What's the name of the logical fallacy where a debater extends a statement far beyond the original statement...












5















Suppose that someone initially states that "fossil fuel consumption due to mobile phone usage is similar to that of private transportation, so if you think we should switch to electric/bike to fight climate change, then you should also stop using your mobile".



You call bullshit on that statement, and the debater replies by citing a paper which shows that "worldwide, the fossil fuel consumption of all communication networks, including the Internet is estimated to be about half of the fossil fuel consumption for transportation".



Now the statement is true, but this is not the original statement: it has been unduly extended to make it true. What's the name of this logical fallacy?










share|improve this question









New contributor




DeltaIV is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1





    I made an edit for clarity which you may roll back or continue editing. Welcome to Philosophy!

    – Frank Hubeny
    4 hours ago











  • This may or may not be a fallacy, but is frequently referred to in debating as "moving the goalposts": they've implicitly or explicitly redefined the the thing you're arguing about.

    – Jared Smith
    1 hour ago











  • This may not even be a case of moving the goalposts as much as more precisely defining ones' terms. Conversation is not a carefully constructed paper delineating how each point is constructed. (I'm not referring to this particular discussion, or the points therein but rather the development of a discussion.)

    – Mayo
    1 hour ago
















5















Suppose that someone initially states that "fossil fuel consumption due to mobile phone usage is similar to that of private transportation, so if you think we should switch to electric/bike to fight climate change, then you should also stop using your mobile".



You call bullshit on that statement, and the debater replies by citing a paper which shows that "worldwide, the fossil fuel consumption of all communication networks, including the Internet is estimated to be about half of the fossil fuel consumption for transportation".



Now the statement is true, but this is not the original statement: it has been unduly extended to make it true. What's the name of this logical fallacy?










share|improve this question









New contributor




DeltaIV is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1





    I made an edit for clarity which you may roll back or continue editing. Welcome to Philosophy!

    – Frank Hubeny
    4 hours ago











  • This may or may not be a fallacy, but is frequently referred to in debating as "moving the goalposts": they've implicitly or explicitly redefined the the thing you're arguing about.

    – Jared Smith
    1 hour ago











  • This may not even be a case of moving the goalposts as much as more precisely defining ones' terms. Conversation is not a carefully constructed paper delineating how each point is constructed. (I'm not referring to this particular discussion, or the points therein but rather the development of a discussion.)

    – Mayo
    1 hour ago














5












5








5








Suppose that someone initially states that "fossil fuel consumption due to mobile phone usage is similar to that of private transportation, so if you think we should switch to electric/bike to fight climate change, then you should also stop using your mobile".



You call bullshit on that statement, and the debater replies by citing a paper which shows that "worldwide, the fossil fuel consumption of all communication networks, including the Internet is estimated to be about half of the fossil fuel consumption for transportation".



Now the statement is true, but this is not the original statement: it has been unduly extended to make it true. What's the name of this logical fallacy?










share|improve this question









New contributor




DeltaIV is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












Suppose that someone initially states that "fossil fuel consumption due to mobile phone usage is similar to that of private transportation, so if you think we should switch to electric/bike to fight climate change, then you should also stop using your mobile".



You call bullshit on that statement, and the debater replies by citing a paper which shows that "worldwide, the fossil fuel consumption of all communication networks, including the Internet is estimated to be about half of the fossil fuel consumption for transportation".



Now the statement is true, but this is not the original statement: it has been unduly extended to make it true. What's the name of this logical fallacy?







logic fallacies






share|improve this question









New contributor




DeltaIV is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




DeltaIV is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 4 hours ago









Frank Hubeny

9,19651551




9,19651551






New contributor




DeltaIV is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 5 hours ago









DeltaIVDeltaIV

1263




1263




New contributor




DeltaIV is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





DeltaIV is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






DeltaIV is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1





    I made an edit for clarity which you may roll back or continue editing. Welcome to Philosophy!

    – Frank Hubeny
    4 hours ago











  • This may or may not be a fallacy, but is frequently referred to in debating as "moving the goalposts": they've implicitly or explicitly redefined the the thing you're arguing about.

