ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags logical fallacies

Reply
Old 20th December 2016, 05:40 PM   #1
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
When is pointing out that two people behave similarly a tu quoque?

There is a bit of a derail occurring in this thread starting at this post. Stripping away all the ponderous prose--some of which is unfortunately mine, I think the argument can be summarized in the following dialogue:

Person A: Trump voters didn't vote for Clinton do to her being untrustworthy because she did X.

Person B: Trump also did X, so why did Trump voters vote for Trump?

Person B: Tu quoque!!!

Is the bare fact of mentioning that Trump engaged in the same behavior that caused Clinton to be untrustworthy to Trump voters a tu quoque?
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2016, 06:58 PM   #2
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 20,346
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
There is a bit of a derail occurring in this thread starting at this post. Stripping away all the ponderous prose--some of which is unfortunately mine, I think the argument can be summarized in the following dialogue:

Person A: Trump voters didn't vote for Clinton do to her being untrustworthy because she did X.

Person B: Trump also did X, so why did Trump voters vote for Trump?

Person B: Tu quoque!!!

Is the bare fact of mentioning that Trump engaged in the same behavior that caused Clinton to be untrustworthy to Trump voters a tu quoque?
Nope.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 09:02 AM   #3
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
There is a bit of a derail occurring in this thread starting at this post. Stripping away all the ponderous prose--some of which is unfortunately mine, I think the argument can be summarized in the following dialogue:

Person A: Trump voters didn't vote for Clinton do to her being untrustworthy because she did X.

Person B: Trump also did X, so why did Trump voters vote for Trump?

Person B: Tu quoque!!!

Is the bare fact of mentioning that Trump engaged in the same behavior that caused Clinton to be untrustworthy to Trump voters a tu quoque?
There are so many things wrong with that post, I hardly know where to begin.

here is the post containing the tu quoque fallacy:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1&postcount=64

Bit different than you represented, huh?
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 09:18 AM   #4
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,306
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
Is the bare fact of mentioning that Trump engaged in the same behavior that caused Clinton to be untrustworthy to Trump voters a tu quoque?
Not at all. People's observed behavior is a factor in a tu quoque but not in the capacity illustrated here. The proposed line of reasoning here is entirely logical: "I cannot vote for a candidate that does X. Candidate A does X, therefore I cannot vote for him." It is properly a logical contradiction that someone who embraces this line of reasoning should vote for Candidate B who also does X. It fairly violates the syllogism you've presented here, irrespective of whether that syllogism accurately represents the discussion elsewhere in the forum.

What would make the situation you pose above a tu quoque would instead be this conversation:

Jack: I cannot vote for Donald Trump because he does X.
Jill: But you do also X.
Jack: tu quoque!
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 09:25 AM   #5
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,070
In fact, it's a positive claim that Trump voters committed the special pleading fallacy, and as such seems to me a perfectly valid claim for discussion.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 11:18 AM   #6
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
There are so many things wrong with that post, I hardly know where to begin.

here is the post containing the tu quoque fallacy:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1&postcount=64

Bit different than you represented, huh?
Yeah, I linked to that post. There is a positive claim in the response below the quote that the argument is a tu quoque yet there is no actual explanation of how it is tu quoque.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 11:22 AM   #7
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
Yeah, I linked to that post. There is a positive claim in the response below the quote that the argument is a tu quoque yet there is no actual explanation of how it is tu quoque.
Yeah, no you did not link to the post.

The issue is whether you properly characterized the fallacy in the post in question, and it is absolutely clear you did not.
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 11:32 AM   #8
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,306
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Yeah, no you did not link to the post.
He linked to a post that quoted the post you linked, and included your response in which you characterize the quoted post as tu quoque. The OP has properly documented his claim.

Quote:
The issue is whether you properly characterized the fallacy in the post in question, and it is absolutely clear you did not.
The question asked in the OP is whether your characterization of the fallacy in the post that was quoted, was correct. It is not.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 11:33 AM   #9
I Am The Scum
Master Poster
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,908
In addition to what JayUtah said, I will point out that the easiest way to spot a red herring (the category in which the tu quoque lies) is to stay focused on what the claim is and whether or not one is deviating from it. In the OP example, it is worth noting that there is a subtle difference between applying criticism fairly and distracting from criticism.

Let's use an example with candidates Smith and Jones:

I didn't vote for Smith because he was extremely dishonest in his campaign.
Yeah, but you voted for Jones, and he lied just as much. What gives?

