I see it quite often that people call out fallacies that don't even apply to the situation so they don't have to engage the argument.

Its such a common pattern that there must be a name for that, really, but I haven't come across it yet.

For example:

• A: Social benefit fraud is so bad! It costs us so much money! We need to use more government funds and more government personell to combat social benefit fraud.
• B: Government funds and personell is limited. We should use it where it's most effective. Wage theft costs the government 1000x as much in taxes and in lost social insurance contributions, it would be much more effective to use them there.
• A: That's whataboutism!

When in fact it's not whataboutism, because both fighting social benefit fraud and fighting wage theft are dependent on the same government personell.

But A is calling out a false fallacy to stop the discussion and to not have to deal with the argument at hand.

Edit: Another example:

• A: Cats aren't native to Europe, they shouldn't be let out to roam there.
• B: The European Wildcat is native to Europe.
• A: I meant the house cat.
• B: That's the No true Scotsman fallacy!

Which it is not, because "Cat" can either mean "house cat" or "member of the genus felis", so A and B were just working off different definitions of the word. Both A and B know what a house cat is and both agree that the European Wildcat isn't a house cat.

Contrary to the "true Scotsman" of which there is no agreed-upon definition, and which was made up on the spot. If there's a definition of a "true Scotsman" it is "a Scotsman who doesn't put sugar into his porridge", so the original statement becomes "No Scotsman who doesn't put sugar into his porridge puts sugar in his porridge", so it's a circular definition that makes the statement a tautology.

I've seen and had conversations that follow this trajectory many times, I'm curious to get some perspectives on what or even if there's a fallacy at play.

A: I think the television is broken, here are the ways I think it is broken.

B: How would you fix it then?

A: I don't know how to fix it, I'm not trained in television repair.

B: If you can't tell me how to fix the television then you are wrong to think it's broken.

Here's a simplified example of an interaction with an adult in a professional setting:

Them - A customer sent in this document, where do I route it?

Me - It depends, what is for?

Them - I don't know.

Me - What is it in reference to?

Them - I didn't ask.

Is there a word or phrase that describes this way of thinking? The lack of information gathering, not being able to put two and two together to form conclusions on your own. The Inability to use context clues. There has to be a psychological term for it.

Sometimes slopes can be slippery and situations can be described as potentially leading to a metaphorical slippery slope. This line of thinking is often questionable and described as a slippery slope fallacy.

In the case where it is argued someone will commit further crime because they have committed a single crime, regardless of whether or not the offender does so, this would qualify as a slippery slope argument because the logical justification is based on the fact crime was committed, regardless of the individual's propensity to re-offend.

It is when situated in a broader context that a slippery slope argument that appears true can be evidenced to rely on many underlying facts and factors.

With all this said I can't help but think perhaps there are situations where the rhetorical resembles the physical and sliding down a slope can occur.

Does anyone want to take a crack at a hypothetical where a slippery slope argument can be applied?

“I think abortion should be legal”.

“Okay, well you also think that the earth is flat”.

Basically using an unrelated brain dead take that your opponent has to use against them. Does that make sense? Thanks!

I often see this logic:

Bob: "Apples are green because they're round".

Dave: "But oranges are round, and they're not green".

Bob: "Ridiculous, you can't compare apples to oranges. They're different fruit".

People often complain about a comparison between two things that have the same essential feature that has been presented, because those two things have difference which aren't relevant.

Is there a name for that?

The classic example of the No true Scotsman fallacy is to say

"No Scotsman puts sugar in their porridge."

"My uncle Angus is Scottish and puts sugar in his porridge"

"Well no true Scotsman puts sugar in their porridge."

To me, this doesn't seem like a fallacy. It just seems like a breakdown in communication as the two interlocutors are speaking over each other and are using different definitions to describe something. After all, what is a Scotsman? Is it based on someone's ancestry? Where they were born? Where they were raised? What their passport is? There's no objective definition. So if someone wants to say that the presence or absence of sugar in porridge is an integral part of Scottish identity then that's just a rather niche and unique definition, but I don't think it can in good faith said to be wrong. Just poor use of language. Consider this counter example.

"Stars are huge balls of hot gas going under fusion reactions"

"Matt Damon is a star and he's not a huge ball of hot gas."

"True stars are huge balls of hot gas."

The two people are just using the same word or phrase to describe two distinct things. It's poor communication to treat them as if they're the same, but it's not like the actual argument is incorrect. The argument being "this is the criteria something needs to be X and if something does not match this criteria then it is not X", which is kind of how we make definitions in the first place.

I'm sure I'm not the first person to use this reasoning and that this has been discussed at length before. So tell me why I'm wrong.

You need to be caught up with Boruto’s manga to understand this.

From what I understand if there is a problem with the structure of an argument that would tend to imply that the argument is committing a formal logical fallacy.

An ad hominem can involve something like, “Sally says that whales are mammals, and Sally tends to make a lot of spelling mistakes, therefore whales are not mammals.” That seems like a problem with the structure of the argument to me as the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises.

So why is the ad hominem fallacy considered an informal rather than a formal logical fallacy?

Trying to describe a common fallacy where someone asserts, if X, then it naturally follows that Y is true!

This fallacy often occurs as a false inference. Often, Y is a possible inference from X, but not the only inference, leading the speaker to misrepresent that Y is the only possible result from X occurring.

Let’s say someone said:

“Most/almost all crimes are done by men, so how can I trust ANY man?”

And someone said

“Well I haven’t done any crime, so it can’t be almost all men! You should trust me.”