    – Jared Smith
    1 hour ago











  • This may not even be a case of moving the goalposts as much as more precisely defining ones' terms. Conversation is not a carefully constructed paper delineating how each point is constructed. (I'm not referring to this particular discussion, or the points therein but rather the development of a discussion.)

    – Mayo
    1 hour ago














  • 1





    I made an edit for clarity which you may roll back or continue editing. Welcome to Philosophy!

    – Frank Hubeny
    4 hours ago











  • This may or may not be a fallacy, but is frequently referred to in debating as "moving the goalposts": they've implicitly or explicitly redefined the the thing you're arguing about.

    – Jared Smith
    1 hour ago











  • This may not even be a case of moving the goalposts as much as more precisely defining ones' terms. Conversation is not a carefully constructed paper delineating how each point is constructed. (I'm not referring to this particular discussion, or the points therein but rather the development of a discussion.)

    – Mayo
    1 hour ago








1




1





I made an edit for clarity which you may roll back or continue editing. Welcome to Philosophy!

– Frank Hubeny
4 hours ago





I made an edit for clarity which you may roll back or continue editing. Welcome to Philosophy!

– Frank Hubeny
4 hours ago













This may or may not be a fallacy, but is frequently referred to in debating as "moving the goalposts": they've implicitly or explicitly redefined the the thing you're arguing about.

– Jared Smith
1 hour ago





This may or may not be a fallacy, but is frequently referred to in debating as "moving the goalposts": they've implicitly or explicitly redefined the the thing you're arguing about.

– Jared Smith
1 hour ago













This may not even be a case of moving the goalposts as much as more precisely defining ones' terms. Conversation is not a carefully constructed paper delineating how each point is constructed. (I'm not referring to this particular discussion, or the points therein but rather the development of a discussion.)

– Mayo
1 hour ago





This may not even be a case of moving the goalposts as much as more precisely defining ones' terms. Conversation is not a carefully constructed paper delineating how each point is constructed. (I'm not referring to this particular discussion, or the points therein but rather the development of a discussion.)

– Mayo
1 hour ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















6














Fallacy of division :




A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something true for the whole must also be true of all or some of its parts.







share|improve this answer



















  • 2





    Could also be straight non-sequitur. Their extended argument isn't the same. Could be some sort of slippery slope... depends on context probably.

    – Richard
    5 hours ago











  • @Richard the context is pretty much what I described: a discussion about climate change, where the other debater was trying to fight back any proposals to limit the use of internal combustion cars, by "showing" that if we limited cars, then we should equally limit the use of other tools that she hoped no one in the audience would accept to limit.

    – DeltaIV
    5 hours ago













  • @Richard I admit though that she didn't exactly use the example of cell phones. If you need the exact example, I may edit the question, but I think that the concept is the same.

    – DeltaIV
    5 hours ago






  • 1





    @DeltaIV Yeah that's slippery slope. Classic example from the UK comedian Harry Enfield : You have to eat meat, because otherwise the cows will multiply. Then they'll eat all the vegetables and you'll starve, is that what you want? Cos that's what'll happen.

    – Richard
    2 hours ago











  • @Richard Cows eat a mixture of grass hay, alfalfa hay, grains as well as corn and grass silage - mostly plants that humans would not eat. Cows fertilize vegetables. Not eating cows would lead to more vegetables.

    – emory
    1 hour ago



















6














The OP presents a situation wondering if a logical fallacy has been committed.



The following claim is made:




Fossil fuel consumption due to mobile phone usage is similar to that of private transportation, so if you think we should switch to electric/bike to fight climate change, then you should also stop using your mobile.




The claim is denied without argument.



The person making the claim provides evidence by citing a paper which shows that




worldwide, the fossil fuel consumption of all communication networks, including the Internet is estimated to be about half of the fossil fuel consumption for transportation.




The paper's worth is acknowledged:




Now the statement is true, but this is not the original statement: it has been unduly extended to make it true. What's the name of this logical fallacy?




What needs to be done next is to see how much of the fossil fuel consumption in the report was attributed to mobile phone use.



If the report doesn't have that breakdown one can raise a question about the usefulness of that report. If it does, use that particular number to see if mobile phone use is relevant or not.



