The Fallacy Fallacy

[Mister Agenda]

The fallacy fallacy itself appears to be a straw man fallacy, and is therefore a bogus argument.  It makes an assertion that logic never claimed, and then tears down logic by disputing the invented claim.

I don't think it's necessarily a straw man, just not very common. If the OP has spotted someone here claiming that a conclusion is wrong because the argument supporting it is fallacious, that person has technically committed a fallacy, though the person who is making the argument should be a good sport about it since they just made a claim without a basis. You're on awfully thin ice if you've been reduced to arguing that just because you can't make a good argument that something is true, or present evidence that it's true, doesn't mean it isn't true.

[Moralnihilist]

Allow me to provide an example of two fallacious arguments, one will be correct despite the fallacious argument, one will be incorrect because of the fallacious argument.

1. Drinking a beer is better than being shot in the head because god says so.

2. Homosexuality should be illegal because god says so.

Both arguments are wrong, however the first is correct despite being a fallacious argument. A beer is most definitely better than being shot in the head. The fallacy in the argument does not render the conclusion incorrect. In essence the argument is wrong(god never mentioned beer nor being shot), but the conclusion it reaches(living being preferred to death) is still correct.

The second argument is both incorrect and fallacious. Science has shown that homosexuality exists naturally in animals. It is a genetic issue and not one that can or should be treated as a preference and therefore illegal. This arguments conclusion is incorrect because science disproves it.

In essence if you change how #1 is argued the conclusion is correct. If you change how #2 is argued it is still incorrect.

[the_antithesis]

Who?

The idiot who's trying to use logic to show that logic has no value.

[PickelledEggs]

The idiot who's trying to use logic to show that logic has no value.

I don't think he was trying to show anything. I thought he was asking and trying to understand.

Sent from your mom

[Green Bottle]

 

 

[Jmpty]

The fallacy fallacy is a fallacy.

[Mike Cl]

But if you like fallacies, then the fallacy fallacy is a great fallacy.

[stromboli]

So the fallacy fallacy is fallacious?

[AST111213]

I would say that logic and reason presuppose God. You cannot reason apart from God. Don't believe me? Give it a try and I will respond and expose the folly of your worldview.

[Hydra009]

I would say that logic and reason presuppose God. You cannot reason apart from God. Don't believe me? Give it a try and I will respond and expose the folly of your worldview.

I'm almost certainly responding to a troll post, but here goes:

P1) A > B
P2) B > C
Conclusion: C < A

Note the lack of a God or Gods.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Hi, atheistslayer. How ya been?

[stromboli]

[Berati]

I would say that logic and reason presuppose God. You cannot reason apart from God. Don't believe me? Give it a try and I will respond and expose the folly of your worldview.

I would say that you are assuming your conclusion.

So the fallacy fallacy is fallacious?

No, it’s correct. It’s just pointing out yet another in a long list of logical fallacies.  All it’s saying is that you can be right for the wrong reason.
For instance you can find someone guilty based on a fallacy, (foe example an appeal to probability) and yet he is still guilty.
So if someone says that your fallacy has proven that the guy is innocent. They have made a fallacy fallacy.

Along this line one that bugs me often is "correlation is not causation"
While it's true that correlation is not causation, I routinely see people discard correlation as any evidence at all because it's cited as a fallacy. However, it is evidence, just not conclusive evidence.