We must be sure, when debating a fallacious mind, to not reject a person's conclusion just because he or she uses fallacies in his or her arguments. Fallacies inescapably invalidate arguments for conclusions, but do not prove that the conclusions themselves are also false. What's the difference here?
If someone were to say that 1) chairs have four legs, 2) glass can be transparent, and 3) therefore the universe began to exist, the structure of the argument is nonsense. Premises one and two are red herrings to the conclusion, and the conclusion does not follow from the premises in any way. Yet the conclusion is still true despite the fallacies in the argument! Similarly, a claim about history, science, or metaphysics might be true even if an argument used in an attempt to affirm it is extremely unsound.
The fallacy fallacy is the name of the fallacy that appears when people reject a conclusion because of flaws in an argument used to reach it. It is, like many fallacies, a type of non sequitur [1], since it does not follow from fallacies appearing in an argument that the conclusion is by necessity also untrue. Thoroughly rational people will not dismiss a claim just because its defenders cling to erroneous premises. Instead, they will recognize that it could be true, despite the stupidity of the argument or the one making the argument, and will either remain agnostic about it unless proof is discovered or will verify or falsify it on their own.
Yes, some people are so stupid that when they are right they are often only right by accident, by happenstance, not by accurate reasoning. But rational people will realize that their stupidity does not mean that their conclusions are necessarily false, even if their premises and arguments are total shit. The fallacy fallacy will be avoided by thorough critical thinkers.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-non-sequitur-fallacy.html
No comments:
Post a Comment