Raising a logical fallacy in an argument can backfire. Those listening (the audience) may start siding with the other side as a result. Bo Bennett also warns that if one does start pointing out an opponent's fallacies the opponent may start doing the same. That tactic of calling an opponent's argument logically fallacious may be a distraction or red herring which can itself be logically fallacious.



Here is Bennett's description of red herring:




Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.




The issue at this point in the argument is whether the data in the report can be used to justify whether one should stop using one's mobile if one wants to fight climate change. Is the associated fossil fuel used large enough? That needs to be addressed and the opponent has taken a risk by providing evidence which can be critically examined.





Bennett, B. "Red Herring" https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring






share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    ouch, now I'm a difficult position :-) both answers are really nice. I like your "analytical" examination of the opponent's claim, and the indication about the next steps to advance the debate. On the other hand, I did ask explicitly for the fallacy name, which the other answer gave. I would say that the other user answered the question I asked, and you answered the question I should have asked.

    – DeltaIV
    3 hours ago





















2














This sounds like an example of Moving the Goalposts.



"Let me cite this paper which proves my assertion that fossil-fuel-derived energy for cellphone use is equal to the same kind of energy consumption by cars. Look, see right there where it proves that all communications network traffic, including cellphones, uses half the fossil-fuel-derived power that cars use? Goal achieved."



The opponent changed how success was defined in the middle of the discussion.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Jedediah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "265"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    DeltaIV is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61248%2fwhats-the-name-of-the-logical-fallacy-where-a-debater-extends-a-statement-far-b%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    6














    Fallacy of division :




    A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something true for the whole must also be true of all or some of its parts.







    share|improve this answer



















    • 2





      Could also be straight non-sequitur. Their extended argument isn't the same. Could be some sort of slippery slope... depends on context probably.

      – Richard
      5 hours ago











    • @Richard the context is pretty much what I described: a discussion about climate change, where the other debater was trying to fight back any proposals to limit the use of internal combustion cars, by "showing" that if we limited cars, then we should equally limit the use of other tools that she hoped no one in the audience would accept to limit.

      – DeltaIV
      5 hours ago













    • @Richard I admit though that she didn't exactly use the example of cell phones. If you need the exact example, I may edit the question, but I think that the concept is the same.

      – DeltaIV
      5 hours ago






    • 1





      @DeltaIV Yeah that's slippery slope. Classic example from the UK comedian Harry Enfield : You have to eat meat, because otherwise the cows will multiply. Then they'll eat all the vegetables and you'll starve, is that what you want? Cos that's what'll happen.

      – Richard
      2 hours ago











    • @Richard Cows eat a mixture of grass hay, alfalfa hay, grains as well as corn and grass silage - mostly plants that humans would not eat. Cows fertilize vegetables. Not eating cows would lead to more vegetables.

      – emory
      1 hour ago
















    6














    Fallacy of division :




    A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something true for the whole must also be true of all or some of its parts.







    share|improve this answer



















    • 2





      Could also be straight non-sequitur. Their extended argument isn't the same. Could be some sort of slippery slope... depends on context probably.

      – Richard
      5 hours ago











    • @Richard the context is pretty much what I described: a discussion about climate change, where the other debater was trying to fight back any proposals to limit the use of internal combustion cars, by "showing" that if we limited cars, then we should equally limit the use of other tools that she hoped no one in the audience would accept to limit.

      – DeltaIV
      5 hours ago













    • @Richard I admit though that she didn't exactly use the example of cell phones. If you need the exact example, I may edit the question, but I think that the concept is the same.

      – DeltaIV
      5 hours ago






    • 1





      @DeltaIV Yeah that's slippery slope. Classic example from the UK comedian Harry Enfield : You have to eat meat, because otherwise the cows will multiply. Then they'll eat all the vegetables and you'll starve, is that what you want? Cos that's what'll happen.

      – Richard
      2 hours ago











    • @Richard Cows eat a mixture of grass hay, alfalfa hay, grains as well as corn and grass silage - mostly plants that humans would not eat. Cows fertilize vegetables. Not eating cows would lead to more vegetables.

      – emory
      1 hour ago














    6












    6








    6







    Fallacy of division :




    A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something true for the whole must also be true of all or some of its parts.







    share|improve this answer













    Fallacy of division :




    A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something true for the whole must also be true of all or some of its parts.








