Made by Gil Carvalho MD PhD on X
If anyone makes a logical fallacy, link to this post or the image.
You can embed the image using the code below in your post:
Feel free to post other ones in this thread.
Five states — Texas, Utah, Kansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana — suing Pfizer for knowing and concealing the vaccine causing myocarditis, pericarditis, failed pregnancies and deaths. That’s 10% of US states. The tide is turning.
The tide is turning to where?
This thread is about logical fallacies, not COVID vaccines.
The one on most frequently see here is not on the list ; being on the wrong part of the Dunning-Kruger curve.
I don’t see blindness to the obvious listed as a fallacy.
What would someone say who is ‘blind to the obvious’, that you can categorize as a fallacy? Just like in the list above.
What would be an example statement? Could not be a logical fallacy.
Yes, over confidence is a common failure. Almost everyone thinks they are smart. Being confident helps people move through life more efficiently. It takes a lot of work to appreciate how little we know with certainty, but still keep moving forward.
Was it Sagan who said we should “keep an open mind but not so open your brain falls out”?
Tell me what you want but I like the ‘Ad corporem’ fallacy. It makes some sense. It’s a little like saying that a person should walk his talk. At least in appearance.
I agree it’s a fallacy but just imagine for example a fat Peter Attia…
Or a balding, overweight and overall old looking promoter of the low-protein, plant-based diet…
What’s wrong with balding?
It makes you look old and unhealthy.
That’s several fallacies there
Like Dr. Greger, he’s balding, we have material for at least one ad-corporem fallacy!
He is THE strawman of every keto/carnivore enthusiast.
What I find interesting about “bald” is not only is it a fallacy, it’s not what pops into my head. Someone says bald man, and I think Attia, Rogan, the Rock, Goggins, ZDog, etc. not exactly old and unhealthy. Of course thinking of those guys is a fallacy also.
It depends on what their argument is. If someone says they’re painted green, but they are not, you can remark on their appearance: “You are not green, so you’re wrong”…
In that case though, they would be certainly be wrong in one aspect, the (unexisting) layer of paint. I don’t know if your example can be extrapolated to the ad-corporem fallacy.
I think the logic would be more relevant to pure bodily aspects (ad corporem, in latin means ‘toward the body’), more than any appliances on it like paints, or tattoos, or garb or whatsoever.
For example, in the presently inactive CR forum, I opened a thread on muscle hypertrophy and posted a video with Brad Schoenfeld, the undiscussed expert in the field. One user remarked that ‘he was not so big’, implying that his (Schoenfeld) body appearance could overrule his knowledge in the field and make invalid his remarks.
This is a good example of ad-corporem
Schoenfeld is a past professional body builder (natural) as I recall.
