You could always use the fallacy that Barack Obama was famous for:
Jan 06, 2015 · On his Twitter account, President Obama tweets: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”
That carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?
Also, if scientists who disagree are being silenced, then it's not surprising that 97% of those allowed to speak agree with the political views of those who silenced the others.
I have a relative who is getting his doctorate in Geology.
He has gone out to many archaeological sites as part of his studies.
I asked him once what would happen if they found something (fossil or artifact) that geologically didn't belong... something that the would challenge the present theories of chronological order.
He said they wouldn't find anything like that.
I asked again, but what if you did?
He said very slowly... We wouldn't find it. It would never have happened.
The implication is that, if you as a scientist (geology, anthropology, etc...) find something that inconveniently challenges the current belief system, you cannot have found it. If you insist, then kiss your academic career and credibility goodbye.
Best to pretend not to find anything.
The point of science is to argue against itself before concluding it's results, that's how the scientific method works. Meaning the results were already challenged by the scientists themselves.
You can still challenge Obama's opinion though, it's just not a logical fallacy, it's a disagreement.
Yeah but if Obama is not also telling the viewer that the government only providing funding to scientists that would prove climate is man made.. isn't that a fallacy?
No, a fallacy is a mistaken belief based on unsound logic. The logic of consulting climate scientists about the climate is not unsound. It’s the same reason we consult meteorologists about the weather and not psychics.
Look up “logical fallacies” and you will see a list of them. The Sunk-Cost Fallacy example I gave was just one of many.
Science is not an example of a fallacy, because the point of science is to argue against itself before concluding it's results. Meaning the results were already challenged by the scientists themselves.
You would be better off with something like Sunk-Cost Fallacy and Putin. He has put so much effort into invading Ukraine, that he now feels it is too important to back away (even though it is not more important than it was before). It's a perfect example of sunk-cost.
the ad hominem attack, has been the weapon of choice, for pro-vaccine people.
they will never debate the actual nuts and bolts of the various claims made by "anti-vaxxers",
but what they will do instead, is to attack the character, reputation, experience, credibility, etc of anyone making any anti-vaccine argument.
and because of this kind of behavior, is a BIG RED FLAG,
that something is very wrong with the vaccine narrative.
the pro-vaccine side ought to be able to have an honest debate, and work out the details of the various claims, without resorting to childish ad hominem attacks.
they will even dismiss the parents of vaccine injured children, because they are "only parents", and presumably not qualified to make medical observations, such as reading 105F on their thermometer.
You could always use the fallacy that Barack Obama was famous for:
Jan 06, 2015 · On his Twitter account, President Obama tweets: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”
That carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?
Also, if scientists who disagree are being silenced, then it's not surprising that 97% of those allowed to speak agree with the political views of those who silenced the others.
i used to like science in school.
but now that I've been watching this clown world for a while,
in starting to think there is this diametrically opposed set of forces,
called good, and evil.
and I'm starting to think that "science" is the force of evil.
the universe bootstrapped itself into existence billions of years before "science" ever came along.
look at "Science" now
Bio-Weapons Labs in Ukraine.
Bio-Weapons Labs in Wuhan.
Dr Fauci dictating muzzles.
Putin Threatening Nuclear War.
Vaccines are bio-weapons. always have been meme.
The Moon Landing HOAX.
Gender Affirming surgeries and hormones.
AHDH Generation is now meth-heads
"Chemical Imbalance"
Opioid Generation
Fentanyl Epidemic
The Electric Chair
Surveillance Society
Chip Shortage
Sex Ed In Kindergarten
"Doctors Baffled"
Vivisection
GMOs
I have a relative who is getting his doctorate in Geology.
He has gone out to many archaeological sites as part of his studies. I asked him once what would happen if they found something (fossil or artifact) that geologically didn't belong... something that the would challenge the present theories of chronological order.
He said they wouldn't find anything like that.
I asked again, but what if you did?
He said very slowly... We wouldn't find it. It would never have happened.
The implication is that, if you as a scientist (geology, anthropology, etc...) find something that inconveniently challenges the current belief system, you cannot have found it. If you insist, then kiss your academic career and credibility goodbye. Best to pretend not to find anything.
Any true scientist would ask what the other 3% have to say.
The point of science is to argue against itself before concluding it's results, that's how the scientific method works. Meaning the results were already challenged by the scientists themselves.
You can still challenge Obama's opinion though, it's just not a logical fallacy, it's a disagreement.
Yeah but if Obama is not also telling the viewer that the government only providing funding to scientists that would prove climate is man made.. isn't that a fallacy?
No, a fallacy is a mistaken belief based on unsound logic. The logic of consulting climate scientists about the climate is not unsound. It’s the same reason we consult meteorologists about the weather and not psychics.
Look up “logical fallacies” and you will see a list of them. The Sunk-Cost Fallacy example I gave was just one of many.
I just learned something. Thank you
You’re very welcome.
So far.. this is the one. Thank you. Will try to find a source. I need to provide links
Science is not an example of a fallacy, because the point of science is to argue against itself before concluding it's results. Meaning the results were already challenged by the scientists themselves.
You would be better off with something like Sunk-Cost Fallacy and Putin. He has put so much effort into invading Ukraine, that he now feels it is too important to back away (even though it is not more important than it was before). It's a perfect example of sunk-cost.
CNN
https://studiousguy.com/fallacy-examples-in-real-life/
https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/logical-fallacies-examples
Ck this out. , hope it helps
list of fallacies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
list of thought-terminating cliches
https://archive.ph/Mfjs3
Hierarchy of Discourse
https://i.redd.it/ufi38clcmxuy.png
probably the biggest, and most common, and most egregious, fallacy,
is the ad hominem attack.
ad hominem: to the man:
in a debate, to attack the person, or source,
instead of addressing their main points.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
the ad hominem attack, has been the weapon of choice, for pro-vaccine people.
they will never debate the actual nuts and bolts of the various claims made by "anti-vaxxers",
but what they will do instead, is to attack the character, reputation, experience, credibility, etc of anyone making any anti-vaccine argument.
and because of this kind of behavior, is a BIG RED FLAG,
that something is very wrong with the vaccine narrative.
the pro-vaccine side ought to be able to have an honest debate, and work out the details of the various claims, without resorting to childish ad hominem attacks.
they will even dismiss the parents of vaccine injured children, because they are "only parents", and presumably not qualified to make medical observations, such as reading 105F on their thermometer.
Thanks guys, I was looking for some good political examples haha.. the internet is filled with Trump ones 🤣
Rote Learning dictates the answers that you MUST use to gain a "qualification".
Any free thinking/Truthful answers will result in a Fail mark.
It's a college paper, so use primary sources, not random websites. Something like JSTOR, academic journals, or whatever is in your school library.