On fallacies
Fallacies are logical errors on reasoning. The study of logical falacies is useful since it help us gaining a deeper understanding on the nature of logic errors and it also give us a mental framework to spot and avoid logic errors when we do logical inference or logical reasoning. We see falacies all the time and as is valuable to be able to spot them is as well important to understand when we are not in a position to apply them.
The truth is:
not everything we don't agree by following our own logical reasoning can be framed as a fallacy
How so?! Logical reasoning when reduced to its essency is formed by assumptions and logical inference. The assumptions can, themselves, be the result of previous logic reasoning or they can be assumptions we use without further explanation or given proof. These last ones are called axioms. Axioms are a set of propositions that are provided without beeing followed by justification that we just believe to be true.
Why does this matter? It matters because if you are arguing with other people you can't use logical inference if both are not in agreement regarding the axioms used.
I expressed recently an opinion regarded a topic related with racism. I started my speech by explicitly stating it would be an opinion. This was intentional since I noticed that reasoning would not be very productive since I noticed misalignement in a set of basic believes that could be interpreted as axioms. My comment was responded with a point by point fallacy analysis. The problem is. This is nonsensical fallacy analysis since the axioms are at dispute.
The response was as follows
There are several problematic aspects to their argument:
1. Dismissing language: The commenter underestimates the power of words and imagery in shaping perceptions and perpetuating stereotypes. Language and symbols play a crucial role in systemic racism.
2. False equivalence: Comparing "Casa do Preto" to hypothetical "Casa do Branco" or "Casa da Mulher" ignores historical context and power dynamics.
3. Oversimplification: The argument that having a quality bakery with this name dignifies Black people overlooks the complexities of representation and the impact of stereotypical imagery.
4. Positive association fallacy: While positive examples can be beneficial, they don't negate the harm caused by stereotypical or offensive representations.
5. Ignoring lived experiences: The commenter's perspective may not account for the actual feelings and experiences of Black individuals who encounter such
While the commenter's desire to focus on substantive actions against racism is commendable, it's important to recognize that changing problematic imagery and language is part of that broader effort, not separate from
Lets begin with the first point. Dismissing language. The problem with this is that it assumes that I need to consider power of imagery in shaping perceptions and perpetuating stereotypes. Problem is I didn't underestimate. I just plain refute this idea. I believe imagery and symbols are not the cause, they are the symptom. The problem with images and symbols are the meaning behind it. And the meaning is the problem. The meaning comes from the intent and context from which the images and symbols are applied. I didn't considered not by shortsight but because I firmely believe they are irrelevant, a symptom not the cause.
There is no dismissive language, just diferent opinion. Mine is as valid as his.
Lets jump now into the False equivalence problem. In this second point the argument assumes that ignores historical context and power dynamics are enough to prevent the analogy between casa do preto and casa do branco. This, again, comes from the fact that historical context and power dynamics are enough to prevent equivalence. I don't accept this assumption. I also refute this. Historical context and power dynamics are circumstancial and arbitrary they depend on the a specific time and a specific culture and as such they are irrelevant to me. Again no fallacy, just different axiomatic.
Moving on to Oversimplification. Here the assumption used was that I overlooks the complexities of representation and the impact of stereotypical imagery. Again, I didn't overlook, I just don't agree with this assumption. Stereotypical representation is not a problem since we create stereotypes all the time, hence irrelevant. The problem is the offensive nature. My problem with the concept of offensive representation is the subjective and circumstancial nature. I consider it irrelevant because of this and as such there is no oversimplification. The part that was removed from the simplification was just irrelevant accordingly my believe system. Which again, is as valid as his.
At this point I could go and tackle the remaining two missing points. But the principle is the same and the result as well. I leave the analysis to the reader.
While fallacies are a useful tool it is important to understand when to use fallacy analysis. Logical reasoning is highly dependant on the axiomatic and believe system used. Before we start posing opinions dressed as arguments we should make sure that the believe system and axioms used are well established. The price we pay by not doing this is a lengthy spurious pseudo debate.