This is perfectly fair. Kyle is pointing out Stan's inconsistency. Promoting consistency in beliefs and actions is always a rational thing to do.

Now let's look at an alternative scenario:

Even though Jones won, I can't trust him. He was extremely dishonest in his campaign.
Yeah, but you voted for Smith, and he lied just as much, so why are you complaining?

This, however, is a distraction. Stan's response here does not address the trustworthiness of Jones.
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 11:43 AM   #10
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Yeah, no you did not link to the post.

The issue is whether you properly characterized the fallacy in the post in question, and it is absolutely clear you did not.
Says the poster who actually misidentified the fallacy.

Last edited by mijopaalmc; 21st December 2016 at 11:44 AM.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 11:47 AM   #11
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
In addition to what JayUtah said, I will point out that the easiest way to spot a red herring (the category in which the tu quoque lies) is to stay focused on what the claim is and whether or not one is deviating from it. In the OP example, it is worth noting that there is a subtle difference between applying criticism fairly and distracting from criticism.

Let's use an example with candidates Smith and Jones:

I didn't vote for Smith because he was extremely dishonest in his campaign.
Yeah, but you voted for Jones, and he lied just as much. What gives?

This is perfectly fair. Kyle is pointing out Stan's inconsistency. Promoting consistency in beliefs and actions is always a rational thing to do.

Now let's look at an alternative scenario:

Even though Jones won, I can't trust him. He was extremely dishonest in his campaign.
Yeah, but you voted for Smith, and he lied just as much, so why are you complaining?

This, however, is a distraction. Stan's response here does not address the trustworthiness of Jones.
No they are both a distraction

here is a good working definition of tu quoque on this site:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Your first example is similar to the "murderer" example. Your second example is a fallacy as you concede.

Take a gander at this part too:

Quote:
This fallacy is very frequently paired with the guilt by association fallacy, so that the person engaging in the fallacy need not even show that the other person's actions are inconsistent with their position; rather, it is merely shown that the actions of some other person somehow associated with that person did something inconsistent with that person's position. For instance, if someone criticizes Bill Clinton for his dishonesty, the common rejoinder is to bring up Bush's dishonesty.
Now take a look at the fallacy in question:

Quote:
What gets me is the sheer hypocrisy of Trump fans who fume about Clinton's emails. Where were these people when the Bush Administration used RNC servers and "lost" orders of magnitude more messages than were endlessly bloviated about in Clinton's case? Where were they when Colin Powell used private servers for State Dept. emails? And where were they when Donald Trump and his crew deleted messages and data relevant to legal proceedings?
quod erat demonstrandum
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 11:49 AM   #12
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,306
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
In the OP example, it is worth noting that there is a subtle difference between applying criticism fairly and distracting from criticism.
Indeed, I rewrote the OP's syllabus in proper syllogistic form so that we can see that whatever must follow from X for A must also follow from X for B. That was the essence of the post putatively dismissed as tu quoque.

Quote:
This is perfectly fair. Kyle is pointing out Stan's inconsistency. Promoting consistency in beliefs and actions is always a rational thing to do.
Correct. The issue is not whether either A or B or both should be excused for the property X. The question was whether some proposition that followed from X should apply differently to A than to B. Hypocrisy by itself is not a logical fallacy, but it can lead to making fallacious arguments when, as noted, it is applied as special pleading.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 11:53 AM   #13
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,306
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Your first example is similar to the "murderer" example.
No.

The "murderer" example implies a simple moral judgment with no consequent stated or implied. The difference between that and the OP is in what is alleged to follow from the property.
Jack: Tom is a murderer. You shouldn't vote for murderers; you should vote instead for me.
Jill: But you're a murderer too. Therefore we shouldn't vote for you either.
The question of whether it's good or bad to be a murderer doesn't enter into it. The question at hand is simple categorical reasoning. If A and B are both in the same category X, and a certain proposition is said to follow only from X, then it must follow identically for both A and B.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 11:57 AM   #14
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No.

The "murderer" example implies a simple moral judgment with no consequent stated or implied. The difference between that and the OP is in what is alleged to follow from the property.
Jack: Tom is a murderer. You shouldn't vote for murderers; you should vote instead for me.
Jill: But you're a murderer too. Therefore we shouldn't vote for you either.
The question of whether it's good or bad to be a murderer doesn't enter into it. The question at hand is simple categorical reasoning. If A and B are both in the same category X, and a certain proposition is said to follow only from X, then it must follow identically for both A and B.
IMPLIES? wrong:

A: I didn't vote for Smith because he was extremely dishonest in his campaign.
B:Yeah, but you voted for Jones, and he lied just as much. What gives?


