#Example of red herring fallacy plus
Logic chopping is essentially quibbling plus unnecessary philosophy. Logic chopping occurs when often-useful yet time-consuming and often-misunderstood tools of logic (such as converting arguments into syllogisms) are either (a) required of from the speaker, making them waste time rather than make their points, (b) used to disguise the true meaning of a statement, or (c) to turn a simple issue into a complex and difficult philosophical argument. Quibbling applies almost any time when there's more argument over what someone meant than over whether it's true, except when someone's completely incomprehensible.
Quibbling occurs when a very small part of a person's argument, often the extremely precise meaning of a word, is focused on, rather than the argument as a whole. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A, even though topic B has no relevance to topic A.This "reasoning" takes the following form: Thus, a "red herring" argument is one which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy. The name of this fallacy comes from the sport of fox hunting in which a dried, smoked herring, which is red in color, is dragged across the trail of the fox to throw the hounds off the scent. ignoratio elenchi ("ignorance of refutation").
0 kommentar(er)