    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 5 hours ago









    Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA

    29.1k21964




    29.1k21964








    • 2





      Could also be straight non-sequitur. Their extended argument isn't the same. Could be some sort of slippery slope... depends on context probably.

      – Richard
      5 hours ago











    • @Richard the context is pretty much what I described: a discussion about climate change, where the other debater was trying to fight back any proposals to limit the use of internal combustion cars, by "showing" that if we limited cars, then we should equally limit the use of other tools that she hoped no one in the audience would accept to limit.

      – DeltaIV
      5 hours ago













    • @Richard I admit though that she didn't exactly use the example of cell phones. If you need the exact example, I may edit the question, but I think that the concept is the same.

      – DeltaIV
      5 hours ago






    • 1





      @DeltaIV Yeah that's slippery slope. Classic example from the UK comedian Harry Enfield : You have to eat meat, because otherwise the cows will multiply. Then they'll eat all the vegetables and you'll starve, is that what you want? Cos that's what'll happen.

      – Richard
      2 hours ago











    • @Richard Cows eat a mixture of grass hay, alfalfa hay, grains as well as corn and grass silage - mostly plants that humans would not eat. Cows fertilize vegetables. Not eating cows would lead to more vegetables.

      – emory
      1 hour ago














    • 2





      Could also be straight non-sequitur. Their extended argument isn't the same. Could be some sort of slippery slope... depends on context probably.

      – Richard
      5 hours ago











    • @Richard the context is pretty much what I described: a discussion about climate change, where the other debater was trying to fight back any proposals to limit the use of internal combustion cars, by "showing" that if we limited cars, then we should equally limit the use of other tools that she hoped no one in the audience would accept to limit.

      – DeltaIV
      5 hours ago













    • @Richard I admit though that she didn't exactly use the example of cell phones. If you need the exact example, I may edit the question, but I think that the concept is the same.

      – DeltaIV
      5 hours ago






    • 1





      @DeltaIV Yeah that's slippery slope. Classic example from the UK comedian Harry Enfield : You have to eat meat, because otherwise the cows will multiply. Then they'll eat all the vegetables and you'll starve, is that what you want? Cos that's what'll happen.

      – Richard
      2 hours ago











    • @Richard Cows eat a mixture of grass hay, alfalfa hay, grains as well as corn and grass silage - mostly plants that humans would not eat. Cows fertilize vegetables. Not eating cows would lead to more vegetables.

      – emory
      1 hour ago








    2




    2





    Could also be straight non-sequitur. Their extended argument isn't the same. Could be some sort of slippery slope... depends on context probably.

    – Richard
    5 hours ago





    Could also be straight non-sequitur. Their extended argument isn't the same. Could be some sort of slippery slope... depends on context probably.

    – Richard
    5 hours ago













    @Richard the context is pretty much what I described: a discussion about climate change, where the other debater was trying to fight back any proposals to limit the use of internal combustion cars, by "showing" that if we limited cars, then we should equally limit the use of other tools that she hoped no one in the audience would accept to limit.

    – DeltaIV
    5 hours ago







    @Richard the context is pretty much what I described: a discussion about climate change, where the other debater was trying to fight back any proposals to limit the use of internal combustion cars, by "showing" that if we limited cars, then we should equally limit the use of other tools that she hoped no one in the audience would accept to limit.

    – DeltaIV
    5 hours ago















    @Richard I admit though that she didn't exactly use the example of cell phones. If you need the exact example, I may edit the question, but I think that the concept is the same.

    – DeltaIV
    5 hours ago





    @Richard I admit though that she didn't exactly use the example of cell phones. If you need the exact example, I may edit the question, but I think that the concept is the same.

    – DeltaIV
    5 hours ago




    1




    1





    @DeltaIV Yeah that's slippery slope. Classic example from the UK comedian Harry Enfield : You have to eat meat, because otherwise the cows will multiply. Then they'll eat all the vegetables and you'll starve, is that what you want? Cos that's what'll happen.

    – Richard
    2 hours ago





    @DeltaIV Yeah that's slippery slope. Classic example from the UK comedian Harry Enfield : You have to eat meat, because otherwise the cows will multiply. Then they'll eat all the vegetables and you'll starve, is that what you want? Cos that's what'll happen.

