tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post4493596240337367105..comments2023-06-19T04:35:06.263-07:00Comments on Skeptic's Play: Hypothetical fallaciesmillerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-77648063941874277042012-05-28T21:17:13.089-07:002012-05-28T21:17:13.089-07:00I agree that appeal to majority and tu quoque (or ...I agree that appeal to majority and tu quoque (or whatever that second one is) are not necessarily fallacious.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-54303766967717531032012-05-28T04:01:19.972-07:002012-05-28T04:01:19.972-07:00I think your definition (even if the hypothetical ...I think your definition (even if the hypothetical is agreed, the conclusion is invalid) is pretty good. <br /><br />By that definition, however, I don't think either argument is necessarily fallacious.<br /><br />The first can be a legitimate appeal to emotion. It would be fallacious to say, "Everyone in the future will believe that X is true, therefore X is true." However, if used not as an argument that X is true, but rather an argument that "you should support X", then that's a legitimate argument: gaining the approval of others is a legitimate motivation.<br /><br />The second can also be a legitimate appeal to emotion. Again, the argument that "if a Republican did X, no Republican would denounce X as scandalous, therefore X is not scandalous" is fallacious. However, the question might be, "How much should we care about X?" Again, that Republicans would be dismissive about one of their own doing X is a legitimate reason that we might not care so much about someone else doing X.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.com