One of my favorite pastimes is saying
to people, “Hey, when you criticize so-and-so for X, isn’t that just like that time
you didn’t criticize a so-and-so for Y?” Philosophically, this is known as the
tu quoque fallacy, explained thusly:
“Tu quoque (Latin for "you, too" or
"you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit
the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently
in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection
applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view
based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's
inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify,
although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or
hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument.” – from Wikipedia
The thing is, when I invoke
this supposed argument, my opponent never takes the time to see whether or not
I actually disagree with their original assertion. Thing is, I always do, which
doesn’t allow the tu quoque fallacy to be invoked, not if I agree with your
original assertion. For example, when New Atheists point out that theists have
no evidence for their beliefs, I agree, but THEN point out, “Hey, as long as we’re
on the subject of having evidence for beliefs, where is your evidence for
such-and-such belief?” Predictably, my opponents are quick to utilize the tu
quoque fallacy as a means of defense – its one’s only defense when caught up in
their own bullshit. And their bullshit is usually the color of cherries,
meaning that whatever New Atheists have as evidence for any given belief that
isn’t a scientific fact is often cherry-picked…
“Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of
incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that
seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of
related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of
fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or
unintentionally. Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies. For example, the "fallacy of anecdotal
evidence" tends to overlook large
amounts of data in favor of that known personally, "selective use of
evidence" rejects material unfavorable to an argument, while a false dichotomy picks only two options when more are available.
Cherry picking can refer to the selection of data or data sets so a study
or survey will give desired, predictable results which may be
misleading or even completely contrary to actuality.” – also from Wikipedia
It
would be great if people took the time to understand their opponent’s actual
position before invoking some fallacy as a defense. Such defensiveness often
serves to show how feebly one is clinging to their argument. Like reading the
Bible, anyone can quote or invoke a fallacy defense. Why, because damn near any
statement is vulnerable to a fallacy. Even, “One plus one equals two.”
No comments:
Post a Comment