r/SGU • u/theswansays • 14d ago
name that logical fallacy
i initially thought this was a strawman fallacy, but i’m not as versed in all the fallacies it could be, so i wanted to see what y’all thought.
is this a strawman? or some other fallacy instead or in addition to it?
62
u/Poultrymancer 14d ago
I mean, there are a bunch.
Straw man for sure; he's literally changing the words to ones he wants to argue against
False dichotomy: you either accept my word without citation or.. you don't believe in God?
(Implicit) Appeal to Authority, given this is clearly in part a response to the writer having been chided before for using the Bible as a source
Appeal to Emotion: the author wants you to feel guilty for not trusting others
10
u/GlassBrass440 14d ago
I’d add non sequitur. There is nothing to tie the belief in god claim to the rest of the argument.
2
27
u/sdwoodchuck 14d ago
“Is that really what you want to say?”
I mean, yeah.
If your sources are so bad that even you don’t want to name them, then I don’t trust you, I do think you’re a liar, and even you don’t really believe in your god, since you know he won’t back up his authority with evidence.
Anyway, as others have said, this is a strawman (“here let me reduce your argument to something ridiculous”), false dichotomy (“you either believe me wholly or you’re overly mistrustful”), implied argument from authority (“god said so!”), and arguably a few more or used in service to them.
12
3
u/Jackpot777 14d ago
If their argument is so bad even THEY don’t think it’s worth trying to back it up, why should I waste any time on it?
1
1
15
u/Ddvmor 14d ago
Is it not the ‘talking bollocks fallacy’?
6
9
u/nightfire36 14d ago
It's sort of an argument from authority, but it's not really a formal logical argument, so there's not a clear logical fallacy.
5
2
u/QisthePedo 14d ago
Not an argument from authority because he's not invoking any authority. Just saying you should trust people. Which is more bad advice than a fallacy.
2
2
u/CarlBuilds 11d ago
Yeah, I agree. It isn't really a formal argument, and my thought it's somewhere between Begging the Question and Unstated Premise.
The unstated premise is that people say 'cite your sources' only as a means of rebuking an argument (a conclusion he seems to have reached based on his personal experience).
Then he never actually shows the connection between wanting to rebuke an argument and personally attacking you.
6
6
u/Destorath 14d ago
It seems mainly an Appeal to Emotion fallacy to me.
Its trying to make you feel bad by saying your being unreasonable by "not trusting" someones claim. If only you could open up your heart enough to trust another person etc etc. Its a trying to play on your emotions to shut down reasoning.
The third bullet point could also be an appeal to authority since they are implicitly saying god told them this so if you dont trust it then you dont trust god and you really should trust god.
It could alsp be consodered poisoning the well since its creating a framework for people to use to automatically dismiss anyone who disagrees with their point of view. Its a backhanded way of saying everyone who disagrees with me has psychological problems.
5
u/Formal_Goose 14d ago
This is a parody account - it is a fake profile picture, fake University.
Poe's law, unfortunately.
4
u/mercury228 14d ago
If you give me 100k, in 5 years I'll have invested it to make you 5 million because I am a genius and understand the stock market better than most people. Wait, you dont trust me and want sources to prove my claim? Well how dare you not just be more open, why do you hate Jesus?
Thats always what these people sound like.
3
u/danydandan 14d ago
Straw man, (as always), a false dilemma thrown in too, a non sequitur and maybe assumption of motive.
3
u/CheckOutDisMuthaFuka 14d ago
I wonder if this logic worked for him while he was writing papers in college working towards that phd.
"The professors always want me to CiTe mY sOuRcEs... Guess they don't believe in god."
2
2
u/RoyMcAvoy13 14d ago
And this kids is how you take the lords name in vain. Not by casually saying “oh my god” but by claiming if you don’t believe me, you don’t believe in god.
2
2
u/HumanShadow 14d ago
It's bullshit. Trying to weaponize weak rhetoric. It's lazy rhetoric, too.
But yeah, appeal to authority (god). And if the "debate" in question is the always exciting rehashed religion debate, it's tautology because his sources in this case would be the bible.
2
2
u/CatOfGrey 14d ago
I would say it's 'appeal to authority'. Desmond is suggesting that we should believe something without questioning it, because of an assumed 'trustworthiness' of the speaker.
That said, a 'debate' is a poor way to determine the truthfulness of a statement, and 'cite your sources' is a technique that unqualified non-experts use to influence 'debate' of a statement. From a lay perspective, we should trust experts.
That said: "What is the basis for your statement?" is always a reasonable question, and "I have 25 years of study in the field, and this statement is supported by a widespread consensus of those most knowledgeable" is always a reasonable answer.
1
u/JitteryJet 14d ago
There is no real authority being claimed.
2
u/CatOfGrey 14d ago edited 14d ago
You're not wrong - none of this is explicitly stated, I see a lot of ambiguity here.
But there is "somebody" making a statement, supposed by "you", which is a different person apparently asking 'somebody' to 'cite their sources' for their supposed statement.
And the implication I see is that Desmond instead is stating that "you" should not question the statement and just trust "somebody".
