Name that logical fallacy: Dismissing a claim because it is "alarmist"

[superdave]

FX was a text book example of how expertise in one field doesn't translate to expertise in anything else. 

[Sawyer]

FX was a text book example of how expertise in one field doesn't translate to expertise in anything else.

Wait, FX was an expert in something?

[superdave]

he really knew signal processing!

[Gigabyte]

So now we have people on these forums trying to argue that discussing evidence using reason and logic is a waste of time,

It is a waste of time, if it involves anything unscientific.  Even with hard science it can be a waste of time.  But anything remotely political it is a waste of time.

[John Albert]

So now we have people on these forums trying to argue that discussing evidence using reason and logic is a waste of time,

It is a waste of time, if it involves anything unscientific.  Even with hard science it can be a waste of time.  But anything remotely political it is a waste of time.

This kind of illiberal view is an unfortunate consequence of the Internet.

[Gigabyte]

This kind of illiberal view is an unfortunate consequence of the Internet.

Recognizing that people are not swayed by logic, reason and facts was around long before the internet.

[superdave]

what the heck are you people talking about?

[Billzbub]

It's true that you're not going to win over religious idiots by calling them idiots. But you're also not going to win them over by presenting them with evidence. Science and evidence work with people who have not yet made up their minds and who have not been brainwashed by religion or powerful propagandists.

I suspect that this is true mostly because we define "religious zealots" as people who will not be swayed by evidence.  There are probably a bunch of people out there who believe one thing, but can be convinced by evidence, but we fall into the No True Scotsman trap of assuming they were not religious zealots to begin with, so it is still true that evidence does not affect religious zealots.

In conclusion, it is always worth discussing the evidence because you might be dealing with someone who could change their mind at some point, or you might have an audience with such people.

[Oh Henry]

Its interesting that the answer to the OP depends on what side your on.  Alarmist implies an exaggerated claim.  Climate deniers are not using the term to possibly concede the severity of the situation, they are using it to call the claimant a liar.  So, Ad hom.  But as someone who has studied climate change and understands the science, my internal monologue responds, "You're damned right I'm alarmist - we should all be alarmed." So, non-seq as well?

Anyways, my introduction to this board was reading a Will Nitschke post crowing that the National Academy of Sciences had endorsed an anti-Global Warming position. I pestered Will for a link and he berated me over several posts for drawing too fine a distinction between the official position of the NAS and a position endorsed by one of its individual members.  Good times. 

 

[Gigabyte]

Its interesting that the answer to the OP depends on what side your on. 

That there are "sides" is telling. 

[Ah.hell]

Its interesting that the answer to the OP depends on what side your on. 

That there are "sides" is telling. 

Is it?  There's sides on whether the Earth is flat, i'd expect you'd be hard pressed to find and issue/idea without sides.

[John Albert]

This kind of illiberal view is an unfortunate consequence of the Internet.

Recognizing that people are not swayed by logic, reason and facts was around long before the internet.

Yes, but I'm not talking about the fact that some people are not swayed by logic, reason and facts.

I'm talking about the idea you just promoted:

So now we have people on these forums trying to argue that discussing evidence using reason and logic is a waste of time, It is a waste of time, if it involves anything unscientific.  Even with hard science it can be a waste of time.  But anything remotely political it is a waste of time.

Just because some people have a tendency to be unreasonable, that doesn't prove that discourse is necessarily a waste of time.

[John Albert]

Its interesting that the answer to the OP depends on what side your on.  Alarmist implies an exaggerated claim.  Climate deniers are not using the term to possibly concede the severity of the situation, they are using it to call the claimant a liar.  So, Ad hom.

But in some cases the climate deniers may have a point there. Some claims about climate change have no doubt been quite alarmist. "The world is going to end in 12 years," and so forth.

Just the same, some of us may consider that a justifiable exaggeration to scare people into immediate action.

At any rate, whether or not a given claim is "alarmist" is a matter of opinion, not really a logical fallacy per se. And even if a particular claim is exaggerated, that doesn't invalidate the entirety of climate science.

But as someone who has studied climate change and understands the science, my internal monologue responds, "You're damned right I'm alarmist - we should all be alarmed." So, non-seq as well?

I would start by establishing which specific claims the denier considered alarmist, and then examining the substance of the claim, comparing it to known facts about current trends, and going from there.

It may be that they're just ill-informed about the severity of the situation, or they may have a point. If the claim they're citing is indeed alarmist, then the most intellectually honest route is to acknowledge that everybody on our side is not correct 100% of the time, but that doesn't mean climate change is not a dire threat. Then make an effort to avoid hyperbole and keep the conversation rooted in facts going forward.

[Ah.hell]

Just because some people have a tendency to be unreasonable, that doesn't prove that discourse is necessarily a waste of time.

I find  that even when I start and end the conversation still disagreeing with someone it can at least get me to take a look at my own assumptions on the matter, I like to think so anyway. 

[John Albert]

Just because some people have a tendency to be unreasonable, that doesn't prove that discourse is necessarily a waste of time.

I find  that even when I start and end the conversation still disagreeing with someone it can at least get me to take a look at my own assumptions on the matter, I like to think so anyway.

Absolutely! The discussion compels us to consider the pros and cons of our own beliefs. And if a debate bothers us enough to overcome our own intellectual inertia, it might even stimulate further research that results in learning.

Best case scenario, we'll find out we're not so right as we thought we were about some particular belief, and heavens forbid we might learn something. It happens every day!