Is this a faithful recreation of the version of Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement with 2 additional bottom levels?

  • Digit@lemmy.wtfOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    I suppose fallacies could exist at any level… … except the bottom two (since they’re not really offering an argument at all)… and perhaps, arguably, at the top. That’s a tricky one though… could a point be centrally refuted, fallaciously?

    • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      i’m not sure that it could exist at most other levels… perhaps tone and name calling, but im not sure that the contradiction level is a fallacy: there’s no active intent there (not that active intent is required; i’m just not sure of the words right now)

      like you’re stating the opposite case but that’s not intending to mislead exactly, and simply doing so isn’t harmful to the dialogue - it’s just not super helpful

      i think it’s an action rather than a tactic, if that makes sense?

      • Digit@lemmy.wtfOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Took a while to contemplate how mere contradiction could be fallacious. It could be:

        • semantic strawman.
        • bare assertion fallacy.
        • argument from ignorance fallacy.
        • false dilemma.
        • appeal to emotion.
        • moving goal posts.
        • circular reasoning.
        • non sequitur. (… ghadamn! I spelled that correctly for the first time! (thnx to another lemmy user correcting me last time.))
        • bandwaggon fallacy.
        • red herring.

        But, that was a good point to raise. On face value, it is at first difficult to see how mere contradiction can be fallacious.

        (And I confess, only the first of those I came up with entirely by my self. The others were suggested by an LLM, with examples which I’ve omitted for brevity.)