The response is only blaming the claimer for the same thing he/she did as well. This doesn't refute the fact Smith is a extremely dishonest, but only draws away the attention by involving another person.
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 12:02 PM   #15
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,306
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
The response is only blaming the claimer for the same thing he/she did as well.
No. It points to an inconsistent line of reasoning the claimant has applied. I've patiently explained why at least twice now. Please address my actual arguments.

If you want to argue that A and B do not share the property X, such that the propositions following only from X do not necessary apply equally to A and B, then that is a different argument and the fallacy is still not tu quoque.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 12:04 PM   #16
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
IMPLIES? wrong:

A: I didn't vote for Smith because he was extremely dishonest in his campaign.
B:Yeah, but you voted for Jones, and he lied just as much. What gives?


The response is only blaming the claimer for the same thing he/she did as well. This doesn't refute the fact Smith is a extremely dishonest, but only draws away the attention by involving another person.
But the point is that B doesn't need to refute A's claim of Smith's dishonesty in order to question A's justification for voting for Jones.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 12:15 PM   #17
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No. It points to an inconsistent line of reasoning the claimant has applied. I've patiently explained why at least twice now. Please address my actual arguments.

If you want to argue that A and B do not share the property X, such that the propositions following only from X do not necessary apply equally to A and B, then that is a different argument and the fallacy is still not tu quoque.
No. It does not point to an inconsistent line of reasoning (because had it done so you would not have had to make up the line about implying something), and even if it had done so, it would still be a fallacy:

Quote:
The fallacy focuses on the perceived hypocrisy of the opponent rather than the merits of their argument. This is a fallacy regardless of whether you really did it or not, but it helps if you really didn't do it.
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 12:21 PM   #18
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
and a further point, of course is that the "rejoinder" assumes that the original claimant actual agreed with the proposition in the response.

A: I didn't vote for Smith because he was extremely dishonest in his campaign.
B:Yeah, but you voted for Jones, and he lied just as much. What gives?

The assumptions are that in fact Jones lied just as much and that Person A not only knew it but agreed that Jones lied.

None of which is justified, of course.
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 12:22 PM   #19
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
*sigh*

You just don't get it, do you?

It's not that the person is being a hypocrite that invalidates their argument; it's that their argument contains a contradiction that invalidate their argument.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 12:28 PM   #20
I Am The Scum
Master Poster
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,908
In the initial example, Stan was not solely pointing out that candidate Smith was dishonest. If that's all he had said, then Kyle's rejoinder would be off-point.

Stan said more than that. He was pointing out his own justification for performing a specific action. Kyle is calling that justification into question by pointing out that Stan has instead chosen an action that betrays Stan's stated reasons.

Last edited by I Am The Scum; 21st December 2016 at 12:34 PM.
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 12:31 PM   #21
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
In the initial example, Stan was note solely pointing out that candidate Smith was dishonest. If that's all he had said, then Kyle's rejoinder would be off-point.

Stan said more than that. He was pointing out his own justification for performing a specific action. Kyle is calling that justification into question by pointing out that Stan has instead chosen an action that betrays Stan's stated reasons.
No, he is not, he is making a "claim" that if true would potentially be inconsistent with Stan's stated reasons, and that fallaciously assumes that Stan agrees with the claim.

Both of which are fallacious.
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 12:40 PM   #22
I Am The Scum
Master Poster
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,908
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
No, he is not, he is making a "claim" that if true would potentially be inconsistent with Stan's stated reasons, and that fallaciously assumes that Stan agrees with the claim.

Both of which are fallacious.
With respect, I have completely lost track of what you are trying to say.
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 12:45 PM   #23
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
The hypothetical:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post

A: I didn't vote for Smith because he was extremely dishonest in his campaign.
B:Yeah, but you voted for Jones, and he lied just as much. What gives?
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
Stan said more than that. He was pointing out his own justification for performing a specific action. Kyle is calling that justification into question by pointing out that Stan has instead chosen an action that betrays Stan's stated reasons.
the claim that it would "betray Stan's stated reasons" assumes that:

1. Jones lied just as much
2. Stan agreed that Jones lied just as much.

Neither have been proven at all.
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.

