Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: 22nd November 2017, 03:33

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
AF Hall of Fallacies
RE: AF Hall of Fallacies
(4th January 2017, 02:03)robvalue Wrote: There is a name for this kind of technique, where you bombard someone with so much crap that they can't respond to it all and end up overwhelmed: "Gish gallop". The person's confusion and inability to address it all is taken as victory.

It's often employed by scummy money making apologists like Ray Comfort.

I heard about that, except it wouldn't revolve around questions, just basically unwarranted assumptions. Basically like someone who was invited to a party inviting a bunch of their friends who weren't invited and aren't welcome but they barge in anyway. I guess it's too similar to other fallacies to have its own name, but I feel like it should be under a specific label even if I can't put my finger on it.
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?

---

There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
Reply
RE: AF Hall of Fallacies
It's sort of a slippery slope fallacy I guess, as well. If this is true, then this other thing which is a bit like it is also true, and then this other thing is also true and...
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
RE: AF Hall of Fallacies
(4th January 2017, 02:08)robvalue Wrote: It's sort of a slippery slope fallacy I guess, as well. If this is true, then this other thing which is a bit like it is also true, and then this other thing is also true and...

Huh. I thought slippery slopes were used in a different context, but I can see how that would make sense. The minute you let one little point into a category that is favorable to them, it opens the floodgate to all the other bullshit they want to ascribe to it arbitrarily. Actually that sounds more like "Give them and inch and they take a mile". But that's not exactly a fallacy, more like a cliche. Or is there a fallacy that covers that idea?
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?

---

There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
Reply
RE: AF Hall of Fallacies
Exactly, yeah. I can't think of a specific name for that. It's one of a number of dishonest techniques.

Like Thump said, it's a string of non sequiturs.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
RE: AF Hall of Fallacies
(4th January 2017, 02:18)robvalue Wrote: Exactly, yeah. I can't think of a specific name for that. It's one of a number of dishonest techniques.

Like Thump said, it's a string of non sequiturs.

You know, I've really got to start talking with some more of my friends who are interested in reforming the English language to accommodate the evolution of words. We can invent new ones for things like that, and what with new gender identity terms and such, there's room for new words in other contexts too. Personally I'm more interested in reforming the standard English alphabet, and giving each sound its own character, and getting rid of some of the unnecessary things like C, which can easily be replaced by 'S' and 'K'. But that's kind of off-topic. Still, it would be nice if this particular set of fallacious add-ons had a formal name, possibly even if there are certain specific variations of it. Like if you're just trying to sneak one extra caveat in, or if you shoehorn several. And if they're at least closely related or completely disconnected non-sequiturs.
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?

---

There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
Reply
RE: AF Hall of Fallacies
(4th January 2017, 02:08)robvalue Wrote: It's sort of a slippery slope fallacy I guess, as well. If this is true, then this other thing which is a bit like it is also true, and then this other thing is also true and...

The way I learnt of the Gish Gallop, many years ago, is that it is a bombardment of questions, one after the other, giving one no time to answer one question in particular because each have complex answer. In that sense, it's a rhetorical device used to shut down conversation by shoveling on so many assumptions that unraveling them takes so much time that the audience does of boredom, losing sight of the original point: "Aha, but you didn't answer this, therefore I'm right!" is the explicit or assumed conclusion.

(4th January 2017, 02:35)Astonished Wrote:
(4th January 2017, 02:18)robvalue Wrote: Exactly, yeah. I can't think of a specific name for that. It's one of a number of dishonest techniques.

Like Thump said, it's a string of non sequiturs.

You know, I've really got to start talking with some more of my friends who are interested in reforming the English language to accommodate the evolution of words. We can invent new ones for things like that, and what with new gender identity terms and such, there's room for new words in other contexts too. Personally I'm more interested in reforming the standard English alphabet, and giving each sound its own character, and getting rid of some of the unnecessary things like C, which can easily be replaced by 'S' and 'K'. But that's kind of off-topic. Still, it would be nice if this particular set of fallacious add-ons had a formal name, possibly even if there are certain specific variations of it. Like if you're just trying to sneak one extra caveat in, or if you shoehorn several. And if they're at least closely related or completely disconnected non-sequiturs.

The beauty of the English language is that it is so malleable. "Gish Gallop" is an example, recruiting the metaphor of a horse at full speed to describe a barrage of questions launched so quickly that invariably one or more gets missed, launching the "Aha!" phase.
Those who see only what they wish to see are doomed to rot in the stink of their own perceptions. -- Frank Herbert
Reply
RE: AF Hall of Fallacies
It's often equivocating two vague definitions of the word "God".

So I'd say it's the equivocation fallacy. It's also a non-sequitur because technically every single fallacy involves non-sequiturs.

I think.
We do not change our minds. Our minds change us.
Reply
RE: AF Hall of Fallacies
Are formal fallacies -are- non sequiturs.  That which does not follow.
Eat em up beat em up then switch sides.


Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Logic Fallacies: A Quiz to Test Your Knowledge, A Cheat Sheet to Refresh It Rhondazvous 0 351 6th March 2017, 18:48
Last Post: Rhondazvous
  All Logical Fallacies Heat 20 1152 3rd April 2016, 10:45
Last Post: robvalue
  Flashy site for logical fallacies. Tiberius 12 3535 27th August 2012, 05:07
Last Post: Tempus
  Logical Fallacies Chris.Roth 45 13022 8th July 2012, 09:03
Last Post: dean211284
  Common Apologist Fallacies DeistPaladin 20 8048 9th July 2011, 18:56
Last Post: DeistPaladin



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)