I suppose fallacies could exist at any level… … except the bottom two (since they’re not really offering an argument at all)… and perhaps, arguably, at the top. That’s a tricky one though… could a point be centrally refuted, fallaciously?
i’m not sure that it could exist at most other levels… perhaps tone and name calling, but im not sure that the contradiction level is a fallacy: there’s no active intent there (not that active intent is required; i’m just not sure of the words right now)
like you’re stating the opposite case but that’s not intending to mislead exactly, and simply doing so isn’t harmful to the dialogue - it’s just not super helpful
i think it’s an action rather than a tactic, if that makes sense?
Took a while to contemplate how mere contradiction could be fallacious. It could be:
semantic strawman.
bare assertion fallacy.
argument from ignorance fallacy.
false dilemma.
appeal to emotion.
moving goal posts.
circular reasoning.
non sequitur. (… ghadamn! I spelled that correctly for the first time! (thnx to another lemmy user correcting me last time.))
bandwaggon fallacy.
red herring.
But, that was a good point to raise. On face value, it is at first difficult to see how mere contradiction can be fallacious.
(And I confess, only the first of those I came up with entirely by my self. The others were suggested by an LLM, with examples which I’ve omitted for brevity.)
Just had wild (early/incomplete) notion of constructing the 3D version, with fallacies on one side, the opposite(?) of the fallacies on the other side, and on the back side, sorta the opposite of the front side, like, concessions and retractions…
Inspired by this context, and other comments here.
The chart does not cover fallacies like strawman arguments. Perhaps that’s around a corner of the “pyramid”, on a side not shown.
i’d say fallacies in general are the same kinda thing as as hominem attacks… things that muddy the waters without even trying to address the point
I suppose fallacies could exist at any level… … except the bottom two (since they’re not really offering an argument at all)… and perhaps, arguably, at the top. That’s a tricky one though… could a point be centrally refuted, fallaciously?
i’m not sure that it could exist at most other levels… perhaps tone and name calling, but im not sure that the contradiction level is a fallacy: there’s no active intent there (not that active intent is required; i’m just not sure of the words right now)
like you’re stating the opposite case but that’s not intending to mislead exactly, and simply doing so isn’t harmful to the dialogue - it’s just not super helpful
i think it’s an action rather than a tactic, if that makes sense?
Took a while to contemplate how mere contradiction could be fallacious. It could be:
But, that was a good point to raise. On face value, it is at first difficult to see how mere contradiction can be fallacious.
(And I confess, only the first of those I came up with entirely by my self. The others were suggested by an LLM, with examples which I’ve omitted for brevity.)
Just had wild (early/incomplete) notion of constructing the 3D version, with fallacies on one side, the opposite(?) of the fallacies on the other side, and on the back side, sorta the opposite of the front side, like, concessions and retractions…
Inspired by this context, and other comments here.
ah yup that’s all very true!
Your suggestion that men are made out of pyramids is laughable and logically flawed.
Check and mate.