Last edited by The Big Dog; 21st December 2016 at 12:48 PM.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 12:56 PM   #24
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
The hypothetical:





the claim that it would "betray Stan's stated reasons" assumes that:

1. Jones lied just as much
2. Stan agreed that Jones lied just as much.

Neither have been proven at all.
But that still doesn't make Kyle's statement a tu quoque, because:
  1. the tu quoque (i.e.,"you too") part is not about Stan but about Jones
  2. Kyle is calling Stan's justification invalid, rather than calling his conclusion false

Last edited by mijopaalmc; 21st December 2016 at 12:59 PM. Reason: Confused Kyle with Stan
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 12:57 PM   #25
I Am The Scum
Master Poster
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,908
Sure, Kyle has not demonstrated those things. But my point is not that Kyle has refuted anything. The issue I am attempting to address is how to adequately stay on topic.

We can break Stan's first claim down even further:

1. If a candidate is dishonest, I will not vote for them.
2. Smith was dishonest.
C. Therefore, I did not vote for Stan.

Kyle is merely calling into question Premise 1. Whether or not he is successful in doing so is another matter entirely.

*I should note that a complicated choice (like voting in a major election) is never really boiled down to one solitary reason, but we need to keep this simple for the sake of illustration.
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 01:04 PM   #26
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
Sure, Kyle has not demonstrated those things. But my point is not that Kyle has refuted anything. The issue I am attempting to address is how to adequately stay on topic.

We can break Stan's first claim down even further:

1. If a candidate is dishonest, I will not vote for them.
2. Smith was dishonest.
C. Therefore, I did not vote for Stan.

Kyle is merely calling into question Premise 1. Whether or not he is successful in doing so is another matter entirely.

*I should note that a complicated choice (like voting in a major election) is never really boiled down to one solitary reason, but we need to keep this simple for the sake of illustration.
Yes, there has been an interpretation of stan's comments that "if a candidate is dishonest, I will not vote for them," although that is in fact not what was claimed and therefore the response from Kyle is a non sequitor as well.
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 01:05 PM   #27
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,306
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
No. It does not point to an inconsistent line of reasoning (because had it done so you would not have had to make up the line about implying something)
I didn't make it up. The proposition following from X is stated clearly in the OP.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 01:07 PM   #28
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,306
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
The assumptions are that in fact Jones lied just as much and that Person A not only knew it but agreed that Jones lied.
As previously stated, the truth value of X is irrelevant to the syllogism unless you wish to argue that X does not apply both to A and B. If so, that's a question for the original thread and is different argument than the one posed here.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 01:11 PM   #29
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
As previously stated, the truth value of X is irrelevant to the syllogism unless you wish to argue that X does not apply both to A and B. If so, that's a question for the original thread and is different argument than the one posed here.
And, more to the point, the truth value of any of the premises has nothing to do with whether or not the fallacy is an ad hominem tu quoque.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 01:13 PM   #30
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
In addition to what JayUtah said, I will point out that the easiest way to spot a red herring (the category in which the tu quoque lies) is to stay focused on what the claim is and whether or not one is deviating from it. In the OP example, it is worth noting that there is a subtle difference between applying criticism fairly and distracting from criticism.

Let's use an example with candidates Smith and Jones:

I didn't vote for Smith because he was extremely dishonest in his campaign.
Yeah, but you voted for Jones, and he lied just as much. What gives?

This is perfectly fair. Kyle is pointing out Stan's inconsistency. Promoting consistency in beliefs and actions is always a rational thing to do.

Now let's look at an alternative scenario:

Even though Jones won, I can't trust him. He was extremely dishonest in his campaign.
Yeah, but you voted for Smith, and he lied just as much, so why are you complaining?

This, however, is a distraction. Stan's response here does not address the trustworthiness of Jones.
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
As previously stated, the truth value of X is irrelevant to the syllogism unless you wish to argue that X does not apply both to A and B. If so, that's a question for the original thread and is different argument than the one posed here.
To clarify matters we are dealing with the first hypothetical above, viz:

I didn't vote for Smith because he was extremely dishonest in his campaign.
Yeah, but you voted for Jones, and he lied just as much. What gives?

As such, I have lost track of what is A, B and X. Can you clarify?
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 01:21 PM   #31
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
To clarify matters we are dealing with the first hypothetical above, viz:

I didn't vote for Smith because he was extremely dishonest in his campaign.
Yeah, but you voted for Jones, and he lied just as much. What gives?

