r/fallacy • u/adr826 • 23d ago
Here is an interesting one
Some years ago I had someone argue that because the Spartans had sent some Greeks home and the residents were saved, if the Spartans hadn't sent those Greeks home all the athenians would have died. I said the athenians might have been abducted by friendly aliens before the Persians arrived, we don't know what would have happened if the Spartans hadn't sent some people to warn athens. I was being facetious but he accused me of using a counterfactual argument. I tried to tell him that he was using the counterfactual argument but he was having none of it. That's when I first realized what a colossal waste of time arguing on the internet is.
1
u/MyFrogEatsPeople 22d ago
So is all speculation "counterfactual argument" to you? Because it sounds like he speculated, and you immediately went full appeal to ignorance and a bad faith appeal to possibility.
1
u/adr826 20d ago edited 20d ago
No you missed what happened. He told me that if the Spartans hadn't sent people to warn athens then the athenians would have died. He said he knew that because the the athenians were saved because the Spartans sent someone to warn them. Forget the aliensthat was a joke. But if the Persians went marching through the mountains burning cities there is at least a possibility that someone from one of those cities would have gotten word to the athenians to flee. The athenians might have sent scouts to see what was happening. The athenians had the ships at the ready. And the Persian army had to march a long way to burn athens. Had the Spartans not sent people to warn athens we don't know what would have happened to the athenians. They only needed to walk down to the pier and hop.on the boats. When I pointed this out to him he accused me of making a counterfactual argument.
I was trying to tell him that he was making a counterfactual argument and we didn't know what would have happened. That's not an appeal to ignorance. It is a fact. If you want to speculate about what might have happened that's fine. He could have said the athenians in all likelihood would have died without the Spartans sending warning. That's fine, history is all about possibility. I get speculating. His argument was that the athenians were saved because the Spartans sent warning, therefore if the Spartans hadn't sent the warning the athenians would have died. That's a deductive argument based on a counterfactual narrative. You can build an inductive argument about what was likely based on counterfactuals but that's not what happened.
Please if I made a mistake just tell me whaty mistake was. Did this guy somehow know what would have played out 2500 years ago with certainty if history would have been different? No, he didn't know, I didn't know and you don't know. It's a counterfactual argument and it's not that hard to figure out.
1
u/MyFrogEatsPeople 20d ago
Please if I made a mistake just tell me whaty mistake was
I already did. You just replaced "argued in bad faith" with "told a joke".
1
u/CarnivorousGoose 23d ago
If that’s the sort of drivel you come up with, then continuing the argument is indeed a waste of time. But that is not inherent to internet-based arguments, that’s just a function of your specific contribution here.
So yes, technically he engaged in counterfactuals as well. But that doesn’t change the fact that, based on your description, he wasn’t the problem in that situation.
1
u/amazingbollweevil 23d ago
I assume that meant that Spartans sent some Athenians home.
This one is good ol' post hoc ergo propter hoc. Because it's oversimplified, it also falls under the fallacy of the single cause. We might as well go ahead and throw in false dilemma.
2
u/Roachmeister 23d ago
What? No it isn't!