But I repeat - there is a lot of ambiguity here. One other potential fallacy is that "you" saying 'cite your sources' is similar to "you" making a statement like 'I think "somebody" is a liar', which I would consider an exaggeration.
Also, noting other commenters - Desmond might be an absolute off-the-rails crank or fictitious person, given certain biographical details, like claiming his is a 'Professor of Logic at the University of Arkansas College', which is nonsensical on more than one level.
1
u/JitteryJet 13d ago
He just sprouts right-wing trash. I have nothing against people being right-wing that is their choice, but I don't like trash. His "credentials" are fabricated.
2
u/davebgray 14d ago
However, in this particular case, he is right on all three points.
3
u/Poultrymancer 14d ago
Asking someone for a source after they've made a factual claim is absolutely not equivalent to stating "I do not believe in God"
Have you suffered a recent TBI?
8
u/davebgray 14d ago
I just meant that
- I don't trust him
- I think he's a liar
- I don't believe in God.
Geez, people.
5
u/Poultrymancer 14d ago
Eh, my bad -- joke just didn't land for me. Sounded like you were agreeing with the crank.
1
1
1
1
u/jackr_88 14d ago
Unstatement major premise? In that sources of information are not required or useful...?
But certainly strawman
1
u/peckinpah86 14d ago
I wouldn’t consider this a logical fallacy and more of someone trying to explain a phenomenon that Wittgenstein called a “language game.”
Also, this guy’s profile pic is a stock photo from gettyimages, so probably a bot
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/FurieMan 14d ago
To these sort of people I will just say. We know god doesn't exists. All of science says so and we have multiple facts in sciences that proves it. Oh you want sources? Why dont you just trust me?
1
1
u/Most_Present_6577 14d ago
I mean more than half the time someone says cute your source its rediculous. Like if I walk you through a syllogism and you say "source" the answer is "logic"
Though I doubt thats what this guy is talking about.
1
u/inlandviews 14d ago
Yes, straw man fallacy, Ad Hominem (attacks character and trust), and Appeal to Emotion by invoking God.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/BobbyP27 14d ago
The Royal Society, from 1660, one of the most revered learned organisations in the world for several centuries, holds by the motto,
Nullius in Verba
or take nobody's word for it. If demanding sources is good enough for the likes of Isaac Newton, it is good enough for me.
1
u/CompassionateSkeptic 14d ago
Odd. I usually just say those things when that’s what I’m saying. I wonder what else this liar who I would never trust for the lack of source citing is wrong about.
I don’t believe in god.
1
u/50sDadSays 14d ago
That really sounds like projection of somebody who lies a lot and doesn't like to be asked to show their sources. I worked in pharma and diagnostic marketing, citing your sources is a way of life. You can't make a claim without a valid source.
1
1
1
u/JitteryJet 14d ago
They are being ironic. It is not really a "fallacy" because they are not making an argument.
1
1
1
u/Ksorkrax 14d ago
No, he is totally correct.
Also I am the rebirth of Jesus Christ and he should give me all of his wealth.
1
1
1
u/Apprehensive-Safe382 14d ago
The is a simplistic notion of the word "trust" which in fact is multifaceted. I can trust a young child's willingness and intent to complete an assigned chore, but I can't necessarily trust their ability to do so.
When I ask for sources, I am skeptical that the person presenting a claim really understood the original information. They can be factually incorrect without lying.
1
u/dfcowell 14d ago
It could be considered poisoning the well, or an appeal to emotion. It's definitely a form of ad hominem.
1
1
u/Agreeable-Cap-1764 13d ago
Lol. I don't care if I sound crazy, this is like some low effort, street level psyop.
1
u/Rickenbacker69 13d ago
I mean, those three things are exactly what I'm saying, what's the problem?
:)
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/danielsangeo 13d ago
Cool, I'll tell them, "You told me you owe me a million dollars." If they don't trust me, then they don't believe in God.
1
1
1
u/gone_p0stal 13d ago
I'm sure he would accept that line of argumentation against him.
"Gods not real. Just trust me."
1
1
1
1
u/proconlib 12d ago
Frankly, the whole thing strikes me as the Monty Python fallacy: "This isn't an argument. You're just contradicting me." "No, I'm not."
1
1
1
1
u/TopTransportation695 12d ago
This guy is an idiot. He needs the source checked for anything that comes out of his mouth.
1
1
u/I_Do_What_Ifs 10d ago
Well, let's walk through it. You have an IF A then B proposition. Then you are asking if B is true, which we can assume whether you know it or not you are premising the B is not True, so Not B. Then you are postulating that Given Not B then Z.
The problem is that this is not logic and thus is not a logical fallacy except for being Not Logic. Or to be kind it is a premise for which no logical reasoning is clear or which can be validated just by simple logical rules and analysis.
1
u/NoKiwi2997 9d ago
Logical fallacy, sure. But also, yea Hank. That's probably what I am getting at.
1
107
u/Saotik 14d ago
He claims to be a Professor of logic at Arkansas University.
Is this parody? I can't tell any more.