Logic and the Message: Difference between revisions

Line 89:

The '''ad hoc rescue fallacy''' occurs when someone invents a new, unsupported excuse or hypothesis just to save their original argument from being proven wrong. Instead of admitting defeat or providing real evidence, they constantly adjust their claim on the spot to dodge counterexamples.

Why it happens

'''Why it happens'''

The term ''ad hoc'' is Latin for "to this". People use this fallacy out of a desperate desire to be right, or an emotional attachment to an idea. When faced with legitimate evidence that completely destroys their point, they try to patch the leak by making up new rules or qualifiers with absolutely no basis in fact. ~~[1, 2, 3]~~

The term ''ad hoc'' is Latin for "to this". People use this fallacy out of a desperate desire to be right, or an emotional attachment to an idea. When faced with legitimate evidence that completely destroys their point, they try to patch the leak by making up new rules or qualifiers with absolutely no basis in fact.

Real-world examples

'''Real-world examples'''

* '''The Leprechaun Defense:''' A person claims leprechauns live in their backyard. When you look and see absolutely nothing, they claim, "They are completely invisible and make no noise." When you point out thermal cameras don't see them either, they claim, "They don't emit heat." They are continuously inventing new rules to make sure their claim can never be disproven. ~~[1]~~

* '''The Leprechaun Defense:''' A person claims leprechauns live in their backyard. When you look and see absolutely nothing, they claim, "They are completely invisible and make no noise." When you point out thermal cameras don't see them either, they claim, "They don't emit heat." They are continuously inventing new rules to make sure their claim can never be disproven.

* '''No True Scotsman:''' Someone claims that "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." You bring up their Uncle Angus, who is a Scotsman and loves sugar on his porridge. Instead of admitting they are wrong, they respond, "Well, no ''true'' Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge," arbitrarily redefining who counts. ~~[1]~~

* '''No True Scotsman:''' Someone claims that "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." You bring up their Uncle Angus, who is a Scotsman and loves sugar on his porridge. Instead of admitting they are wrong, they respond, "Well, no ''true'' Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge," arbitrarily redefining who counts.

* '''Conspiracy Theories:''' Someone claims a specific psychic has magical abilities. When scientific testing proves they cannot read minds, the believer explains, "Your skepticism blocked their psychic energy."

How to handle it

'''How to handle it'''

Recognizing this fallacy is a great step toward better critical thinking. You can address it by pointing out that an argument that cannot be disproven under any circumstances is scientifically meaningless. Ask the person what ''would'' count as valid evidence to disprove their belief, or require them to back up their new, on-the-spot excuses with actual, objective proof.

@@ Line 89: / Line 89: @@
 The '''ad hoc rescue fallacy''' occurs when someone invents a new, unsupported excuse or hypothesis just to save their original argument from being proven wrong. Instead of admitting defeat or providing real evidence, they constantly adjust their claim on the spot to dodge counterexamples.
-Why it happens
+'''Why it happens'''
-The term ''ad hoc'' is Latin for "to this". People use this fallacy out of a desperate desire to be right, or an emotional attachment to an idea. When faced with legitimate evidence that completely destroys their point, they try to patch the leak by making up new rules or qualifiers with absolutely no basis in fact. [1, 2, 3]
+The term ''ad hoc'' is Latin for "to this". People use this fallacy out of a desperate desire to be right, or an emotional attachment to an idea. When faced with legitimate evidence that completely destroys their point, they try to patch the leak by making up new rules or qualifiers with absolutely no basis in fact.
-Real-world examples
+'''Real-world examples'''
-* '''The Leprechaun Defense:''' A person claims leprechauns live in their backyard. When you look and see absolutely nothing, they claim, "They are completely invisible and make no noise." When you point out thermal cameras don't see them either, they claim, "They don't emit heat." They are continuously inventing new rules to make sure their claim can never be disproven. [1]
+* '''The Leprechaun Defense:''' A person claims leprechauns live in their backyard. When you look and see absolutely nothing, they claim, "They are completely invisible and make no noise." When you point out thermal cameras don't see them either, they claim, "They don't emit heat." They are continuously inventing new rules to make sure their claim can never be disproven.
-* '''No True Scotsman:''' Someone claims that "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." You bring up their Uncle Angus, who is a Scotsman and loves sugar on his porridge. Instead of admitting they are wrong, they respond, "Well, no ''true'' Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge," arbitrarily redefining who counts. [1]
+* '''No True Scotsman:''' Someone claims that "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." You bring up their Uncle Angus, who is a Scotsman and loves sugar on his porridge. Instead of admitting they are wrong, they respond, "Well, no ''true'' Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge," arbitrarily redefining who counts.
 * '''Conspiracy Theories:''' Someone claims a specific psychic has magical abilities. When scientific testing proves they cannot read minds, the believer explains, "Your skepticism blocked their psychic energy."
-How to handle it
+'''How to handle it'''
 Recognizing this fallacy is a great step toward better critical thinking. You can address it by pointing out that an argument that cannot be disproven under any circumstances is scientifically meaningless. Ask the person what ''would'' count as valid evidence to disprove their belief, or require them to back up their new, on-the-spot excuses with actual, objective proof.