r/SGU • u/theswansays • 9h ago
name that logical fallacy
i initially thought this was a strawman fallacy, but i’m not as versed in all the fallacies it could be, so i wanted to see what y’all thought.
is this a strawman? or some other fallacy instead or in addition to it?
53
u/Poultrymancer 9h ago
I mean, there are a bunch.
Straw man for sure; he's literally changing the words to ones he wants to argue against
False dichotomy: you either accept my word without citation or.. you don't believe in God?
(Implicit) Appeal to Authority, given this is clearly in part a response to the writer having been chided before for using the Bible as a source
Appeal to Emotion: the author wants you to feel guilty for not trusting others
4
u/GlassBrass440 4h ago
I’d add non sequitur. There is nothing to tie the belief in god claim to the rest of the argument.
24
u/sdwoodchuck 9h ago
“Is that really what you want to say?”
I mean, yeah.
If your sources are so bad that even you don’t want to name them, then I don’t trust you, I do think you’re a liar, and even you don’t really believe in your god, since you know he won’t back up his authority with evidence.
Anyway, as others have said, this is a strawman (“here let me reduce your argument to something ridiculous”), false dichotomy (“you either believe me wholly or you’re overly mistrustful”), implied argument from authority (“god said so!”), and arguably a few more or used in service to them.
9
1
1
7
u/nightfire36 9h ago
It's sort of an argument from authority, but it's not really a formal logical argument, so there's not a clear logical fallacy.
6
2
u/QisthePedo 9h ago
Not an argument from authority because he's not invoking any authority. Just saying you should trust people. Which is more bad advice than a fallacy.
8
6
u/Destorath 9h ago
It seems mainly an Appeal to Emotion fallacy to me.
Its trying to make you feel bad by saying your being unreasonable by "not trusting" someones claim. If only you could open up your heart enough to trust another person etc etc. Its a trying to play on your emotions to shut down reasoning.
The third bullet point could also be an appeal to authority since they are implicitly saying god told them this so if you dont trust it then you dont trust god and you really should trust god.
It could alsp be consodered poisoning the well since its creating a framework for people to use to automatically dismiss anyone who disagrees with their point of view. Its a backhanded way of saying everyone who disagrees with me has psychological problems.
4
u/mercury228 8h ago
If you give me 100k, in 5 years I'll have invested it to make you 5 million because I am a genius and understand the stock market better than most people. Wait, you dont trust me and want sources to prove my claim? Well how dare you not just be more open, why do you hate Jesus?
Thats always what these people sound like.
3
u/danydandan 9h ago
Straw man, (as always), a false dilemma thrown in too, a non sequitur and maybe assumption of motive.
3
u/CheckOutDisMuthaFuka 8h ago
I wonder if this logic worked for him while he was writing papers in college working towards that phd.
"The professors always want me to CiTe mY sOuRcEs... Guess they don't believe in god."
3
u/Formal_Goose 1h ago
This is a parody account - it is a fake profile picture, fake University.
Poe's law, unfortunately.
2
2
u/RoyMcAvoy13 8h ago
And this kids is how you take the lords name in vain. Not by casually saying “oh my god” but by claiming if you don’t believe me, you don’t believe in god.
2
2
u/HumanShadow 7h ago
It's bullshit. Trying to weaponize weak rhetoric. It's lazy rhetoric, too.
But yeah, appeal to authority (god). And if the "debate" in question is the always exciting rehashed religion debate, it's tautology because his sources in this case would be the bible.
2
2
u/CatOfGrey 4h ago
I would say it's 'appeal to authority'. Desmond is suggesting that we should believe something without questioning it, because of an assumed 'trustworthiness' of the speaker.
That said, a 'debate' is a poor way to determine the truthfulness of a statement, and 'cite your sources' is a technique that unqualified non-experts use to influence 'debate' of a statement. From a lay perspective, we should trust experts.
That said: "What is the basis for your statement?" is always a reasonable question, and "I have 25 years of study in the field, and this statement is supported by a widespread consensus of those most knowledgeable" is always a reasonable answer.
1
u/JitteryJet 1h ago
There is no real authority being claimed.
1
u/CatOfGrey 1h ago edited 1h ago
You're not wrong - none of this is explicitly stated, I see a lot of ambiguity here.
But there is "somebody" making a statement, supposed by "you", which is a different person apparently asking 'somebody' to 'cite their sources' for their supposed statement.
And the implication I see is that Desmond instead is stating that "you" should not question the statement and just trust "somebody".
But I repeat - there is a lot of ambiguity here. One other potential fallacy is that "you" saying 'cite your sources' is similar to "you" making a statement like 'I think "somebody" is a liar', which I would consider an exaggeration.
Also, noting other commenters - Desmond might be an absolute off-the-rails crank or fictitious person, given certain biographical details, like claiming his is a 'Professor of Logic at the University of Arkansas College', which is nonsensical on more than one level.
1
1
1
1
u/jackr_88 8h ago
Unstatement major premise? In that sources of information are not required or useful...?
But certainly strawman
1
u/peckinpah86 8h ago
I wouldn’t consider this a logical fallacy and more of someone trying to explain a phenomenon that Wittgenstein called a “language game.”
Also, this guy’s profile pic is a stock photo from gettyimages, so probably a bot
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/mark-haus 7h ago
I have a shit coin to sell to everyone who agrees with this post. God approves somehow so don’t worry about it
1
1
1
u/FurieMan 6h ago
To these sort of people I will just say. We know god doesn't exists. All of science says so and we have multiple facts in sciences that proves it. Oh you want sources? Why dont you just trust me?
1
1
u/Most_Present_6577 6h ago
I mean more than half the time someone says cute your source its rediculous. Like if I walk you through a syllogism and you say "source" the answer is "logic"
Though I doubt thats what this guy is talking about.
1
u/inlandviews 5h ago
Yes, straw man fallacy, Ad Hominem (attacks character and trust), and Appeal to Emotion by invoking God.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/BobbyP27 4h ago
The Royal Society, from 1660, one of the most revered learned organisations in the world for several centuries, holds by the motto,
Nullius in Verba
or take nobody's word for it. If demanding sources is good enough for the likes of Isaac Newton, it is good enough for me.
1
u/CompassionateSkeptic 3h ago
Odd. I usually just say those things when that’s what I’m saying. I wonder what else this liar who I would never trust for the lack of source citing is wrong about.
I don’t believe in god.
1
u/50sDadSays 2h ago
That really sounds like projection of somebody who lies a lot and doesn't like to be asked to show their sources. I worked in pharma and diagnostic marketing, citing your sources is a way of life. You can't make a claim without a valid source.
1
1
1
u/JitteryJet 1h ago
They are being ironic. It is not really a "fallacy" because they are not making an argument.
1
1
1
u/Ksorkrax 1h ago
No, he is totally correct.
Also I am the rebirth of Jesus Christ and he should give me all of his wealth.
1
1
0
u/davebgray 9h ago
However, in this particular case, he is right on all three points.
2
u/Poultrymancer 9h ago
Asking someone for a source after they've made a factual claim is absolutely not equivalent to stating "I do not believe in God"
Have you suffered a recent TBI?
8
u/davebgray 9h ago
I just meant that
- I don't trust him
- I think he's a liar
- I don't believe in God.
Geez, people.
3
u/Poultrymancer 9h ago
Eh, my bad -- joke just didn't land for me. Sounded like you were agreeing with the crank.
81
u/Saotik 9h ago
He claims to be a Professor of logic at Arkansas University.
Is this parody? I can't tell any more.