15

A very common fallacy used by propagandists has the structure:

  • Person A presents fact X as support for a theory T that person A tries to prove, adding continuous suggestions about a conspiracy, but
  • Person B doesn't know fact X,
  • Person A claims the media are hiding fact X because they don't want you to know.
  • Since person B didn't know about fact X, he now feels it is true that there is a conspiracy to try to keep X secret from widespread knowledge.

This applies even when X is public knowledge for those continuously involved in some topic.

This fallacy portrays fact X as "just another proof" that the worldwide media is being controlled by governments or elites, X is morally bad, they are consistently lying to you, etc.

However, although there may be examples of this happening, it's not a logical argument because there may be another explanation for why you don't know fact X.

Does this fallacy have a name?

NOTE: It's important to note that this fallacy is made by B himself, not A. A isn't giving any explanation about X's secrecy, he directly claims that "X is being omitted by big media". Person B is who unconsciously reinforces A's axiomatic claim (media is hidding it) by adding a premise based on his own experience (I'm surprised by not knowing it). Why B relates his surprise of not knowing it with the validity of being hidden?

  • A. Due to A's suggestions, B has been biased and fact X is now temporarily attached to "secretism" in B's mind, which makes him forgets during the course of A's explanation that other causes are possible, like for example X not being relevant at all.

  • B. There's also an unconscious sense that, even if person B doesn't watch TV or read newspapers, and because we live on a strongly interconnected social world, the relevant points of what big media say should "reach me" some way or another, through friends, family conversations, social media posts, etc; a false feeling that "widespread info unavoidably will fall towards me too" just because I live connected to the world and not in a cave.

X is being hidden is a B's unconscious (and fallacious) personal conclusion matching A's claim in response of his suprise after knowing the important fact X.

ABu
  • 277
  • 2
  • 7
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Philip Klöcking May 26 '22 at 23:24
  • How is it that person B doesn’t know fact X but then you claim fact X is public knowledge? He may not of known at the time but he can know very quickly if X is public knowledge. There are holes in your story or presentation. – Logikal May 30 '22 at 06:34

3 Answers3

20

This sounds like a Furtive Fallacy; the presumption of a malicious and secretive authority is supposed to serve as supportive evidence for an otherwise ungrounded claim.

Paul Ross
  • 5,441
  • 19
  • 39
6

I'll go out on a limb and suggest this informal fallacy is at its root a False Dilemma:

When you reason from an either-or position and you haven't considered all relevant possibilities you commit the fallacy of false dilemma.

The premise of the argument is not made explicit it in the OP (as is often the case in natural discussions), but I would argue that there is an implicit false choice involved here, namely that:

  • Either the media broadcast X
  • Or the media is hiding X

If the media were broadcasting X, then you would know X*. You don't know X, thus (if we accept the False Dilemma) the media must be hiding X.

But there may be many reasons why the media might not be broadcasting X. It may not be interesting. It may not actually be true (though that doesn't always stop the media ;) ). There might be more important news. And so on.

Addressing this implicit assumption would be a good way to counter person A's argument. (As would bringing to light any other hidden assumption that people might disagree on, for that matter.)

*) The premise that you would know about all the things the media are broadcasting is itself most likely false as well. The argument implicitly relies on this premise, but you might check afterwards and find the media indeed hasn't broadcast X, in which case you might still fall for the False Dilemma.

