(July 7, 2012 at 6:30 am)apophenia Wrote: That being said, credibility can be a legitimate issue, so highlighting facts which place someone's credibility into doubt is not always a fallacy, just as there are legitimate uses of argument from authority. It depends on the context. (And no, I'm not going to waste my time watching a youtube video when I could be painting the forum purple with ignorant prose.)
Quite so. I should be clear on the nature of the tactic used.
It's always important to make sure your case you present is as focused and air-tight as possible, one good thing knowing about this tactic has taught me. If you make a mistake and your opponent points it out, a proverbial point for them. If the reverse happens, point for you. That's all, as you say, legit.
This is similar to the ad hoc hypothesis, correlation and causation, or even at times the slippery slope. These things might have legitimate application in debates (sometimes its worth considering that contrary evidence might be explained away by a hypothesis, that there really is causation behind correlation, or that one thing might lead to another). These things become fallacies when they are abused to defend a preconception rather than get to the truth of the matter.
The abuse I'm talking about here with the tactic involves:
1. Refusal to discuss any of the main points (this is primarily an avoidance tactic)
2. Obsession over created side issue that has nothing to do with debate (example: is the fact that AronRa got the guy's name wrong really important to the topic of Christianity). If the mistake in question can be removed without compromising the argument, focusing on it is harping.
3. Ignore any apologies or retractions (Aron in the quoted video corrected himself)
4. Summarily dismiss your opponent without addressing the argument by the spurious assumption that compromised credibility means the argument must automatically be wrong. This is the same reason why ad hominem is a fallacy (it's OK to call your opponent and idiot; it's OK to discredit your opponent as an idiot; it's not OK to ignore the arguments and just use the attacks on your opponents credibility as a substitute for addressing the argument).
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
