Understanding is not agreeing...
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
I have often been in a debate with someone who claimed that if I really understood with their position then I would agree with them. I assure them that I really do understand their position, I just don't agree. Understanding is not always agreeing. Sometimes they assume they did not explain it well enough or that I am not intelligent enough to understand their position. Is there a specific fallacy going on here?
-Jacob
Comments on Question
Thanks
Next time someone says I don’t agree because I don’t understand I will should back “ignoratio elenchi, Expecto patronum, and Wingardium Leviosa.”
I will comment on your question but not by answering it right of way because you have given me pause on things I must consider before I formulate my answer to your question.
Answers
5Your opponents have an unproven, unverified and unexplained assumption that your argument (I assume you are making an argument) is not aimed at their position, but that you have something else in mind. Although it is not in itself a logical fallacy, this is a good basis for fallacies such as moving the goalposts .
"You disagree with me, therefore a) you don't understand my position and b) if you did, you'd agree with it."
Unsupported claims resting on the implicit assumption that disagreement = wrong.
You are correct. Understanding does not equal agreement. If you desire to continue the relationship or discussion with the individual, then I found playing stupid is best. I say something to the effect that he could be right. Then I ask, what am I missing that you see? This drives them to introspection. Perhaps you are missing something, or maybe they'll realize their own mistake.
That is not a fallacy but a potentially valid argument. In a number of cases people would agree with something if only they understood it. It just isn't always the case.
What the arguer does here is trying to find a reason behind the fact that you don't agree.
There might be many possible reasons: 1)he is wrong 2)you didn't understand.
When there are many possible causes for something and the person just picks one and insists (without further justification) then that's affirming the consequent .
They build a narrative in their head, they make you part of that narrative, and they refuse to consider anything else.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
This one might be ignoratio elenchi (ignorance of how to construct logical refutations aka elenchi). That's exciting because, I mean, how often do you get to use such a fancy Latin phrase or cite that fallacy in everyday life? Ad hominems and petitio principiis are so much more common.
It's also a witty (and quite snooty) comeback when someone is accusing you of not understanding things, implying you aren't intelligent enough to get their point. You shoot back: "ignoratio elenchi!" Of course, they will likely have no idea what that means, so it's a double hit. They will be ignorant of the meaning of the phrase, which asserts they are ignorant of the methods of proper, logical argumentation.
I think the fancy Latin may be appropriate here because this one is a basic failure of a first premise. As a syllogism, it would look like this:
1. If you understood my position, you would agree with me.
2. You do not agree with me.
3. Therefore, you do not understand my position.
The first premise is clearly false. Understanding and agreement are two different things. However, I think there could be a distinction made between fact and opinion here. Thus:
1. If you understood my OPINION, you would agree with me.
That's always false. However:
1. If you understood the FACTS, you would reach the same conclusion.
That could be valid, especially in cases where hard science is involved.
This might be where it gets tricky because, as we have discussed before on this platform, everyone believes they are entitled to their own facts these days. That is, we are never talking about hard science in debates. It's more akin to a courtroom where one side presents its facts and the other side presents its alternative facts. What you are experiencing is the equivalent of an attorney making a case to a juror and then, when the juror votes against him/her, claiming that juror didn't really understand the arguments presented.
Dumb juror? No, the case presented was just unpersuasive!