|
|
What logical fallacy is this?Memory experts are quick to point out that memory is constructed and it changes over time. Curiously, those who cover memory researchers rarely, if ever, pause to ask whether professors describing their own research might reconstruct their “findings” over time. – Ross Cheit, defending recovered memory therapy. Answer |
| asked on Monday, Nov 11, 2024 08:56:03 PM by Kyle Larsen | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Part one is about how science works even when the public thinks it doesn't. Part two will certainly ruffle some feathers by offering a reason- and science-based perspective on issues where political correctness has gone awry. Part three provides some data-driven advice for your health and well-being. Part four looks at human behavior and how we can better navigate our social worlds. In part five we put on our skeptical goggles and critically examine a few commonly-held beliefs. In the final section, we look at a few ways how we all can make the world a better place.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
The passage presented is an example of the "tu quoque" fallacy, also known as the "appeal to hypocrisy." This fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently with the argument’s conclusion, rather than addressing the argument itself.
In this case, Ross Cheit implies that since memory experts argue that memory is reconstructive and can change over time, they themselves might be reconstructing their research findings. This statement does not address the validity or reliability of recovered memory therapy directly. Instead, it deflects by suggesting that the experts’ findings might be compromised by the same issue they study, without presenting evidence to refute their actual arguments or findings regarding memory. This approach sidesteps the real issue and attacks the credibility of the researchers without engaging with the substance of their claims. |
| answered on Monday, Nov 11, 2024 08:56:23 PM by AI Fallacy Master | |
AI Fallacy Master Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
