Gish Gallop & can't find the name

Hello,

The book is an absolute gem both in style and substance (I am the grown up smart ass). I reference it while deconstructing testimony and cite it in legal briefs. I am looking for name for a type of argument that I frequently see, but for which I can aptly name. Its what I have thought of as the "heap of sand" argument in reverse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

At first I thought this concept was contained with in "reuctio ad absurdum" or a reverse to the Camel's Nose argument in your book, but I do not think they are perfect fits. It is not a forced delima because it only happens at the margins.

Black or white.

Assume a scale from 0 to 100.

Assume low findings of 2-6.

Therefore the findings are 0.

Example 1) In a examination a doctor tests a patient and the results are minimal or mild objective findings. Conclusion, the doctor did not find any evidence of injury.

This is such a classic argument that I would assume it would be named by the Greeks, but I can't find it by name. Note that this is also done in the reverse when ranges are (94+% are referenced there is an error in reasoning which rounds up to 100%). This is a problem in any thing with large sample sets, for example see the Drake equation.

If I missed your identification of this type of fallacy please cite a page number.

Also, I wanted to throw this at you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

The term Gish Gallop is not in your book, it might be a tactic more than a specific logical fallacy, but given the its current predominance Americana cults it worth sharing to a brother of reason.

And in that same vein, I'd like to share an opposite concept to Logic Fallacies -- Cannons of Construction. You likely are aware of them. While not a perfect opposite, they are useful. 

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/judicial/publications/appellate_issues/2022/winter/canons-of-construction/

Please write more, your work is appreciated.

Carson/

Thanks for enjoying the book :)

In the book, I have argument of the beard , but this appears to be different from what you are describing in your example.

What you are referencing appears to be more of a factual error or just practical rounding. For example, if it is 34 degrees F, it wouldn't be unreasonable to claim it is freezing out. Another example, my brother owes me LOTS of money. He has paid me pennies on the dollar so far, and I still say he has not been paying me back—for all practical purposes, he has not. In scientific terms, a result of 2-6 on a scale of 100 could be within the standard error, and might not be significant. So claiming "no result" is warranted.

Again, one could call another on a "technicality" for rounding when rounding shouldn't be done. But I see no real fallacy here.