Question

...
alex

Is using the word Maybe just a weasel word to get around the burden of proof?

Person 1: I can make as many assumptions as I want with the vaccines not working, I never claim them to be true.

Person 2: An assumption is still a claim though. I don't understand your position. Are you saying you don't have to prove anything because your just assuming and not claiming it to be true or false?

Person 1: I'm saying that yeah the supposed evidence points to them working but also I may challenge that idea and say what if the Vaccines were fabricated. You can't pull out the logic fallacies card its just my outlook. 

 

asked on Sunday, Sep 26, 2021 10:31:16 AM by alex

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

...
1
Shawn writes:

Look up the term "contrarianism" and reflect.  

Many people hold positions that have zero evidence other than something that popped into their heads at the time, or they read on some obscure website.

Allow me to give you a random example. Suppose I were to say the "Dark Ages" -- from the fall of the Roman Empire to the 11th century -- was named that because the sun did not shine on the earth during that period of time, and I could be quite insistent that I am right. Can you absolutely prove that I am wrong in my assertion? There comes a time when you have to walk away from some people because no amount of evidence will convince them that their position is incorrect. 

I highly recommend the book "Suspicious Minds: Why We Believe Conspiracy Theories"
by Rob Brotherton, PhD.  I think it will answer a lot of your questions. 

posted on Monday, Sep 27, 2021 01:24:15 PM

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

Reason: Books I & II

This book is based on the first five years of The Dr. Bo Show, where Bo takes a critical thinking-, reason-, and science-based approach to issues that matter with the goal of educating and entertaining. Every chapter in the book explores a different aspect of reason by using a real-world issue or example.

Part one is about how science works even when the public thinks it doesn't. Part two will certainly ruffle some feathers by offering a reason- and science-based perspective on issues where political correctness has gone awry. Part three provides some data-driven advice for your health and well-being. Part four looks at human behavior and how we can better navigate our social worlds. In part five we put on our skeptical goggles and critically examine a few commonly-held beliefs. In the final section, we look at a few ways how we all can make the world a better place.

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
4

An "outlook" is still based on reasoning—good or bad reasoning. Forget about "burden of proof." Simply ask, "on what are you basing this 'outlook'?"

answered on Sunday, Sep 26, 2021 10:35:33 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
richard smith
2

"maybe" just means he does not know for sure. It is more of a question than a statement of fact. It is also a tactic to seed doubt in something. Sounds like he is trying to say something and at the same time leaving a way out for himself " I never said it was true so you can not hold me to it.". What I would call political talk. This is where a little critical thinking goes a long way.

answered on Monday, Sep 27, 2021 10:24:03 AM by richard smith

richard smith Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
TrappedPrior (RotE)
1

Person 1: I can make as many assumptions as I want with the vaccines not working, I never claim them to be true.

Yes, person 1 can claim whatever they want. They still need to provide evidence for those claims if they wish to assert them as true. If not, then they need to explain what the purpose of those claims is.

I'm saying that yeah the supposed evidence points to them working but also I may challenge that idea and say what if the Vaccines were fabricated. You can't pull out the logic fallacies card its just my outlook. 

Ah, okay. The person might, in this case, be making claims they know are false as part of a 'what-if' argument where they explore what would happen if they  were  fabricated. This is a counterfactual conditional and there's nothing wrong with it on the surface, as long as it isn't being used to advance the idea that they were  actually  fabricated.

Following from this there'd be no fallacies, but quite a bit of poor communication!

answered on Sunday, Sep 26, 2021 06:14:26 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE)

TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
Mchasewalker
1

The earlier use of the words "maybe "or "assumption" resembles the thought-terminating cliché, "I'm entitled to my opinion" because we are programmed to respect other people's opinions even when they have no basis in fact. So, yes, it's a dodge, but hardly a fallacy. It simply doesn't qualify as a valid answer either.

In a debate, the answer to such puerile nonsense is, No, you're not entitled to your opinion you're only entitled to what you can support.       

Person 1: I'm saying that yeah the supposed evidence points to them working but also I may challenge that idea and say what if the Vaccines were fabricated.

There's your deception right there. This is a clear switch from a discussion about the efficacy of vaccines to a nonsensical and irrelevant supposition, but what if the vaccines were fabricated? So, what if they were? In fact, the vaccines were fabricated, but what possible relevance does that have to their efficacy? So, it is clearly a red herring, an appeal to ambiguity, or maybe even an ad hoc rescue. Fabrication has nothing to do with it. 

Or, are they implying that the evidence was fabricated? If that's the case they still need to support the claim. That's the great thing about evidence as opposed to wild speculation and conspiracy theories. 

I'm saying that yeah the supposed evidence points to them working 

Okay, clearly Person 1's argument reflects their overall ignorance about the evidence-based debate in general.

Having evidence of the efficacy of vaccines increases the probability that they are effective, it does not decrease that probability. So merely introducing conjecture, alternative theories, or other unsupported possibilities does not increase the possibility that they don't work it only decreases it.  In any debate between a theory supported by evidence and precedent and a theory supported by none, the former is always more likely.

answered on Sunday, Sep 26, 2021 01:36:28 PM by Mchasewalker

Mchasewalker Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
0
alex writes:

This person in question says that they don't need evidence because its only a maybe while also refusing to get the vaccine on this maybe. Should I even waste my time with somebody like this who thinks in any situation where you have no evidence, you can just make a "Well maybe this". 

posted on Tuesday, Sep 28, 2021 08:34:06 AM