|
|
What’s the logical fallacy here ? ( see image ) this is in response to gaints and smithsonian cover up conspiracy. |
| asked on Thursday, Feb 07, 2019 01:44:25 PM by Fabbeyond | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Dr. Bo is creating online courses in the area of critical thinking, reason, science, psychology, philosophy, and well-being. These courses are self-paced and presented in small, easy-to-digest nuggets of information. Use the code FALLACYFRIENDS to get 25% off any or all of Dr. Bo's courses.
|
|
it just seems to me like a paragraph of accusatory claims, not fallacies.
|
| answered on Thursday, Feb 07, 2019 01:51:22 PM by Abdulazeez |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
See Dr. Bo's: Argument by Gibberish
(also known as: bafflement, argument by [prestigious] jargon) Description: When incomprehensible jargon or plain incoherent gibberish is used to give the appearance of a strong argument, in place of evidence or valid reasons to accept the argument. The more common form of this argument is when the person making the argument defaults to highly technical jargon or details not directly related to the argument, then restates the conclusion. Logical Form: Person 1 claims that X is true. Person 1 backs up this claim by gibberish. Therefore, X is true. While the argument here is not technical in the least it is nevertheless incomprehensible gibberish. Haha! |
| answered on Friday, Feb 08, 2019 01:23:28 PM by mchasewalker |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
The barrage of disjointed phrases is reminiscent of the Gish Gallop, but it is far too brief to qualify as such. It does, however, appear to follow the advice (often attributed to W. C. Fields), "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."
|
| answered on Saturday, Feb 09, 2019 01:47:52 AM by David Franks |
Comments |
|
| |