Question

...
Kyle Larsen

What logical fallacy is this?

Memory experts are quick to point out that memory is constructed and it changes over time. Curiously, those who cover memory researchers rarely, if ever, pause to ask whether professors describing their own research might reconstruct their “findings” over time.

– Ross Cheit, defending recovered memory therapy.

Answer

asked on Monday, Nov 11, 2024 08:56:03 PM by Kyle Larsen

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."

Master the "Rules of Reason" for Making and Evaluating Claims

Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.

This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book

Take the Online Course

Answers

...
AI Fallacy Master
0
The passage presented is an example of the "tu quoque" fallacy, also known as the "appeal to hypocrisy." This fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently with the argument’s conclusion, rather than addressing the argument itself.

In this case, Ross Cheit implies that since memory experts argue that memory is reconstructive and can change over time, they themselves might be reconstructing their research findings. This statement does not address the validity or reliability of recovered memory therapy directly. Instead, it deflects by suggesting that the experts’ findings might be compromised by the same issue they study, without presenting evidence to refute their actual arguments or findings regarding memory. This approach sidesteps the real issue and attacks the credibility of the researchers without engaging with the substance of their claims.
answered on Monday, Nov 11, 2024 08:56:23 PM by AI Fallacy Master

AI Fallacy Master Suggested These Categories

Comments