Question

...
Ed F

What Fallacy Is This?--That's Not Important

A makes an argument for claim X

B responds:  I don't think what's important is X.  What's important is that...Y.

---

B's response is both dismissive of A and an attempt to change the subject.  

asked on Sunday, Feb 13, 2022 11:34:02 AM by Ed F

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments
...
0
Shawn writes:

Well, yes, your conclusion does have validity, but it can also be a statement of different sets of values that A & B has. A may claim that X is important because it is central to their personal value system. B, on the other hand, may have an altogether set of values and dismiss X as being important and instead lay claim to Y as being important instead.  So it may not necessarily be a fallacy, but a manifestation of opposing value systems play. At least that is my 2 cents worth. 

posted on Sunday, Feb 13, 2022 12:14:28 PM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Reason: Books I & II

This book is based on the first five years of The Dr. Bo Show, where Bo takes a critical thinking-, reason-, and science-based approach to issues that matter with the goal of educating and entertaining. Every chapter in the book explores a different aspect of reason by using a real-world issue or example.

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.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
TrappedPrior (RotE)
1

It seems like a case of people talking past each other, because they have different goals. 

So if this were a debate about COVID-19 measures, for instance, person A could be advocating for a lockdown, citing the need to 'save lives'. Person B could be advocating against lockdowns, citing the need to 'preserve the economy'. 

If person A presented their argument, it'd be fine for person B to explain why their goal is more important...as long as they explain why. As in, it would still have to be a counter to the original argument - either accepting that X is important, but less so than Y, or demonstrating that X actually isn't all that important. This way, both people in the conversation could advance different goals while still responding to one another - talking to, rather than past, each other. If they didn't, and simply tried to avoid the subject, this would fall under red herring.
answered on Sunday, Feb 13, 2022 01:30:06 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE)

TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories

Comments