Question

...
Ed F

What Fallacy Is This?--That's Not Important

A makes an argument for claim X

B responds:  I don't think what's important is X.  What's important is that...Y.

---

B's response is both dismissive of A and an attempt to change the subject.  

asked on Sunday, Feb 13, 2022 11:34:02 AM by Ed F

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments
...
0
Shawn writes:

Well, yes, your conclusion does have validity, but it can also be a statement of different sets of values that A & B has. A may claim that X is important because it is central to their personal value system. B, on the other hand, may have an altogether set of values and dismiss X as being important and instead lay claim to Y as being important instead.  So it may not necessarily be a fallacy, but a manifestation of opposing value systems play. At least that is my 2 cents worth. 

posted on Sunday, Feb 13, 2022 12:14:28 PM

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

...
TrappedPrior (RotE)
1

It seems like a case of people talking past each other, because they have different goals. 

So if this were a debate about COVID-19 measures, for instance, person A could be advocating for a lockdown, citing the need to 'save lives'. Person B could be advocating against lockdowns, citing the need to 'preserve the economy'. 

If person A presented their argument, it'd be fine for person B to explain why their goal is more important...as long as they explain why. As in, it would still have to be a counter to the original argument - either accepting that X is important, but less so than Y, or demonstrating that X actually isn't all that important. This way, both people in the conversation could advance different goals while still responding to one another - talking to, rather than past, each other. If they didn't, and simply tried to avoid the subject, this would fall under red herring.
answered on Sunday, Feb 13, 2022 01:30:06 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE)

TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories

Comments