The list of the most common fallacies . I met them in every forums, they are very frequent on Historum too.

Nov 2016
400
Munich
#4
As to the "special pleading", the site says:

special pleading
You moved the goalposts or made up an exception when your claim was shown to be false.

Humans are funny creatures and have a foolish aversion to being wrong. Rather than appreciate the benefits of being able to change one's mind through better understanding, many will invent ways to cling to old beliefs. One of the most common ways that people do this is to post-rationalize a reason why what they thought to be true must remain to be true. It's usually very easy to find a reason to believe something that suits us, and it requires integrity and genuine honesty with oneself to examine one's own beliefs and motivations without falling into the trap of justifying our existing ways of seeing ourselves and the world around us.


My comment: The most famous special pleading failure is the assumption of a "first cause" in connection with the belief in a monotheistic creation god. It comes from Aristotle and was assumed by Thomas Aquinas. It´s however quite controvers if the beginning of the OT actually represents a creation ex nihilo. Empircally we see no first causes in nature but only causal chains. So the assumption of a "first cause" is a typical special pleading with the purpose to rescue the idea of a creation god.

Example: Edward Johns claimed to be psychic, but when his 'abilities' were tested under proper scientific conditions, they magically disappeared. Edward explained this saying that one had to have faith in his abilities for them to work.


My comment: No good example, since theoretically it could be the case that Edward´ s abilities only failed because he felt the disbelief of the oberservers in a way that made him psychologically impotent.
 

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,239
Dispargum
#5
Is there a name for this falacy or is it even a recognized falacy?
Someone asserts a claim that is true 95% of the time. Someone else points to the five percent exception and claims that the initial assertion is therefore completely invalid.
 
Jan 2017
416
UK
#7
If we start throwing around logical fallacies like confetti at everyone trying to innocently present an argument, we risk turning our civilised community into a mudslinging commune, devoid of all rules, decorum and respect. Next thing you know all the youth will be drunkenly sashaying around unshaven, burning books and morality off the face of our forum. Has anyone thought of the children?!?
 
Oct 2018
705
Adelaide south Australia
#8
" Next thing you know all the youth will be drunkenly sashaying around unshaven, burning books and morality off the face of our forum. Has anyone thought of the children?!?"

Quite right. First it's drunken sashaying, and before you know it, you have philosophers being burned at the stake for the crime of reason . :eek:
 
Nov 2016
400
Munich
#9
Someone asserts a claim that is true 95% of the time. Someone else points to the five percent exception and claims that the initial assertion is therefore completely invalid.
A assertion is either true or not true, but not "x % true". You can´t say that the assertion "Humans are right-handers" is "90 % true" by referring to the statistical fact that 90 % of humans are right-handers. You can only assert "It is true that 90 % of humans are right-handers". Truth or rather claim to truth cannot be divided or percentaged. This applies also to a statistical distribution of events in time. So you can´t say that something is "true 95 % of the time", you can only say "It is true that certain events occur 95 % of the time".
 

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,239
Dispargum
#10
Is there a name for this falacy or is it even a recognized falacy?
Someone asserts a claim that is true 95% of the time. Someone else points to the five percent exception and claims that the initial assertion is therefore completely invalid.
A assertion is either true or not true, but not "x % true". You can´t say that the assertion "Humans are right-handers" is "90 % true" by referring to the statistical fact that 90 % of humans are right-handers. You can only assert "It is true that 90 % of humans are right-handers". Truth or rather claim to truth cannot be divided or percentaged. This applies also to a statistical distribution of events in time. So you can´t say that something is "true 95 % of the time", you can only say "It is true that certain events occur 95 % of the time".
That still doesn't answer my question. What do you call the falacy of using a small exception to disprove something that is generally true or true in the overwhelming majority of times?

In my experience very little is true 100% of the time.

I see this falacy (if falacy is the right thing to call it) in evolution vs creation arguments. The Theory of Evolution explains about 98% of observed biological phenomena. Creationists point to the 2% of biology that doesn't fit the Theory of Evolution as proof that the Theory of Evolution is wrong. I also see it in Climate Change Denial.
 
Last edited: