Unnamed(?) logical fallacies

[MrBogosity]

Thinking about it, I think the Open-Minded Fallacy is related to the Fallacy of Grey: they're trying to put all possibilities on an even footing when they just aren't.

[dallen68]

Thinking about it, I think the Open-Minded Fallacy is related to the Fallacy of Grey: they're trying to put all possibilities on an even footing when they just aren't.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Open_mind

Para. A is the most useful in this context.

[Altimadark]

Man Behind the Curtain Fallacy

I'm just doing this to add to the Wizard of Oz aesthetic (so really, for no good reason at all). Creating a "Man Behind the Curtain" is when one attributes X to the person they're arguing against in order to discredit them, when they have no proof of it, or especially when it's not true. They're acting as though they're unveiling your true self, like they're Toto sniffing out the real Wizard of Oz.

Bonus bogons if they treat a denial as an affirmation, as though you were telling them not to pay attention to their Man Behind the Curtain.

Examples:

The government tried regulating the economy, and things only got worse. The last thing we need is more government regulation.
You're just a dumb teenager; you don't know anything about the real world.

For every horrible thing the War on Drugs has caused, the the country's addiction rate is no lower than when it started. The War on Drugs needs to end.
You're just a brain-dead pothead.
Actually, the only drug I've ever taken is caffeine, from coffee and the like.
Yeah, not counting all that weed you've been smoking.

Thoughts?

[Travis Retriever]

Man Behind the Curtain Fallacy

I'm just doing this to add to the Wizard of Oz aesthetic (so really, for no good reason at all). Creating a "Man Behind the Curtain" is when one attributes X to the person they're arguing against in order to discredit them, when they have no proof of it, or especially when it's not true. They're acting as though they're unveiling your true self, like they're Toto sniffing out the real Wizard of Oz.

Bonus bogons if they treat a denial as an affirmation, as though you were telling them not to pay attention to their Man Behind the Curtain.

Examples:

The government tried regulating the economy, and things only got worse. The last thing we need is more government regulation.
You're just a dumb teenager; you don't know anything about the real world.

For every horrible thing the War on Drugs has caused, the the country's addiction rate is no lower than when it started. The War on Drugs needs to end.
You're just a brain-dead pothead.
Actually, the only drug I've ever taken is caffeine, from coffee and the like.
Yeah, not counting all that weed you've been smoking.

Thoughts?

Sounds like ad hominem imho.

[MrBogosity]

Man Behind the Curtain Fallacy

I'm just doing this to add to the Wizard of Oz aesthetic (so really, for no good reason at all). Creating a "Man Behind the Curtain" is when one attributes X to the person they're arguing against in order to discredit them, when they have no proof of it, or especially when it's not true. They're acting as though they're unveiling your true self, like they're Toto sniffing out the real Wizard of Oz.

Bonus bogons if they treat a denial as an affirmation, as though you were telling them not to pay attention to their Man Behind the Curtain.

Examples:

The government tried regulating the economy, and things only got worse. The last thing we need is more government regulation.
You're just a dumb teenager; you don't know anything about the real world.

For every horrible thing the War on Drugs has caused, the the country's addiction rate is no lower than when it started. The War on Drugs needs to end.
You're just a brain-dead pothead.
Actually, the only drug I've ever taken is caffeine, from coffee and the like.
Yeah, not counting all that weed you've been smoking.

Thoughts?

That's just a straight-up ad hominem.

[Altimadark]

That's just a straight-up ad hominem.

Ah, nuts.

I guess it's like the guy said, some days you're the cat, and some days you're the cheese.

[Wroclaw]

I'm not sure if this is included in the fallacy list yet, but what about an appeal to compromise? For example:

"Creationists think the Earth is around 6000 years old, while scientists think the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. 
Both groups argue passionately that they are correct, so the age of the Earth must be in the millions of years."
     OR
"Some of us want to fund NASA's billion dollar space expedition, and some of us don't.  If we all contribute NASA would have enough.
The best option is to have us all contribute toward sending NASA a fraction of the amount they would need."

In spite of the arguments and evidence either side would bring forward, there is an attempt to make both groups happy by appealing to the middle ground between two extremes as a better answer, which in many cases makes no sense.  Although yes/no questions may be oversimplified, there is no room for compromise between a YES and a NO.

