A form of circularity
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Hello All,
I am searching for a name for the fallacy which occurs when someone takes any evidence or argument against his position to actually be a confirmation of his position. For example:
Smith: All Human behavior is motivated by unconscious sexual desire.
Jones: I don't think that's true. Science is motivated by an objective search for the truth.
Smith: You're only saying that because you're motivated by unconscious sexual desire.
I'm sure this is a form of circular argument or self-sealing argument but I'd like a more specific name. Thanks.
I am searching for a name for the fallacy which occurs when someone takes any evidence or argument against his position to actually be a confirmation of his position. For example:
Smith: All Human behavior is motivated by unconscious sexual desire.
Jones: I don't think that's true. Science is motivated by an objective search for the truth.
Smith: You're only saying that because you're motivated by unconscious sexual desire.
I'm sure this is a form of circular argument or self-sealing argument but I'd like a more specific name. Thanks.
Answers
3Conspiracy Theory is close.
Explaining that your claim cannot be proven or verified because the truth is being hidden and/or evidence destroyed by a group of two or more people. When that reason is challenged as not being true or accurate, the challenge is often presented as just another attempt to cover up the truth, and presented as further evidence that the original claim is true.
I’m less concerned with ‘naming’ this conspicuous fallacy, than dissecting the mechanics of its illogic. It amounts to a textbook example of circular reasoning. The statement “All human behavior is motivated by unconscious sexual desire” while arguably loopy, is not of itself fallacious. (I’m sure it has its proponents among e.g., Freudians, Jungians, et al.)
However, when combined with the implied Conclusion “…..and since you do not acknowledge this you are obviously manifesting it” the full statement becomes quite fallacious. The fallacy ensues from the fact that the veracity of the initial statement (i.e., premise) is not justified by anything independent of it; it is ‘justified’ only by its (implied, in OP’s example) conclusion, which is unproven.
However, when combined with the implied Conclusion “…..and since you do not acknowledge this you are obviously manifesting it” the full statement becomes quite fallacious. The fallacy ensues from the fact that the veracity of the initial statement (i.e., premise) is not justified by anything independent of it; it is ‘justified’ only by its (implied, in OP’s example) conclusion, which is unproven.
“…..and since you do not acknowledge this you are obviously manifesting it” is of course it is a phony face palm statement, but defining it as a fallacy is nebulous. I consider it a a rhetorical tactic of deflection.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course