Question

...
Mohamed Gadelrab

Is there a fallacy for trivializing evidence?

Hello,
Is there a fallacy for considering empirical evidence trivial or not substantial?
lets say this for example:

person 1:"Tomatoes are red"
person 2: "Tomatoes are blue"
person 1: "Well we all see them red with our eyes, and there are certain chemicals inside tomatoes like lycopene and carotene that make them red"
person 2: "They are not red until you prove them to be so!"

Person 2 ignored the strong evidence provided by Person 1. Is there a fallacy for this?
Thanks.
asked on Monday, Nov 19, 2018 11:49:24 PM by Mohamed Gadelrab

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."

Reason: Books I & II

This book is based on the first five years of The Dr. Bo Show, where Bo takes a critical thinking-, reason-, and science-based approach to issues that matter with the goal of educating and entertaining. Every chapter in the book explores a different aspect of reason by using a real-world issue or example.

Part one is about how science works even when the public thinks it doesn't. Part two will certainly ruffle some feathers by offering a reason- and science-based perspective on issues where political correctness has gone awry. Part three provides some data-driven advice for your health and well-being. Part four looks at human behavior and how we can better navigate our social worlds. In part five we put on our skeptical goggles and critically examine a few commonly-held beliefs. In the final section, we look at a few ways how we all can make the world a better place.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
mchasewalker
0
Well, that's more of a cognitive bias than a fallacy, because they don't really argue from fallacious point of reasoning, but rather a stance of
'not knowing what they don't know'. (Dunning Kruger) I suppose it might be considered an Argumentum ad Ignorantium, but there's no valid argument here other than red/blue/blue red.

Even the claim, "Well we all see them red with our eyes, and there are certain chemicals inside tomatoes like lycopene and carotene that make them red" is an Appeal to Authority, but it can't really be considered evidence or logic without further citations, verification, or, at the very least, a strong analogy such as: Mammal blood is actually blue until oxygen is introduced whereupon it appears red.
answered on Tuesday, Nov 20, 2018 12:08:37 AM by mchasewalker

Comments

...
Abdulazeez
0
Well denying evidence and asserting a counterclaim blindly are examples of flawed reasoning (or lack of reasoning probably), but to my knowledge there isn't a fallacy to describe that. It's simply denying evidence or acting like you haven't provided evidence in your tomatoes example. That, however, could be motivated by certain cognitive biases like the confirmation bias.
answered on Tuesday, Nov 20, 2018 07:20:50 AM by Abdulazeez

Comments