Fallacies.. a new one?

Lately I've been interested in reading about the different types of fallacies in reasoning/debating. It's fascinating how many different 'types' have been identified and discussed! And reading about them can be really enlightening (although very hard to consistently recognise them, even in your own argumentation)Now yesterday, and this might be pure hubris , I seemed to hit upon a worthy candidate-fallacy all by myself. I've checked out some lists of fallacies on the web, and indeed didn't seem to find a 'known' type that fitted quite what I meant.It has something of "Appeal to novelty" and "Bandwagon fallacy", but isn't quite the same.This fallacy, from now on known as the "Smartass Fallacy",(C) Annafan September 2005, is defined as follows: It is something I have often seemed to recognise in my own reasoning (which must be a great indication of my inborn skepticism ;-) ).Another way to describe it would be "the desire to belong to a group of 'wise pioneers', who will later turn out to have been the first to go against an existing tide of ignorance"Some examples:- the changing attitude around nuclear energy: first it was perceived by "the informed" as the great hope for an eternal energy source. Then the hype slowly turned around, focussing almost completely on the environmental risks, so THAT became the "best informed" opinion. Lately, helped by the argument against greenhouse gasses, the "seemingly smartest" position has reverted again to support for nuclear energy.- taking position in the Global Warming controversy will also be handled similarly by many people. Belief in human influence will soon be considered 'old hat'.- Linux vs. Windows seems to be a good candidate as wellRegardless of what position would generally be considered the RIGHT one based on objective criteria, I think we could agree that a lot of people will change side at some point MOSTLY because they get satisfaction from the idea that they knew something before the majority of other people got access or understood that information.

quote:

---

"An appeal to novel, hot-off-the-press and not (yet) generally known/accepted information about a certain subject ,seemingly superior to current 'common knowledge' or wide public consensus about that same subject."

---

Only if the novelty itself is why it is trumped, of course.A fallacy I think we should hear more about is the Appeal to Conspiracy. It has a weak and strong manifestation.For example, the weak:The only reason scientists believe in evolution is because they all decide what gets published and Creationists get edged out.Notice there is no solid conspiracy per se, but common behavior that tends to reinforce the status quo.The strong:The American government hides all evidence of Flying Saucers from the public, and silences witnesses, this is why there is no proof of their existance.

I'm still not sure what your fallacy is. How about some more clear examples. This has three different positions. Are you suggesting at each stage the people that jumped the gun were commiting the fallacy, or someone suggesting they know better now in light of all this is commiting the fallacy, or what?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

What you are suggesting is not a fallacy.Am I committing a smartass fallacy when I say that we DID land on the moon?The reason logical people take the positions that they do is perhaps because those positions seem more logical????

I knew it wouldn't be this simple LOL. While I made up the post, I was a bit dissatisfied with the examples I had been able to come up with, and how I worded them.I'll think a bit more about it and get back to it since I made all this up far too quickly. For now I'll add one more thing: I got to this proposal for a new fallacy when I thought about the almost JOY you can feel when you have this idea that you "know better" because you read about some novel interpretation or explanation for something. And I immediately recognised that this {joy/pride/feeling of superiority} could easily blind one from real objective criteria to settle the issue.

GAW,I was referring to the 'component' that is likely to 'blind' one from objective criteria to take position. The feelings of pride/superiority ('I know better because I'm better informed, bcause I'm sooner on the ball') which are not necessarily depending on the validity or weight of the new information.

Another (silly) example:You don't like spinach but your mother keeps bothering you with the 'common knowledge' that eating spinach is healthy because it contains a lot of 'iron'.Then you read somewhere that spinach acquired its reputation largely because there was at some point an overproduction of the vegetable, and a smart marketing campaign was set up to get rid of it. (they even made Popeye eat it to brainwash children ;-) )Next time your mother argues again, you answer her that it is all a myth and that she was manipulated. And you feel a lot smarter and superior because YOU got access to that information that has remained largely hidden for the general public.It doesn't really matter all that much that MAYBE spinach is still healthy and may contain lots of iron indeed. What matters is the feeling that you know better because you are better informed, that you have inside knowledge. That overshadows any objective investigation (the marketing campaign-claim could be a myth itself, but you're not really interested in investigating that further)

I think it might be an appeal to novelty with a smartass motivation.

How you feel or your attitude while approaching the subject has nothing to do with logical fallacies.

Nice joke, Annafan. They're all falling for it.

I would say it is only a "fallicy" if the imagination continues to push the pioneer and the hangers on into still newer intellectual territory. Circleing the wagons would not count.When Einstein realized that by thinking about the wonder of magnetic movment and imagined traveling side by side with a light ray he turned his imagination which is said was more important that knowledge into theories that showed physicists did know that gravity was more like inertia than force. How many people were supposed to have had this imagination at the 1919 time? It would be a fallicy if the imagination pushed this individual not only in the knowledge but also into other newer imaginations which were touted to others not imagining NOR knowing thus using the imagination to force the nonknowers to feel inferior. Einstein never really imagined any much more though he gained in knoweledge with every year of his life. He tried to imagine beyond his means but did not really fully succeed again.If one compared imagination and intelligence instead of knowledge then it would be about people and not understanding. In that case one could switch to the intelligent side without the imagination.So if you are only being the red queen in your knowledge it is no fallicy to notice you might know something before someone else even if you also imagined it first. But if you use your imagination to spurn the intelligence of another, shame on you and all those who think there is logic in the saying but only show with no tell.

so, all of contemporary art then?

---

אָרַח

Not sure if this is a new one. I suspect it isn't but I'll let someone else correct me. In another thread a poster used the argument that you can judge the fairness of a process or entity based on its direct correlation to a demographic representation of the community.One common usage of this is that if a workplace had fair hiring practices the racial demographic in the workplace would be the same as that seen in the nation.Another is that govt must be biased because it does not fit the exact same physical demographics of the community it represents.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Since it's me that you're talking about, Holmes, I must ask you not to spread mirepresentations of my positions around in different threads.

I'll try to clarify a bit more by an attempt to compare the "Smartass Fallacy" to some others that might resemble it:Setting is: you are discussing something, or reasoning to yourself about something. It is not just "Appeal to Novelty", because an essential component is that it should not be widely known. And IF it becomes widely known, one would stop using it for this type of argument.