[dallen68]

I'm not sure if this is included in the fallacy list yet, but what about an appeal to compromise? For example:

"Creationists think the Earth is around 6000 years old, while scientists think the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. 
Both groups argue passionately that they are correct, so the age of the Earth must be in the millions of years."
     OR
"Some of us want to fund NASA's billion dollar space expedition, and some of us don't.  If we all contribute NASA would have enough.
The best option is to have us all contribute toward sending NASA a fraction of the amount they would need."

In spite of the arguments and evidence either side would bring forward, there is an attempt to make both groups happy by appealing to the middle ground between two extremes as a better answer, which in many cases makes no sense.  Although yes/no questions may be oversimplified, there is no room for compromise between a YES and a NO.

That would be the fallacy of the false middle.

[Travis Retriever]

That would be the fallacy of the false middle.

Yup.  AKA, the golden mean fallacy.

[Wroclaw]

Never mind - I just found where it was mentioned on the Wikipedia logical fallacy list (which is actually pretty expansive).  A lot of logical fallacies are also fallacies in the inverse form - for example, the appeal to wealth and the appeal to poverty.  Is there a fallacy that says that there can be no compromise on a serious issue?

EDIT - yes, the false dilemma.

[dallen68]

EDIT - yes, the false dilemma.

Actually, the false dilemma, or dichotomy, is when you're given a choice of A and B or Yes and NO, etc, when in reality there are a range of possible answers. This is the opposite situation than you were describing.

I've actually begun to notice that a lot about fallacies: very often, the opposite of a fallacy is a fallacy. In this case the opposite of a false dilemma is the false middle, where one says there's only two possible answers, when there are many; while the other says there's many possible answers, when there are two. I suspect the trick is to recognize the difference.

[Wroclaw]

I thought that was what I said in my last post; sorry if there was any confusion with my wording, but I was describing the false dilemma in the last sentence (ex. limiting options to A and B, whether or not option C would have been a compromise).   I already said that fallacies come in opposite pairs and that the opposite of the golden mean fallacy is the false dilemma.

[Travis Retriever]

Okay, this might be off topic, but I'd like to add a fallacy that near as I can tell, isn't a fallacy; or at least doesn't need its own name.

The Slippery Slope:
"The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

1) Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2) Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another. "-- http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

For example, some in the comments of Shane's videos argue that "government growth causes more government growth" is a slippery slope fallacy, despite it continually happening, and there being a mechanism for it.  Hell, one of their OWN examples on college tuition is actually damn near on its way should the college loan bullshit from govco continue.  Hell, the bit with the military IS WHAT ALREADY FUCKING HAPPENED!  Same with the one on banning pornography and them increasing the laws and shit there, like charging teens with felonies of taking nude pictures *OF THEMSELVES* and posting them.  Are you fucking kidding me?  Government grows, OP.  Accept it and move on.
Some could argue "but it's only the case if there is no evidence for the second part happening!"  Then call it what it is:  Bald assertions/assertions absent evidence; or, a non-sequitor.  Simple, no?

[dallen68]

Okay, this might be off topic, but I'd like to add a fallacy that near as I can tell, isn't a fallacy; or at least doesn't need its own name.

The Slippery Slope:
"The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

1) Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2) Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another. "-- http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

The way I understand it, the fallacy is in the argumentation itself, regardless of the facts. I mean if, for example, someone uses a slippery slope argument and happens to turn out to be correct, the argument itself is still a slippery slope, and needs to be rephrased. Same with any other fallacy, but I think it depends on whether it's a logical or informal fallacy.

[MrBogosity]

One thing I keep running into over and over again. I guess we could call it the Mind-Reader Fallacy, or the Omnipotence Fallacy, except I think it should have a better name (those two kind of read to me as the opposite).

Anyway, you've caught someone in a lie, and they say, "You can't know I was lying! You can't read minds!" Or they try and backpedal and say, "You don't know what I REALLY meant! You can't read minds!" Despite the fact that there are a number of ways of deducing this without having to use psychic powers.

In short, it's a way of weaseling out of problems with your argument by asserting that the other person can't know those problems are there without having an impossible ability of some kind. The creationist "You weren't there when the universe was created so you can't know!" canard comes to mind.