IS offering a definition of your claim a valid evidence that your claim is true?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
First of all, Hello, good morning/afternoon/evening.
I was wondering if you could help me realise if what I've encountered is a logical fallacy or not.
So, Bob noted that comparing Trump with Hitler is laughably over the top, which I agreed with. Jack replies with a claim that Trump's behaviour is the early stage and roots of fascism To quote:
"It’s early. Hitler worked hard for many years before he got to be responsible for the deaths of millions.
It probably won’t lead to that, but if you don’t recognize the roots of fascism today, you don’t know history."
When I asked him to offer evidence of it, he sent me an essay of Umberto Eco ("Ur-Fascism") about fascism, paraphrasing some of the parts of the work as an answer (also offering the ling to the original work).
What I wonder is: is that a legit way to defend your claim? If I say: "Trump is comparable to Hitler and today time shows the roots of fascism" and someone tells me "Give evidence of it" and I respond with "Well fascism is this, this, this and this" is it an evidence of what I said? I constantly have a feeling that Jack is not really offering any evidence, but I am not sure.
On another note, one person (let's call him Bob again) claimed that a museum in X city owns artifacts from Y country (The X city is not located in Y country). When I asked Bob to give me any link or evidence that would prove that, he replied with "Go to X and see it for yourself".
Just to make it clear, this has nothing to do with my political stance, I just wanted to know who is doing this argument wrong, and whether I am being wrong here for thinking I am not offered any real evidence.
Are Jack and Bob2 right, or are they not properly proving their claims? Am I wrong for thinking Jack did not explain himself correctly?
Thank you for reading, and have a nice day/night. Also, sorry for the disturbance.
Snežana
I was wondering if you could help me realise if what I've encountered is a logical fallacy or not.
So, Bob noted that comparing Trump with Hitler is laughably over the top, which I agreed with. Jack replies with a claim that Trump's behaviour is the early stage and roots of fascism To quote:
"It’s early. Hitler worked hard for many years before he got to be responsible for the deaths of millions.
It probably won’t lead to that, but if you don’t recognize the roots of fascism today, you don’t know history."
When I asked him to offer evidence of it, he sent me an essay of Umberto Eco ("Ur-Fascism") about fascism, paraphrasing some of the parts of the work as an answer (also offering the ling to the original work).
What I wonder is: is that a legit way to defend your claim? If I say: "Trump is comparable to Hitler and today time shows the roots of fascism" and someone tells me "Give evidence of it" and I respond with "Well fascism is this, this, this and this" is it an evidence of what I said? I constantly have a feeling that Jack is not really offering any evidence, but I am not sure.
On another note, one person (let's call him Bob again) claimed that a museum in X city owns artifacts from Y country (The X city is not located in Y country). When I asked Bob to give me any link or evidence that would prove that, he replied with "Go to X and see it for yourself".
Just to make it clear, this has nothing to do with my political stance, I just wanted to know who is doing this argument wrong, and whether I am being wrong here for thinking I am not offered any real evidence.
Are Jack and Bob2 right, or are they not properly proving their claims? Am I wrong for thinking Jack did not explain himself correctly?
Thank you for reading, and have a nice day/night. Also, sorry for the disturbance.
Snežana
Answers
1Complex human behavior resembles a chaotic system and is practically impossible to predict long-term. The best we can be expected to do is state an opinion that one's behavior resembles fascist behavior, in which case, pointing to a source that describes fascist behavior makes sense. I would not say this is fallacious, nor would it be unreasonable to disagree that Trump is headed to fascism base on current behavioral similarities. There is a lot of opinion here.
As for your second example about the museum, that is not a fallacy, but more of a denial to provide evidence. It is not a good persuasion technique for the person trying to do the convincing. That's like saying Jesus is walking around Hong Kong, then telling people to "go see for yourself" when they ask for evidence. Surely, there are more expedient ways to provide the evidence for the claims.
As for your second example about the museum, that is not a fallacy, but more of a denial to provide evidence. It is not a good persuasion technique for the person trying to do the convincing. That's like saying Jesus is walking around Hong Kong, then telling people to "go see for yourself" when they ask for evidence. Surely, there are more expedient ways to provide the evidence for the claims.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course