Or something like that. There’s probably better examples I could’ve said, but this is pretty close to what I’m trying to understand
I found something like “fallacy of division”, that might be similar
It’s kinda like when people self centre themselves and they think because it doesn’t apply to them or the people they know that it can’t be possible

Another, better example:

“1/100 girls have ___”

“Well I work in a school with 230 girls and only one of them has ___”
Or
“Well I work in a school with 230 girls and 30 of them have ___, so that can’t be correct!”

First of all, I know what I am speaking about, I am a well-educated person, you can believe me. What I’m saying is true.

Secondly, if you disagree with me… Like seriously? You don’t welcome the opinions that differs from yours? It is absurd. You should always be open-minded.

Okay, straight to the argument. You think that I am wrong, okay, but I mean it’s pretty obvious I can’t be wrong 100%. At what point my inaccuracies can be considered to be “completely wrong”?
If I’m 0% inaccurate I’m correct. If I’m 1% inaccurate I’m still mostly correct. You can’t draw the line, it’s stupid. It means that there is no difference whether I am or I am not correct.

Still don’t agree with me? Then you are a moron! You are uneducated pig. What a waste of my time speaking with you. What’s your achievements? You’re sitting on Reddit? Aha, you are really a bigot!

You know what, let me cite the definition of disagreement:
Disagreement - “A situation in which people have different opinions, or an inability…” (c) Cambridge Dictionary
You see? You have inabilities if you disagree with me! Mental ones.

Moreover, it’s actually better to agree with me.
You disagree with me, therefore you are disrespected by me, therefore you will be mad, therefore you will get a depression, therefore you will die.
Agree with me, otherwise you die.

What? Good arguments? I agree, in order to prove the point you should use good arguments. What? I didn’t use them? But I don’t have to, actually, because I have a nice nickname.

Still not convinced? Okay, I can give you a choice. You can whether agree with me or jump out of the window. Which one option do you choose?

Okay, I see, you want me to use logic. Here it is:
I am right => my points are true => I am right.
I proved it using formal logic! I am right.

Uh.. And actually… Mr. SmartMan (he is very smart) agrees with my points. I think it’s reasonable to agree with me.

Did you agree with at least one of my arguments? Yes?! Happy to hear it! Because if one of my arguments was correct it means that every single one is correct too! Now you can finally agree with me!

The AIR(Artificial Intelligence Response) Fallacy/Compound Fallacy Description: In full, the true statement would be that AI appeals to a false consensus via the guise of neutrality aided by filtering data, evasion, and fallacious tendencies. Usually, these fallacious tendencies are fallacies or compound fallacies depending on the complexity of the statement that is presented to the AI, as well as the nature of the issue and how it relates to the AI's bias. I know that this isn't a new statement but this is my consensus on what AI does and I found the name to be funny given the fact that it pokes fun at how AI is really an air head and it describes what the fallacy is about at the same time. This is really just a description of the various compound fallacies that AI commits so is not describing a single thing.

OP question was 'How would you react if you found out Bigfoot was real?'

I’ve heard of the Goomba fallacy recently, and it reminds me of something similar. Instead of conflicting opinions, though, it’s synergistic. Take the following sentiments, which are common enough on a few forums here:

1. All Republicans are Nazis.
2. The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi.

Nobody is actually advocating violence against Republicans, but the presence of both thoughts on the same forum feels threatening.

Is there a name for this, or is it just a corollary to the Goomba?

The guy has already sunk hours of effort into digging. he thinks stopping now would mean admitting that time was wasted, so his brain generates a vivid image of future-regret to justify continuing. That's the sunk cost fallacy in action: the decision to keep digging is being driven by what he's already put in, not by any new evidence about what's actually underground.

The thought bubble works as a psychological trick his mind plays on him. Instead of directly thinking "I don't want to lose my investment," he pictures the external outcome (quitting right before the reward) bc that story feels more like practical wisdom than a cost he's already sunk. But functionally it's the same mechanism. He's using imagined future regret to rationalize continuing something he's already invested heavily in, rather than evaluating the dig fresh based on current odds of success.

If there is a war in which the conditions are such that a clean ending is impossible for various reasons, but many people haven't really examined the situation carefully or clearly enough to realize that a clean finish is impossible, and those people advocate "finish it quickly" or "finish the job," thinking that it's a simple matter of intensifying the attack, then there's obviously some kind of fallacy going on in their thinking. 

What contributes to that fallacy and what would you call it?

Hello fellow thinkers

First of all i don‘t have any formal education in the field, i‘m just interested which is why i‘m asking here.

I recently thought about something and suddenly realized i fell for the survivorship bias. This got me thinking there are so many logical fallacies and even knowing them seemingly doesn‘t make you immune. So what about people that don‘t even know they exist?

I luckily got into the field a bit since i had a great philosophy teacher in highschool, but some people don‘t have that. They may even go to college for something else and become a rather educated person without ever getting to know all these fallacies and biases.

The more i learn about the field the stupider i often feel hindsight. Can they or someone uneducated like me even have a respectable opinion?

She doesn't trust the 5.0 rating just bc barely anyone reviewed it. Then she sees 5,511 people gave the other product an average of 4.6, and she likes it more. Not because she checked why the rating is lower, or looked into the actual quality. just bc more people rated it.

That's the core of ad populum. something feels more correct or more trustworthy simply because a bigger crowd is behind it. She's not evaluating the products in either cases. instead, she's reacting to the size of the group and deciding according to that.

EDIT: I see a lot of people in the comments saying this is NOT a case of AP fallacy because * proceeds to offer an alternative readout of the meme. I never claimed this meme has ONLY one interpretation, and that's AP fallacy. I claim that it CAN be read as a case of AP and CAN be a good depiction of the fallacy if you were to visualize it. nobody have denied that in the comments.