun. It doesn't have to be to you. And there is even a bit of ridiculousness I find in using the term "meta". It just sounds ridiculous, but that doesn't mean it can't be useful; that said, I'm not seriously expecting for a new word to pick up.

Relax.

Or you're just making more terms for people to have to be familiar with.

English already has by far the most words, and this one isn't really a great addition.

The mere fact that you are proposing to use words more efficiently than I do seems ironically remarkable to me right now.