As such, I have lost track of what is A, B and X. Can you clarify?
That Jones lied just as much as Smith may be false doesn't make Kyle's statement a tu quoque. If Jones didn't lie at all, any argument relying on the allegation that Jones lied would lead to a unsound conclusion. However, and unsound conclusion is not necessarily a tu quoque.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 01:25 PM   #32
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,306
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
As such, I have lost track of what is A, B and X. Can you clarify?
See my syllogism above, restated below. A and B are the candidates, lest this be a partisan discussion. X (from the OP) is the property they both exhibit, thus defining a category of all that exhibit property X. The statement "I cannot vote for a candidate that exhibits property X" is tantamount to a major premise: "Candidates that exhibit X should not be voted for." Note that the proposition "vote for a candidate" depends only upon X.
Candidates who exhibit X should not be voted for.
Candidate A exhibits property X, therefore
Candidate A should not be voted for.
If B also exhibits property X, then B is in the same category as A with respect to X and this syllogism should hold for B. Therefore all propositions that follow from X apply equally to B as to A, such as the consequent in the major premise: "...should not be voted for." But if someone who advances this syllogism as a justification for not voting for A then votes for B, the syllogism becomes appropriately invalid because the major premise is violated.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 01:37 PM   #33
I Am The Scum
Master Poster
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,908
Maybe I should have used Scooby Doo characters...
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 01:40 PM   #34
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
See my syllogism above, restated below. A and B are the candidates, lest this be a partisan discussion. X (from the OP) is the property they both exhibit, thus defining a category of all that exhibit property X. The statement "I cannot vote for a candidate that exhibits property X" is tantamount to a major premise: "Candidates that exhibit X should not be voted for." Note that the proposition "vote for a candidate" depends only upon X.
Candidates who exhibit X should not be voted for.
Candidate A exhibits property X, therefore
Candidate A should not be voted for.
If B also exhibits property X, then B is in the same category as A with respect to X and this syllogism should hold for B. Therefore all propositions that follow from X apply equally to B as to A, such as the consequent in the major premise: "...should not be voted for." But if someone who advances this syllogism as a justification for not voting for A then votes for B, the syllogism becomes appropriately invalid because the major premise is violated.
Well, as shown above the OP bears no relation to the actual discussion in the links.

The actual discussion was:

A: I did not vote for X because Y.
B: You are a hypocrite because you voted for Z who also did Y.

B did not prove either that A was a hypocrite, nor falsify A's claim (B also did not show Z did Y nor that A knew believed that Z did Y).

the accusation of hypocrisy was a tu quoque fallacy.
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 02:00 PM   #35
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,306
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Well, as shown above the OP bears no relation to the actual discussion in the links.
I disagree.

Quote:
A: I did not vote for X because Y.
This sets out a line of reasoning that is structurally equivalent to the syllogism I listed above. The operative implication has the antecedent Y and the consequent "did not vote for X." The major premise is "Candidates who exhibit Y should not be voted for." The minor premise is "Candidate X exhibits Y," and the conclusion -- explicitly stated -- is, "Candidate X should not be voted for," which is correctly reasoned. (I.e., the syllogism is of validating form.)

Quote:
B: You are a hypocrite because you voted for Z who also did Y.
No. I pointed this out above. Hypocrisy on its own is not a fallacy. But hypocrisy can produce errors in reasoning that amount to special pleading. And that special pleading was made evident when people who cited the syllogism above as a justification for not voting for X thereafter voted for Z, when Z also exhibited Y.

If your complaint is that it isn't shown that Z exhibited Y, then that is an evidentiary matter amounting to a begged question, not a tu quoque.. The question at hand is not whether the syllogism above or the political discussion from which it emerged can be rebutted. The question is whether you have correctly diagnosed a tu quoque fallacy. You have not, for the reasons elaborated in abundance. But since the poster alleging that Z exhibited Y did document his claims, you have no refuge there anyway. The question was not begged.

Quote:
B did not prove either that A was a hypocrite, nor falsify A's claim...
None of that is required to reject a diagnosis of tu quoque.

Last edited by JayUtah; 21st December 2016 at 02:23 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 02:00 PM   #36
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Well, as shown above the OP bears no relation to the actual discussion in the links.

The actual discussion was:

A: I did not vote for X because Y.
B: You are a hypocrite because you voted for Z who also did Y.

B did not prove either that A was a hypocrite, nor falsify A's claim (B also did not show Z did Y nor that A knew believed that Z did Y).

the accusation of hypocrisy was a tu quoque fallacy.
No, it wasn't, because, even though hypocrisy was mentioned, the objection lodged against voting for Trump because Clinton was untrustworthy was that Trump was untrustworthy for the same reasons. Therefore, voting for Trump because Clinton was untrustworthy was logically inconsistent.

