Question

...
Destone

Why is this even a fallacy?

Why is logic chopping aka splitting hairs a fallacy? If you are questioning something that someone has claimed isn't it rational to make questions? Am I the only one that is confused too? at what point is my questioning fallacious because the examples given in the book are clearly relevant, it is not like if someone has to move their car it's wrong to make sceptical questions of whether he should move his car, the person trying to move his car clearly elaborates that it is because it slows down traffic, so it is not a big deal, it's not really changing the subject or anything.
asked on Sunday, Jan 16, 2022 09:37:15 AM by Destone

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments
...
0
Ed F writes:

The definition of "logic chopping " (..."focusing on trivial details instead of directly addressing the main issue in dispute"), reminded me on first reading of the logical fallacies being discussed yesterday, argument by selective reading and selective attention.  But unlike these latter fallacies, which at least deal with something of substance of the original argument (even if not the main point), logic chopping seems to go off the rails and not deal at all with the original argument. 

posted on Sunday, Jan 16, 2022 12:03:30 PM

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

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
3

The key here is being pedantic. It is a form of red herring where the main point is avoided or overlooked due to that which is irrelevant. In terms of reason, it is sacrificing reason for logic... like arguing with a computer because a computer can only process instructions and not understand the subtext of human communication.
answered on Sunday, Jan 16, 2022 09:43:46 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments