a not-nearly-comprehensive guide to classical logical fallacies as employed in fandom
I should probably preface this by saying I don't think I've seen more bad arguments than usual or worse arguments than usual lately. But I do feel like I've seen an uptick in people expressing a few specific frustrations across a surprising variety of fandoms? And so when a post earlier this week (locked and not mine, so I'll go no further, but if you want credit for being the inspiration pipe up, you know who you are) crystallized the fastest and easiest way to explain one of the issues.
(1) No True Scotsman
Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the “Brighton Burglar* Strikes Again”. Hamish is shocked and declares that “No Scotsman would do such a thing”. The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton Burglar* seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, “No true Scotsman would do such a thing”.
*Note: the Scotsman’s crime has been altered. Otherwise, this is the hypothetical example from which the term originated.
The vast majority of “OOC” complaints are No True Scotsman arguments. “[Character] would never do such a thing, [Character] did the thing, therefore [Character] was OOC when they did the thing.”
I say “vast majority” instead of “all” because when we’re talking about long-running canons I think it’s reasonable to allow a little margin for error. But a small margin of error, as in, a couple of lines here or even a bizarre one-shot there. If a pattern of behavior or significant choice on the part of a character would change your opinion of a character were you to accept it as true, that means it exists to shape the character, and denying its occurrence is a use of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
(2) ad hominum
The ever-popular “[Writer] made [Character] ‘OOC,’ therefore [tangentially-related or unrelated contribution by Writer] can also be dismissed as non-existent” employs two logical fallacies: No True Scotsman AND ad hominum.
(3) halo effect
Have a hat trick: “[Character] is good, and so the time [Character] did something shitty must have been OOC, therefore anything else by [Writer] can be discredited at will.” Halo effect, No True Scotsman, and ad hominum.
(4) appeal to moderation
"Some folks say [Character A] is at fault for [Event X], others say [Character B] is at fault for [Event X], therefore the best answer is that blame for [Event X] is equally distributed between A and B."
Now, it's possible that the proposed conclusion happens to be true, but the reasoning is still flawed, because it is formally indistinguishable from:
You say the sky is blue, while I say the sky is red. Therefore, the best solution is to compromise and agree that the sky is purple. (x)
You’re totally entitled to like a narrative, plot point, character, or ship without any justification whatsoever. But once you start making factual assertions or appeals to universal moral standards, "it’s just my opinion" doesn’t it cut it. And feel free to write off this whole exercise as being stupid and irrelevant, but if it’s worth making shit up about, then it’s worth analysis and argument.
This kind of thing pisses me off for reasons more than "someone is WRONG on the INTERNET." People using bad faith - or just BAD - arguments in an attempt to convince others that we don't observe what we observe set my freaking teeth on edge.
For reference, fairly comprehensive and comprehensible lists of logical fallacies can be found on Wikipedia and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
This entry was originally posted at http://pocochina.dreamwidth.org/327144.html. Leave a comment here, or there using OpenID.