• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The "if by whiskey" fallacy

If by 'fallacy', you mean arguments based on improper logic, then I do indeed agree it's a rather interesting one. However, if by 'fallacy' you mean it to be an intentionally misleading statement designed to fool us into agreeing with you, then by no means do I join you in your ire.

Athon
 
athon said:
If by 'fallacy', you mean arguments based on improper logic, then I do indeed agree it's a rather interesting one. However, if by 'fallacy' you mean it to be an intentionally misleading statement designed to fool us into agreeing with you, then by no means do I join you in your ire.

Athon
Click to expand...

:)
 
A perfect politician, steadfast in his position and there is something for everyone to agree with. :D
 
Interesting how an informal logical fallacy developed from a speech where the guy was obviously just being funny. Does anyone have an actual example of an if-by-whiskey argument?

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Interesting how an informal logical fallacy developed from a speech where the guy was obviously just being funny. Does anyone have an actual example of an if-by-whiskey argument?

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

See athon's post. Not sure if you can call it an argument since it takes no actual position, but simply characterizes (by use of language) the disagreement with unfavorable phrasing and agreement with favorable phrasing of some thing, condition or circumstance.

ETA: you can usually find examples on any of the threads involving Eclectic Universe claims where current astrophysics are generally simply put in unfavorable terms while untenable electrical explanations are touted as viable alternatives.
 
Last edited:
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Interesting how an informal logical fallacy developed from a speech where the guy was obviously just being funny. Does anyone have an actual example of an if-by-whiskey argument?

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

I would think the "how do you feel about sex on TV" discussion might be fertile ground for such arguments.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Interesting how an informal logical fallacy developed from a speech where the guy was obviously just being funny. Does anyone have an actual example of an if-by-whiskey argument?

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

You see this all the time. Unless there is some other name for it, it represents hypocrisy in an argument - someone characterizes an action or idea one way if it supports their argument and characterizes it another way when it is used to justify their opponent's argument. It seems related to the "begging the question" fallacy and maybe the "no true scotsman" fallacy, but not quite the same.

Linda
 
Lord Muck oGentry said:
Reminds me of Bentham on question-begging appellatives:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...ntham question-begging appellatives&f=false
Click to expand...

I think of 'begging the question' as simply the application of dyslogistic or eulogistic appellations in order to smuggle in a non-explicit premise (to paraphrase). So would you call this a special case of begging the question, whereby both eulogistic and dyslogistic appellations are used to describe the same thing by the same person in order to smuggle in a third non-explicit premise - that the two things are not the same?

Linda
 
fls said:
I think of 'begging the question' as simply the application of dyslogistic or eulogistic appellations in order to smuggle in a non-explicit premise (to paraphrase).
Click to expand...

I assume that the speaker was gently sending up both sides in the debate by echoing their question-begging language.

So would you call this a special case of begging the question, whereby both eulogistic and dyslogistic appellations are used to describe the same thing by the same person in order to smuggle in a third non-explicit premise - that the two things are not the same?
Click to expand...

Well, assuming we take the speech straight rather than as a joke, there is certainly a fallacy in there. But I'm not sure that it's a special case of begging the question. When we have two incompatible descriptions of a thing, we can get out of trouble by accepting that they apply to different things, but we can also give one of the descriptions up. Much the same applies to incompatible evauations: we can't wholeheartedly support and wholeheartedly condemn in the same breath, but we can accept that we are talking about two different things, or we can give up one of our evaluations.

Since the speaker isn't going to come off the fence, he pretends that the former is the only option. So I'd see it as a case of ignoring or suppressing possibilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom