Hey hey! I want to talk to again you about logical fallacies! There are oh so many and I’d like to go over them. We are now on to part 9 of my series on Steem & Minds and now a few others including here. In this series, we are only covering the actual fallacies and what they are, not the application of them or anything outside of the basics.
Remember for your argument to be logical, THOU MUST NOT COMMIT LOGICAL FALLACIES! Instead of just pointlessly copying and pasting, I will describe these in my own words for you, if that isn’t your thing, check out the bottom for references. Otherwise, kindly read on…
Some of these are very specific and or very informal fallacies, nevertheless, let’s dive in!
The Eschatological Fallacy
This is a very simple one, essentially it’s claiming the world is going to end as a valid argument for their claim. You saw this in many scams in the past with people saying the world was going to end and to give them your money to help protect you. I wouldn’t be surprised if this still happens, but I’m sure the average person would call this out anyway, this is just the label.
This is the fallacy that there is some special knowledge that only people with the proper clearance are allowed to view it and these are holy, enlightened, religious people typically. Usually they claim the masses wouldn’t understand or don’t deserve to. In some ways we see this a lot, but if someone argues secret knowledge against you they claim to have access to and cannot prove to you because you wouldn’t understand, that is fallacious. The opposite is obscurantism.
As the opposite of esoteric knowledge this is where someone claims we should never seek to know more about certain things. If science perhaps violates a religion’s beliefs they may say that it is sinful and evil and we must not investigate it. So rather than knowing it and witholding it, this is more about preventing the knowledge from being obtained at all by anyone.
This is an interesting one you may see more. This is where someone says “it is what it is” and maybe that whatever it happens to be will never change. This also refers to when someone generalizes saying “by nature” at the end of a claim. The opposite it the next fallacy.
Another great one which is basically a more passive version of cognitive dissonance in the form of an argument. You disagree with any standpoint that could conflict with yours where you passively relativize everything. You might say “well that’s your opinion, but everything is relative”, ignoring someone”, “it all depends”, “that’s just one opinion”, and other phrases and actions like these are attempts to passively refute a claim without making an argument. There is a difference between not wanting to argue anymore and simply claiming they are wrong because you want to be right. You’ll see this a lot today.
Check out these 2 resources I like to use and often refer to:
If you love philosophy as much as I do, feel free to give me a thumbs up and share your thoughts.
If you want to make sure people aren’t committing logical fallacies be sure to REMIND them!
You can also follow me on:
Twitter – https://twitter.com/Scottcbusiness
Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/ScottCBusiness
Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/scottcbusiness
LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/in/scottcbusiness
Steemit – https://steemit.com/@scottcbusiness
Whaleshares – https://whaleshares.io/@scottcbusiness
Discord – ScottCBusiness#5242
Lit – @scottcbusiness