towr
  • 197
  • 3
  • The original argument must have an either or premise not someone else making stuff up. Every disagreement is not a philosophical argument proper. You are confusing psychology with philosophy. If you are going to claim something is a fallacy then show the readers the proper definition of said fallacy right afterwards. You did not do so. You can’t just claim something is a fallacy because you don’t like the claim. – Logikal May 30 '22 at 06:17
  • @Logikal I said it's an informal fallacy, and I linked to the definition. You're absolutely right if you're complaining that it is not a formal logical fallacy. But it is an informal one. – towr May 30 '22 at 06:20
  • Show me that the FALSE DILEMMA is an informal fallacy please. Wiki is NOT enough. Show me a philosophy text with the definition. – Logikal May 30 '22 at 06:25
  • @Logikal "Traditionally, a great number of informal fallacies have been identified, including the fallacy of equivocation, the fallacy of amphiboly, the fallacies of composition and division, the false dilemma, the fallacy of begging the question, the ad hominem fallacy and the appeal to ignorance." straight from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy – towr May 30 '22 at 06:27
  • @Logikal "A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise. This premise has the form of a disjunctive claim: it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true. " from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma – towr May 30 '22 at 06:28
  • Wiki has a lot of wrong information with multiple topic areas. You need Philosophy sources to make a legit point here. There are none that will define the false dilemma as you do. There must be an EITHER. . . OR form of argument which immediately makes this a FORMAL Argument not INFORMAL. Your terminology is wrong. You do admit the must be an either or premise yes or no? Someone else can’t add that part either like you are trying to pull off. – Logikal May 30 '22 at 06:29
  • Here is an example of a false dilemma: “when you die sometime in the future you will either you be shot or hung! You will not be hung therefore the only way for you to die must be you will get shot.” Notice the either . . . Or must literally be present. This is why it is a FORMAL. It is a disjunctive argument. The reason the reasoning is BAD is because I only gave two options in the whole wide world of possibilities. ONLY TWO options while we can clearly think of other options that were NOT PRESENTED like dying of old age, getting hit by a bus, etc. is this a false dilemma or no to you? – Logikal May 30 '22 at 06:40
  • https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/False-Dilemma.html : "When you reason from an either-or position and you haven't considered all relevant possibilities you commit the fallacy of false dilemma." It doesn't state it must be an explicitly stated "either-or" position. It is implicit here, but it is still there. – towr May 30 '22 at 06:40
  • Well you are making poor assumptions. The argument must have it there. I just provided an example a few seconds ago. Do you agree my example fits the fallacy of false dilemma or no? – Logikal May 30 '22 at 06:41
  • Yes, your example fits the false dilemma, and it makes the premise explicit, which is great. But in most natural arguments people fail to do that, and you need to bring assumptions to the foreground.
    In any case, I need to go to work now. Thanks for commenting on why you downvoted, I wish more people across the stacks would do that, even if I'm not in agreement with you (at least not yet).     – towr May 30 '22 at 06:48
  • I understand. There is a lot of misinformation about logic because philosophy & math go to war with the same ideas too. Mathematical logic says validity is key & content is not important. They say logic is about form or validity. Well then how is false dilemma a fallacy? Surely it is a fallacy based of of CONTENT not form alone. Something that makes you go hmmmmmm. – Logikal May 30 '22 at 06:55
0

Appeal to Probability

There's a difference between rigorous, deductive logic; and practical, heuristic logic.

Rigorously, it's possible I just happened to miss the news every time a specific event was talked about.

Realistically, if I watch the news a lot and haven't heard a particular, important fact concerning a popular subject, it's most likely because the media I'm watching doesn't want me to know that fact.

A fallacy only occurs when we represent the second logical statement (this is probably true) as proving the first (this must be true). Doing so is known as an appeal to probability.

(Obviously, a fact concerning a subject almost nobody is talking about doesn't have a good likelihood of reaching me. So the second bit of logic isn't always valid even as a statement of probability.)

MichaelS
  • 250
  • 1
  • 7
  • There are clearly people just making wiki pages and making stuff up out of their emotions. You can’t just scream fallacy whenever you like. This alleged fallacy makes no sense. All sciences go by probability so make this fallacy make sense for all of readers here. If a claim is not 100 percent or zero percent then you are dealing with a probability. There are only two absolutes: 100 percent such as All women are human beings and zero percent such as All women are reptiles. Anything in between 100 percent & zero is a PROBABILITY. The fallacy occurs only with the original person not another. – Logikal May 30 '22 at 06:24
  • NO first off you are misusing the terminology VALID & SOUND. You are using them as some sort of cool SLANG.Those terms have very specific definitions in philosophy. You can't use them any kind of way you desire. Next all reasoning does not present a legitimate argument in philosophy. Some one may just be venting out emotions because they want attention & you seem to want to take anything as a legit logical argument. I can see you have issues telling philosophy apart from psychology. You can't just make up fallacies because you don't like the outcome. The OP is upset for that reason – Logikal May 31 '22 at 03:39
  • Why are many people doing what you are doing by THINKING there must be a fallacy here? What we expect anyone to do is STATE what fallacy they believe it is & THEN ALSO post the definition of said fallacy you mentioned for all readers to see if the name of the fallacy & its proper definition posted for evaluation. If one does that your thoughts could be better evaluated by all readers on the site. – Logikal May 31 '22 at 03:45
  • Your issue is you are STILL using the terms VALID & SOUND incorrect when you claim to KNOW what the mean. They refer to deductive reasoning only if you KNOW what they mean. Secondly wikipedia is not a reliable source. Plenty of people have spotted errors on multiple topic areas. Try using a PHILOSOPHY SOURCE written by philosophers. Would that not be more relevant than any random typing on wiki? Your source is poor. Quote a textbook for your definitions. The fact you think the disagreement is an argument is another problem. As stated the OP doesn't like that probability can actually be correct – Logikal May 31 '22 at 05:59
  • The names people are coming up with have very specific and detailed definitions that don't match. That is the problem. If you make up names out of the blue that will be less persuasive won't it? – Logikal May 31 '22 at 06:01
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – MichaelS May 31 '22 at 06:05