Question

...
Daniel

X turned out to be true

Just wondering if this is considered a fallacy and if so, what to call it.

'A is true.'

'A is ludicrous and unbelievable.'

'Well X seemed ludicrous and unbelievable and it turned out to be true.'

asked on Saturday, Sep 05, 2020 03:34:44 PM by Daniel

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Jim Cliff
1

I'd say this is a version of the galileo fallacy - in that one, "Everyone thought Galileo was wrong too, but he turned out to be right" is used as justification for believing someone spouting any old nonsense.

The rebuttal to this is that while there may be a few examples of things which seemed ludicrous turning out to be true, the vast majority of ludicrous seeming things were not true.

answered on Saturday, Sep 05, 2020 04:33:55 PM by Jim Cliff

Jim Cliff Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
mchasewalker
0

Basically, without knowing the veracity (or evidence) supporting either claim, pro or against, we only have a set of opinions.

By bringing X into the dispute without knowing its relevance to the argument we're dealing with an Ad hoc rescue:

Claim X is true because of evidence Y.

Evidence Y is demonstrated not to be acceptable evidence.

Therefore, it must be guess Z then, even though there is no evidence for guess Z.

From Dr. Bo:

Ad Hoc Rescue
ad hoc

(also known as: making stuff up, MSU fallacy)

Description: Very often we desperately want to be right and hold on to certain beliefs, despite any evidence presented to the contrary.  As a result, we begin to make up excuses as to why our belief could still be true, and is still true, despite the fact that we have no real evidence for what we are making up.

Logical Form:

Claim X is true because of evidence Y.

Evidence Y is demonstrated not to be acceptable evidence.

Therefore, it must be guess Z then, even though there is no evidence for guess Z.

 

  

answered on Saturday, Sep 05, 2020 04:03:04 PM by mchasewalker

mchasewalker Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
DrBill
0

The two statements are merely opinions, while the third "supportive" statement might be merely an analogy, and only weak and just contentious.  At a minimum, the proponent needs to clarify the validity of the analogy.

If the only basis for supporting A is that the two (A and X) were similarly initially refuted, it is an example of non sequitur and argument from ignorance 

answered on Tuesday, Sep 08, 2020 07:56:59 AM by DrBill

DrBill Suggested These Categories

Comments