Autism Debate Logical Fallacies # 69, 70, & 71
Autism Debate Logical Fallacies # 69, 70, & 71
Ad hominem attacks come in every shape and size. I found 3 lately, which seem to occur more than their fair share. I am going to point them out and talk about why they are illogical.
If anyone is interested, Bronze Dog has done some extensive work in fallacies and has incredible grasp of why they are problematic. His work can be found here.
#69 Argument to the condescending opponent
To argue that by refuting the point, the opponent has behaved poorly and their point is invalidated.
Example:
You disagree with my observation that flubber cured my child of autism. You are disrespectful of my person and are completely wrong.
#70 Appeal to a lack of assistance
To argue that because something does not lend help in gaining support for an unfortunate situation, the argument is incorrect.
Example:
Dr. Wordsworth gave evidence that our preferred data set is flawed. This does nothing to help us get more funding for these needy parents. This research has no merit.
#71 The destroyer gambit.
Ad hominem attacks come in every shape and size. I found 3 lately, which seem to occur more than their fair share. I am going to point them out and talk about why they are illogical.
If anyone is interested, Bronze Dog has done some extensive work in fallacies and has incredible grasp of why they are problematic. His work can be found here.
#69 Argument to the condescending opponent
To argue that by refuting the point, the opponent has behaved poorly and their point is invalidated.
Example:
You disagree with my observation that flubber cured my child of autism. You are disrespectful of my person and are completely wrong.
#70 Appeal to a lack of assistance
To argue that because something does not lend help in gaining support for an unfortunate situation, the argument is incorrect.
Example:
Dr. Wordsworth gave evidence that our preferred data set is flawed. This does nothing to help us get more funding for these needy parents. This research has no merit.
#71 The destroyer gambit.
To argue that an opponent is morally deficient and can only attack other research or arguments and is unable to create anything of her own.
Example:
All you do is attack autistics and our strengths. You have no ability whatsoever to bring anything of value yourself to the table.
posted by Interverbal at 6:34 PM
5 Comments:
Thank goodness! It's been so quiet on the 'blog scene' today, I was beginning to think that everyone had been 'cured.' Please note easy use of American terminology / colloquialisms.
Cheers
Hi Jon
Where did # 71 come from? Not from real life, i hope
The example you mean?
I made it up, just to mention that more than one side can use fallacies.
I have really been on the receiving end of this fallacy (twice) in autism debate. But is was always from pro-biomed types.
I have seen it numerous times from people railing about creators of political satire.
Thanks for the plug. Got a probable chance at work clearing up in the near future, so I'm considering getting the Doggerel series up to #50 in time for the 50th Skeptics' Circle. Suggestions for #47, 48, & 49 would be appreciated.
Love #70 on your list. As if facts will alter themselves for our convenience.
Hey Bronze Dog,
Hmmmm...
let me think about that for a bit.
Post a Comment
<< Home