"Oh, you don't know?"
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Hi everyone!
I was watching a debate on which an anti-vaxxer, with his back against the wall, started asking "at what cost !" did we enforce vaccinations. To this, his opponent asked "what is the cost of getting the vaccine then?"
The reply the anti-vaxxer mustered was, "the fact that you don't even know the answer to that... shows you just want to shut your eyes to the truth"
This is obviously fallacious? Instead of actually answering the question, he basically insults his opponent by arguing that he is too ignorant to know.
But I wanted to find out if there is a name for this fallacy because, and I don't want to sound facetious considering the heft of the topic but I don't think I've heard this argument outside of a school playground before! It's just a simple way to avoid admitting you don't know the answer to a question.
And this wasn't some untrained, person on the street but a widely respected, often broadcasted political pundit!
So is this an actually fallacy? Or is it just pettiness. Argumentum ad petti-num?
Thanks everyone
Comments on Question
Answers
5I'd partially agree with the AI, this is, at least in part an ad hominem. I'd say this leans more towards ad hominem (circumstantial) than ad hominem (abusive) .
In addition, though, this is definitely some form of deflection. The anti-vaxxer seems to be avoiding the issue of the vagueness of his notion of the costs of vaccines by instead attempting to refocus on his opponent's bias - essentially, for not making his own argument for him.
I would also say this possibly could be ad fidentia , as the supposed lack of knowledge is being leveraged as an argument.
This is basically a shutdown via takedown of character, essentially being an ad hominem (circumstantial) , although I'm not sure the specific kind of hominem, it may be circumstantial. It also seems to be circular reasoning , as the statement that one would be "blind" would affirm that this argument is correct, which validates the comeback, and so on.
But in all seriousness, it's actually called an ad hominem fallacy, from the Latin meaning "to the person". Instead of addressing the argument or providing a valid response, the anti-vaxxer attacked his opponent personally implying they were ignorant for not already knowing the answer.
It's a classic way of skirting around an issue when you've got nothing else to say. Kind of like when you're playing hide and seek and instead of admitting you're out of hiding spots you just shout, "Look, a UFO!" and bolt while your friend is distracted.
It does not follow that because a person is against one vaccine, in this case the mRNA variety, he generally opposes vaccines. Therefore, it is a non Sequitur. This brings us back to the essential requirement of defining the terms of the discussion with specificity.
I saw it. It was an alcohol and Pot-fueled discussion between Bill Maher and Seth Macfarlane. Seth cooly, calmly, and intelligently defended Vaccination with facts and statistics, and Maher embarrassed himself by slurring fallacious ad hoc (rescue) and ad ignorantium retorts.
Seth admitted there are some things we don't know about the long-term side effects of the COVID-19 virus or the vaccine, and Maher Straw manned him by saying that 'the fact that you don't know proves my point'. (ad ignorantium). Macfarlane was only pointing out that we don't know everything yet as it's too early). Maher was arguing from ignorance. You don't know therefore vaccines are unsafe. Macfarlane also stated he gets the flu vaccine every year and hasn't had the flu in 20 years. It's anecdotal but it is supported by statistics. BTW many independent medical statisticians and researchers do not work for the government.
Maher then babbled on about his anecdotal experience as if it superseded the facts and statistics. Maher admitted he contracted the virus despite being vaccinated subtly suggesting the cause was the vaccine itself. Which is a post hoc fallacy. The Covid vaccine is an mRNA vaccine and does not have the dead cells of the virus as some vaccines do. It's impossible to contract the virus through the vaccine. Seth responded he is fully vaccinated and has never contracted COVID-19 since the pandemic began. He also confirmed the fact that mRNA vaccines are among the most tested vaccines in history. Which is true. (See Walter Isaacson).
Maher further descended into boasting about how informed he was, but it was obvious he was only indulging in Confirmation Bias, Conspiracy theory, and anecdotal fallacies. He never once cited his sources. The main gist of Maher's argument was that since there are some ill effects to the vaccine no one should be compelled to take it. This is a bit of a red herring as the vaccines are not mandated but left to various institutions and individuals to make up their policies. Macfarlane pointed out that we have successfully mandated vaccines in public schools against Rubella, Diptheria, Whooping Cough, Small Pox, and Polio for decades and is proof that these mandated vaccinations work for the majority of the population, and because some may experience serious side effects it is still not sufficient reason to not mandate vaccines in public schools.
It's also true that in this winter season of 23-24 RSV, Covid, and Flu are spiking upwards and vaccinations are at the lowest in years. It is so alarming hospitals are once again imposing mask protocols, and doctors are advising it for the public as well.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
And another thing . . .
Since this discussion has evolved into the gospel of statistics, I should point out that statisticians themselves are famous for cherry-picking. Countless polls and surveys have been flawed because representative segments of the population weren't queried. Asking Floridians if they're satisfied with this year's walrus harvest might not be very informative, if you know what I mean.
In other news, aren't you glad the politicians, bureaucrats, and statisticians are telling us the economy is doing fine? I was worried about our $34 trillion debt (forecast to soon increase annually by $2 trillion), the junk bond crisis, de-dollarization, automation (I was laid off for 3 1/2 months because of that, though I fortunately got rehired . . . for now), artificial intelligence, the ever-growing gulf between the rich and the poor, and the almost incomprehensible corruption in our government. (Thank God we're going to get to choose between four more years of "Genocide Joe" Biden and Donald Trump.) Fortunately, the statisticians are calling me delusional, and there's a growing army of homeless people who would be happy to back up the statisticians in exchange for $2. Thank God statisticians can't be bought that easily. ;)