Talk:Bare assertion fallacy

The Bible

Holy cow! It's the bible! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.164.72 (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's the most obvious example, but I guess if the article said so, a lot of people would take offence.88.15.193.200 (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Ain't that a violation of Wikipedia:NPOV? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there any relationship between bare assertions and circular logic? - BergZ (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope --Kurulananfok (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Lack of citations

Has anyone else noticed the irony in saying that this article doesn't cite any references? Chile Nose Jam (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

1. "bare assertion fallacy" is a fabrication

2. a bare assertion would be: a stated premise that is void of commentary and context.

3. the explanation of a "bare assertion fallacy" is merely an example of petitio principii

4. books don't typically say "this argument is true because it's written here."(not even the bible), but if a book did, it might suffer from the fallacy known as argumentum ad verecundiam (depending on the expertise of the writer).

5. it is frustrating to use wikipedia as a quick research tool when you look up "list of fallacies" only to find that you need to wade through the bloat caused by armchair philosophers.

6. perhaps a blog would serve a better purpose for cathartic expositions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.29.209 (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I remove the "citations" warning at the top of the page now? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this example is constructive

"(1) Jesus was the messiah.
(2) Premise (1) is true.
Therefore, Jewish people are going to hell."

This example definitely does not follow this structure:

"Fact 1: X claims statement A.
Fact 2: X claims that X is not lying.
Conclusion: Therefore, A is true."

Since the statement at the beginning, "Jesus was the messiah," and the statement at the end, "Jewish people are going to hell," are not identical, this is not a bare assertion fallacy. To follow the structure, the example would be something like this:

"Joe claims Jesus was the messiah.
Joe claims Joe is not lying.
Therefore, Jesus is the messiah."

However, we do not need this example; the example that we already have, in the following form, is sufficient.
"Fact 1: Simon says that Jack eats ice cream.
Fact 2: Simon says that Simon is not lying.
Conclusion: Therefore, Jack eats ice cream."

Furthermore, the link at the end of this "example" to a Christian website seems to show that the person who put it into the article is motivated by trying to disparage the website rather than illustrating the subject of the article. This is why I am removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.202.168 (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You are probably right (in that the example was a poorly constructed one) but I am not trying to "disparage" the website in any way; I was merely trying to extend the article with more examples: you can see how poorly made this stub-class article is. I would advise you to comment simply on the content next time; otherwise I'll interpret that as a personal attack.:| TelCoNaSpVe :| (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not a fallacy

This most certainly is not a fallacy. Every argument would be fallacious if it were! I couldn't find any philosophy text that had this as a fallacy. The writing book & dictionary cited are totally wrong!

This cannot be a fallacy as stated in the article. Every argument has premises given without support. That's the structure of an argument: premises + conclusion. There is no room in that structure for premises to have support.

Now the premises could, independently, be conclusions in other arguments, but when you talk about formal fallacies you are talking about a fallacy implicit in the structure of an argument, and that's not the case here.

I have no idea why the original author is citing some dictionary; the dictionary is no more authoritative here than it would be about matters in science. I couldn't find any philosophy textbooks that talk about this fallacy, and the "writing manual" listed as a reference has an absurd description of this as trying to confuse people with logic - seriously guys?

Anyway I know it's not very constructive to remove the page but I really don't see what can be said about it. It's certainly not a logical or a formal fallacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.217.26 (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a fallacy. See this book. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok this is a waste of time. That book is a piece of junk, did you actually READ what it says about the fallacy? It twists the logical framework? Are there any standards for scholarship here? I fracking teach logic. That "college writer" pamphlet is NOT an authoritative source. The explanation it gives is ITSELF subject to the very fallacy it puts forward, since its premises (insofar as it has any) are given without support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.217.26 (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep a cool head and try to refrain from weasel words and flaming. You could simply state "it's not an authoritative source" without trying to appeal to ridicule. Please try not to be turned away from Wikipedia, it's these disputes and people like you that help make it a good place for information. Anyway, I agree with you. GManNickG (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember learning about "bare assertion fallacies" in a subject called Clear Thinking at school (a long time ago). Jschnur (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree the validity of this as a fallacy is questionable. It fails to distinguish between an axiom or premise, which are by definition base assertions (as you say), and "real" fallacies like begging the question or circular reasoning. I think, at best, this page should simply redirect to ipse-dixitism, which as far as I can tell is what it was trying to explain. Does this seem reasonable? GManNickG (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a good fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.217.26 (talk) 07:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Let's wait until Friday/Saturday before sticking some sort of notice on the page that it'll be turned into a redirection, and within a week make it redirect. I've started a discussion of what should be done with the template.

I agree, "Bare Assertion" seems to be extremely closely related to ipse-dixitism. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Some more sources for bare assertion fallacy: a listing of fallacies, including "bare assertion, bare assertion defined, a professor includes "bare assertion" in his "taxonomy of logical fallacies, and the museum of learning on bare assertion fallacies.

And some 3rd-party references to bare assertion fallacy .edu site, probably more notable (see page 3), scribd list of fallacies, and another professor references "bare assertion" as a fallacy.

Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This is what I think about those links, in order:

1. http://www.logicsites.com/fallacy.aspx - Just a list. Could have been compiled with Wikipedia as a source, and as far as I can see it doesn't even try to define it, so can't really be said to be a "source".

2. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UapZ8L9J8UMJ:sci.tech-archive.net/pdf/Archive/sci.math/2008-03/msg03997.pdf+%22bare+assertion%22+%2Bfallacy&cd=45&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us - Absolutely non-authoritative, in the extreme. (And in honesty, this person has more than a long way to go; it's just gibberish right now. Someone who looked at Wikipedia and decided they were an expert in mathematics and logic. Seriously, an "argument" that Gödel's proofs are fallacious because they're "proven but not true"? Eh.)

3. http://people.virginia.edu/~abb3w/Images/Fark/Fallacies/ - Not authoritative. The best so far, but that's just hinging on the fact we guess (?) he's some sort of professor. (I don't see it on the site.) Worse is it's categorized in the informal fallacy section, but the text says it's a formal fallacy.

4. http://www.museumstuff.com/learn/topics/bare_assertion_fallacy - Just a copy of Wikipedia. At the bottom: "Some data may have been obtained from the Bare assertion fallacy page on Wikipedia and used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" Be wary when your source manages to match the page word for word. (Note: The pages that this page links to for further information are either dead, non-authoritative, or copies of Wikipedia.)

5. http://rime.aos.wisc.edu/gpetty/lucidity-supplem.pdf - Only used once, and only informally too. (Closest one that uses it in the term we will redirect to, though.

6. http://www.scribd.com/doc/34760096/Fallacy Uses Wikipedia as a source.

7. http://el-prod.baylor.edu/certain_doubts/?p=251 Same situation as five. Informal use of "bare assertion".

Thanks for your searching efforts, but most are either non-authoritative or just copies of Wikipedia. GManNickG (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

A note from an admin: You don't need to add any notice; the talk page discussion is enough warning to anyone who is watching the page. You can simply redirect to the page to another title if there is consensus to do it. Waiting a couple days for comments would be a good idea. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather confused by the whole argument. I interpret the discussion (on the con side) as "this isn't a fallacy, it's just Ipse-dixitism". But Ipse-dixitism is clearly a fallacy*, so the "this isn't a fallacy" can't be right.

From my perspective, this is a fallacy, just no different from ipse-dixit. As a result redirecting this page to that would seem appropriate.

* Because I say so!

CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The confusion stems from the ambiguity of the word "fallacy". The definition, according to the article, is that it's a formal fallacy, which is false. The status of the term "bare assertion fallacy" is also being challenged, and so far no authoritative source defines it or recognizes it. At best, it informally refers to ipse-dixitism, an informal fallacy. So we should redirect it, so anyone looking up the informal reference to ipse-dixitism gets the correct information they need. GManNickG (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that it's an informal fallacy. If that's all you're saying, no problem. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think this is a fallacy at all, and I don't think ipse-dixitism is either - and you'll notice the Wikipedia page doesn't list it as one. However the scholarship on "informal fallacies" or "informal logic" is really, really shitty and I wouldn't be surprised if a book lists something like it. But be aware that if you call something an informal fallacy you are drawing attention to the fact that it's not a fallacy at all! I didn't want to keep going last night, but I honestly have no idea if the "intent" of this article is similar to ipse-dixitism. I really don't see how ipse-dixitism is any different from an implicit premise, which in formal logic makes an argument invalid. The citations on the ipse-dixitism page are archaic and do not reflect current use in the field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.217.26 (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is not a formal fallacy, hence why I removed the word "formal" from the article (earlier). If the citations on the ipse dixitism page are archaic, then feel free to update both them and the article with new and current material. Having many editors to watch out for incorrect/outdated material is part of what makes Wikipedia work. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no "current" material; as I said, this is simply an implicit premise. If I update the page you or some other user will revert it so what's the point? You still haven't explained why this is a fallacy and yet the page is still up, so obviously you don't understand what a fallacy is. I'm afraid that your philosophical knowledge will remain stunted so long as you continue to use high school writing pamphlets as your sources. I would strongly suggest you pick up an actual logic textbook and use it as your source. But for my part I don't see what else I can do. I've explained why this isn't a fallacy and I have yet to see anybody, let alone you, disagree. As GManNickG pointed out all of your references were nonsense. If a solid explanation + a refutation of your "linked evidence" (mostly just circular references to Wikipedia itself!) is not enough to make a change then I'm afraid I don't see what will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.217.26 (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

We might want to move our attention to the Proof by assertion article, which suffers the exact same problem this article did. I've started a talk on it. GManNickG (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting

As the discussion above has failed to yield an authoritative definition of this as a formal fallacy, I'm redirecting this page to Ipse-dixitism. Ipse-dixitism is the closest thing to this page, as it's a fallacy (though informal instead of formal) and is about unsupported premises or assertions.

This change should be undone if a source is ever found, and a formal definition of the fallacy is provided.

I have also deleted it from the template. I will (over the course of a few days) look over the "What links here" for this page and fix any links there as well. GManNickG (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)