Tu quoque is a logical fallacy, amirite?
I can't believe I'm making this post, but Thinkerbell and me got in argument of whether or not Tu Quoque is a logical fallacy. I put the link to the original discussion.
The voters have decided that vegan is right!
Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.
Related Posts
Also about Science
+145There is nothing wrong with being pale and we need to quit normalizing tanning. amirite?
Thoughtco says Tu Quoque is a logical fallacy, they are a credible source, the logic makes sense to me.
" What is Tu Quoque (Logical Fallacy) in Rhetoric?
An ad hominem argument in which the accused becomes the accuser"
" Example I
"It is clear that a tu quoque response to an accusation can never refute the accusation. Consider the following:
Wilma: You cheated on your income tax. Don't you realize that's wrong
Walter: Hey, wait a minute. You cheated on your income tax last year. Or have you forgotten about that?
Walter may be correct in his counter-accusation, but that does not show that Wilma's accusation is false."
—From "Critical Thinking" by William Hughes and Jonathan Lavery
"
thoughtco
By Richard Nordquist
Updated October 31, 2019
The fact that Wilma may have cheated on her income tax is irrelevant.
https://www.thoughtco.com/tu-qu...allacy-1692568
Your way to smart to waste your time with psychology
People do it all the time when i spell rong
“As for an appeal to authority, that's interesting that you would accept one form of logical fallacy as legitimate, appeal to authority, but not another tu quoque.”
This is sort of like saying exponents are real but square roots are a lie!”
Not so. Appeal to authority is NOT a fallacy IF (but ONLY if) the authority is reliable. I have already explained why your tu quoque authorities are not reliable; they PRESUPPOSE that B will draw a fallacious conclusion. I have shown that B will not necessarily do so, a scenario your authorities seem not to have considered.
“You say that my links to thoughtco and rationalwiki proving that tu quoque is a logical fallacy, are somehow straw men, you did explain, but again, the argument was so off base that I ignored it the first time.”
Off base? How so? Your simply saying so doesn't make it so.
Contrary to what your sources assume, I say B doesn’t necessarily say that because A also does X, therefore A’s claim is necessarily false. That would indeed be a fallacy.
But I say an intelligent B will say that because A doesn’t practice what he preaches, therefore A’s claim about X is not necessarily true. A’s claim MIGHT be true, but nothing in A’s actions PROVE it to be true. One would have to go OUTSIDE A’s and B’s discussion to determine the truth or falsehood of X.
So this tu quoque scenario is a STANDOFF, A’s claim being proved NEITHER true NOR false.
Note also that “tu quoque” [“you too”] by itself is an incomplete description of the alleged fallacy, since it omits any mention of B’s [assumed] fallacious conclusion that A’s statement is necessarily false. A more accurate Latin phrase for your authorities’ assumed scenario might be styled “tu quoque, ergo falsitas” [“you too, therefore falsehood”], or something like that.
Lacking that addition, I say my scenario is not only more plausible, it is more interesting to mull over as well.
Now, kindly tell me why I am wrong, and please, use your own arguments instead of simply reiterating your sources, time after time. I have already explained several times why they are inadequate.
"Now please speak succinctly to this point: DID the mother, or did she NOT, undermine her credibility by her own behavior? (Same question applies to Gov Newsom)" Thinkerbell
No, in the case of the smoking mother. In fact, there is a very good chance the fact that the mother smokes increases her credibility, if she has physical proof of how smoking harmed her.
"Another example is how (former) drug addicts who have suffered for their drug usage can also be very well qualified in admonishing others to not get started in harmful, expensive, illegal and addictive substances — sometimes due to personal experience and physical proof of the damage incurred by the drug addiction. " rationalwiki
From the above quote, drug addicts can help others not get started, since drugs and smoking have similarities this can be applied to smoking too.
As for specifically Gov Newsom, no I don't see how this lowers his credibility.
