Random
Source Code
Random
Nobel Savage Fallacy (not to be confused with the Noble Savage Myth) is an error in reasoning by which incidental commonalities between modern scientific theory/technology and ancient cultural expressions are claimed to support a conclusion that the ancients must have had access to modern knowledge.
The fallacy is usually committed by those with an at best shallow understanding of either modern science, ancient cultures, or - frequently - both.
It is commonly committed by those seeking to bolster the foundations of their modern cultural hegemony by arguing that the purported central tenets of its ancient precursors were rationally developed, and any deviations from those traditional norms are movement away from the ostensibly scientific ideal.
It is also frequently deployed by charlatans attempting to sell products or services derived from ancient techniques, who wish to gain a veneer of scientific plausibility for their offerings - that they in no way deserve.
"No, dude, those symbols do not mean they had spaceships, even if they look a little bit like that rocket Bezos made - mistaking what is obviously a poorly-drawn penis for a spacecraft is just the Nobel Savage Fallacy!"
"Babe, Gwenyth can say whatever she likes - but stuffing that crystal up your coochie is not gonna cure anything, even if the Biddelonians have been doing it for centuries... yes, I've heard of phototherapy, but that crystal isn't gonna refract any light up there, it's just another Nobel Savage Fallacy!"
When someone in an argument argues the semantics of a word/phrase, rather than making a retort against the other person's argument.
Person 1: No lolis aren't children, they're actually young-looking women.
Person 2: Nice Vaush-Goblin Fallacy loser
Making an assumption that, since there are REASONS WHY some thing exists, therefore that thing does NOT exist.
Rashaan: The "gender gap in pay" is a myth! The fact is that women CHOOSE lower paying jobs so they can spend more time with their family.
Han: So, the fact that women make less money than men is false, because there is a reason women make less money than men? Look out, big brain time! Sounds like you've committed the Dingus Fallacy.
The mistaken belief that the truth lies somewhere in between to opposing propositions.
Man "It's the women!"
Woman "It's the men!"
Sophist "Well... *Insert middle-ground fallacy*"
Hym "Wrong! I can prove it! By asking a simple question: What is the selection criteria? If it is 6ft tall (14.5%), Six figure salary (17%), 6 inch+ dick (16%) and we omit overlap and assume women are willing to settle for 1 out of the 3, we have only 47% of men who can meet the selection criteria. If THAT is what constitutes 'The best man available' (in the context of hypergamy) AND if we assume that Jordan is correct in saying that they should all just get married and start a family, What are the OTHER 53% of women supposed to do? For that to work, over HALF the women STILL have to CHANGE THEIR SELECTION CRITERIA. What then? How is that supposed to work? The women don't WANT to do it and are TOLD NOT TO BY PARENTS WHO WANT THEM TO HAVE THE BEST PARTNER AVAILABLE. The men who have overlapping qualities don't have to do it so their opinions are unlimited. And here we are...
What can men do about any of that? 'Try your best!'? 'Strife nobly into the dawn!'?Only 17% of the men CAN have jobs that pay 6 figures or more because THERE ARE A FINITE NUMBER OF JOBS THAT PAY THAT MUCH. What, do you expect them to increase the pay rate of a broader number of job to 6 figures? McDonald's cashier 100,000 a year. Then you can finally get a girlfriend. The other 2 are a roll of the dice. How is it at all men's fault? What is the selection criteria? Broadly? And that middle-ground fallacy applies to the schizophrenia thing too! It's not a matter of 'well, maybe it's a little of both'. At this point it's 'yeah, they're doing the thing they are doing and they have been doing it for years, and now I'm hyper-vigilant about it so I'm looking for it everywhere!' I don't claim to be right all of the time about it. And as a thought experiment I respond to things as though they were said to or about me. But that's not the same!"
"When one tries to ask a question or make an observation and another party immediately accuses them of being part of an unrelated discredited group."
"Hey, I think the government might be cloud-seeding."
"Are you a flat-Earther too?"
"Don't hit me with that Sidecar Fallacy BS... I've seen the patents!"
Similar to Ken Wilber's "Pre/trans fallacy", which is about conflating pre-rational views with trans-rational views, the Relative/absolute fallacy is about conflating relative perspectives with The Absolute perspective. This is the main source of confusion in the forms of spirituality that deal with the implications of non-duality (Oneness).
There are generally two levels to the fallacy:
1. The first level is the conflation that happens when you don't have knowledge about the distinction between the relative and The Absolute (dual/non-dual). This is common in pre-rational religious people (Wilber). The way that traditional religion interprets various holy texts is itself a good example.
2. The second level happens when you do have knowledge about the distinction between relative and absolute (but it's obviously not complete knowledge). This is common in (aspiring) trans-rational people. A common example is to think that because nothing ultimately really matters, morality doesn't matter, and therefore it's fine to for example hurt other people. This is to conflate "the relative" with "The Absolute". From The Absolute perspective, yes, nothing really matters, but morality can only ever be defined "relative" to a certain value system in the first place. By taking the absolute perspective, you're deliberately stepping outside of all value systems, but "it's fine to hurt other people" would be a moral statement, which means you're actually invoking a relative perspective.
You're conflating relative perspectives with The Absolute perspective ("The Relative/Absolute Fallacy").
Albert thinks he is God and nobody else is. Albert has committed the Relative/Absolute Fallacy.
The notion of trying to bring ”objective” opinions into a subjective discussion.
The color red is the best because the Internet said so.
That line of thinking is just a Kevin fallacy!