Since the argument addresses the logical structure of the justification to vote for Trump, it isn't a tu quoque.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 02:23 PM   #37
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
This sets out a line of reasoning that is structurally equivalent to the syllogism I listed above. The operative implication has the antecedent Y and the consequent "did not vote for X." The major premise is "Candidates who exhibit Y should not be voted for." The minor premise is "Candidate X exhibits Y," and the conclusion -- explicitly stated -- is, "Candidate X should not be voted for," which is correctly reasoned. (I.e., the syllogism is of validating form.)



No. I pointed this out above. Hypocrisy on its own is not a fallacy. But hypocrisy can produce errors in reasoning that amount to special pleading. And that special pleading was made evident when people who cited the syllogism above as a justification for not voting for X thereafter voted for Z, when Z also exhibited Y.

If your complaint is that it issn't shown that Z exhibited Y, then that is an evidentiary matter amounting to a begged question, not a tu quoque.. The question at hand is not whether the syllogism above or the political discussion from which it emerged can be rebutted. The question is whether you have correctly diagnosed a tu quoque fallacy. You have not, for the reasons elaborated in abundance.

None of that is required to reject a diagnosis of tu quoque.

Quote:
This sets out a line of reasoning that is structurally equivalent to the syllogism I listed above.
False. You are changing A's claim to fit your needs. "structurally equivalent"? Seriously, who ya kidding. Deal with the actual claim

Quote:
No. I pointed this out above. Hypocrisy on its own is not a fallacy.
No one claimed "hypocrisy" was a "fallacy." The ACCUSATION of hypocrisy is the fallacy.

As pointed out above, the diagnosis of tu quoque stands proven.
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 02:31 PM   #38
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
The ACCUSATION of hypocrisy is the fallacy.
No, it's not. In order for an argument to be a fallacy, a conclusion has to be drawn from a statement. In other words, the bare accusation of poverty hypocrisy is not a fallacy in and of itself because there is no conclusion drawn from it. If, however, it is concluded that the arguer's own conclusion is false because the argue is arguing hypocritically, the assertion that the arguer's conclusion is false is a tu quoque.

To repeat:

Calling someone a hypocrite is not, in and of itself, a tu quoque.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 02:33 PM   #39
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,306
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Seriously, who ya kidding. Deal with the actual claim.
I am. You took it upon yourself to restate the original argument. I quoted your restatement and pointed out explicitly the parts of it that correspond to my formulation in more formal logic. If you don't understand structural equivalence in categorical or syllogistic reasoning, I can recommend a few introductory texts for you.

Quote:
No one claimed "hypocrisy" was a "fallacy." The ACCUSATION of hypocrisy is the fallacy.
There is no material distinction between "hypocrisy" and the "accusation of hypocrisy" as it pertains to this thread. The operative argument was not simply that hypocrisy existed or was alleged to exist, but that the disparity at the core of the (alleged) hypocrisy was used to formulate a contradictory line of reasoning. When it is the line of reasoning that is rebutted, it is not tu quoque.

Quote:
As pointed out above, the diagnosis of tu quoque stands proven.
Because you say so?

Last edited by JayUtah; 21st December 2016 at 02:34 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 02:57 PM   #40
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I am. You took it upon yourself to restate the original argument. I quoted your restatement and pointed out explicitly the parts of it that correspond to my formulation in more formal logic. If you don't understand structural equivalence in categorical or syllogistic reasoning, I can recommend a few introductory texts for you.

There is no material distinction between "hypocrisy" and the "accusation of hypocrisy" as it pertains to this thread. The operative argument was not simply that hypocrisy existed or was alleged to exist, but that the disparity at the core of the (alleged) hypocrisy was used to formulate a contradictory line of reasoning. When it is the line of reasoning that is rebutted, it is not tu quoque.

Because you say so?
Thanks! Agreement, you have "restated" the hypothetical

A: I did not vote for X because Y.

to:

A. Candidates who exhibit X should not be voted for.

which ain't the same, despite the magic of "structural equivalence in categorical or syllogistic reasoning as set forth in a few introductory texts" (I am going to restate my opponents positions using ""structural equivalence in categorical or syllogistic reasoning" too, talk about a lay up!)

and this "line" of reasoning bit? I already dismantled that because that ASSUMES that the original claimant's reasoning was contradictory (ie he thought that the candidate he voted for was dishonest which is LUDICROUS)
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.

Last edited by The Big Dog; 21st December 2016 at 03:00 PM.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:20 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.