Finally, I am be wrong, I am fairly certain I am right, but having some humility and awareness about one's biases, misconceptions, heuristics, and motivated reasoning is good.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
"No, in the case of the smoking mother. In fact, there is a very good chance the fact that the mother smokes increases her credibility, if she has physical proof of how smoking harmed her. "
I agree that if mom had physical proof that smoking had harmed her, then she would have a stronger case.
Alas for your suggestion, the example from your thoughtco link makes no mention whatever of mom having such proof. Otherwise, when the daughter asks “Why should I listen to you?” mom could have added (for example), "I have lung cancer, and the doctor says it's because of my smoking."
Maybe she even said it in the hospital with her dying breath. If that was the case, then the daughter would have been in denial, much as you are in denial about Gov Newsom losing credibility (see below). But, as I have already pointed out, the example makes no mention of the proof the mother hypothetically had. A rather glaring omission, if true, don’t you think? You'll have to grasp at better straws than that.
"As for specifically Gov Newsom, no I don't see how this lowers his credibility."
His credibility might not be lowered ONLY among those who already firmly believe his restrictions are necessary, but his violations of those restrictions certainly cannot strengthen their beliefs. At the same time, Newsom’s violations cannot help but make at least some undecided people even more uncertain, and cannot help but confirm at least some deniers in their denial.
So quite clearly, there is a net loss of credibility on Newsom’s part, your denial notwithstanding.
I still don't think Gov Newsom's credibility has been lowered, the covid-19 exists and the restrictions are necessary regardless of Gov Newsom's personal actions.
I'll give some examples, if a climate change scientist uses a gasoline powered car, as opposed to an electric car, this does not lower their credibility on climate change. Even though an electric car would be more environmentally friendly. If said scientist said there is a 97% scientific consensus on climate change, the glaciers are retreating, and so forth.
A climate change denier pointing out "hey, you use a gasoline car! You should be driving an electric car, you hypocrite this destroys your reputation on climate change!" Would be an hominem and tu quoque fallacy. Note, an ad hominem doesn't have to be just cursing people out like I used to think.
Thank you for continuing the conversation.
"I still don't think Gov Newsom's credibility has been lowered, the covid-19 exists and the restrictions are necessary regardless of Gov Newsom's personal actions. "
You have not directly addressed the points I raised. I am talking about his credibility as a practical matter, as perceived by the general public, not in an absolute sense of whether or not he is right in the abstract.
So I repeat:
His [Newsom's] credibility might not be lowered ONLY among those who already firmly believe his restrictions are necessary, but his violations of those restrictions certainly cannot strengthen their beliefs. At the same time, Newsom’s violations cannot help but make at least some undecided people even more uncertain, and cannot help but confirm at least some deniers in their denial.
So quite clearly, there is a net loss of credibility on Newsom’s part, your denial notwithstanding.
HAS he or has he NOT damaged his credibility (i.e., believability), as perceived by the general public?
In your example of the climate scientist who drives a gasoline-powered car, of course he has damaged his reputation, and even more so if the car happens to be a gas-guzzling SUV that gets 15 miles to the gallon. A skeptic can justifiably say, "Well, Dr. So-and-so, it seems that by your own actions, you appear not to believe what you preach. Either that, or you appear to think you are a special case, and your rules don't apply to you. Why is that, if CO2 emissions are as bad as you claim? Are your CO2 emissions less harmful than mine?"
And likewise with Gov Newsom.
Yes, by the general public but only because many people will miss the tu quoque fallacy. Yes, it hurts their credibility, but it shouldn't, because its illogical. Nevertheless humans are only semi-rational.
As I have pointed out several times now, tu quoque is illogical ONLY if one concludes, on the basis of their behavior, that what Gov Newsom or what the climate scientist who drives a gasoline-powered car preaches is DEFINITELY false. This is the usual straw man version of tu quoque.
So once again, It is NOT a logical fallacy to say their behavior POSSIBLY casts doubt on the truth of what they preach. In fact, it would be illogical to say their behavior DEFINITELY CANNOT raise justified doubts.