    – Richard
    2 hours ago













    @Richard Cows eat a mixture of grass hay, alfalfa hay, grains as well as corn and grass silage - mostly plants that humans would not eat. Cows fertilize vegetables. Not eating cows would lead to more vegetables.

    – emory
    1 hour ago





    @Richard Cows eat a mixture of grass hay, alfalfa hay, grains as well as corn and grass silage - mostly plants that humans would not eat. Cows fertilize vegetables. Not eating cows would lead to more vegetables.

    – emory
    1 hour ago











    6














    The OP presents a situation wondering if a logical fallacy has been committed.



    The following claim is made:




    Fossil fuel consumption due to mobile phone usage is similar to that of private transportation, so if you think we should switch to electric/bike to fight climate change, then you should also stop using your mobile.




    The claim is denied without argument.



    The person making the claim provides evidence by citing a paper which shows that




    worldwide, the fossil fuel consumption of all communication networks, including the Internet is estimated to be about half of the fossil fuel consumption for transportation.




    The paper's worth is acknowledged:




    Now the statement is true, but this is not the original statement: it has been unduly extended to make it true. What's the name of this logical fallacy?




    What needs to be done next is to see how much of the fossil fuel consumption in the report was attributed to mobile phone use.



    If the report doesn't have that breakdown one can raise a question about the usefulness of that report. If it does, use that particular number to see if mobile phone use is relevant or not.



    Raising a logical fallacy in an argument can backfire. Those listening (the audience) may start siding with the other side as a result. Bo Bennett also warns that if one does start pointing out an opponent's fallacies the opponent may start doing the same. That tactic of calling an opponent's argument logically fallacious may be a distraction or red herring which can itself be logically fallacious.



    Here is Bennett's description of red herring:




    Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.




    The issue at this point in the argument is whether the data in the report can be used to justify whether one should stop using one's mobile if one wants to fight climate change. Is the associated fossil fuel used large enough? That needs to be addressed and the opponent has taken a risk by providing evidence which can be critically examined.





    Bennett, B. "Red Herring" https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1





      ouch, now I'm a difficult position :-) both answers are really nice. I like your "analytical" examination of the opponent's claim, and the indication about the next steps to advance the debate. On the other hand, I did ask explicitly for the fallacy name, which the other answer gave. I would say that the other user answered the question I asked, and you answered the question I should have asked.

      – DeltaIV
      3 hours ago


















    6














    The OP presents a situation wondering if a logical fallacy has been committed.



    The following claim is made:




    Fossil fuel consumption due to mobile phone usage is similar to that of private transportation, so if you think we should switch to electric/bike to fight climate change, then you should also stop using your mobile.




    The claim is denied without argument.



    The person making the claim provides evidence by citing a paper which shows that




    worldwide, the fossil fuel consumption of all communication networks, including the Internet is estimated to be about half of the fossil fuel consumption for transportation.




    The paper's worth is acknowledged:




    Now the statement is true, but this is not the original statement: it has been unduly extended to make it true. What's the name of this logical fallacy?




    What needs to be done next is to see how much of the fossil fuel consumption in the report was attributed to mobile phone use.



    If the report doesn't have that breakdown one can raise a question about the usefulness of that report. If it does, use that particular number to see if mobile phone use is relevant or not.



    Raising a logical fallacy in an argument can backfire. Those listening (the audience) may start siding with the other side as a result. Bo Bennett also warns that if one does start pointing out an opponent's fallacies the opponent may start doing the same. That tactic of calling an opponent's argument logically fallacious may be a distraction or red herring which can itself be logically fallacious.



    Here is Bennett's description of red herring:




    Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.




    The issue at this point in the argument is whether the data in the report can be used to justify whether one should stop using one's mobile if one wants to fight climate change. Is the associated fossil fuel used large enough? That needs to be addressed and the opponent has taken a risk by providing evidence which can be critically examined.





    Bennett, B. "Red Herring" https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1





      ouch, now I'm a difficult position :-) both answers are really nice. I like your "analytical" examination of the opponent's claim, and the indication about the next steps to advance the debate. On the other hand, I did ask explicitly for the fallacy name, which the other answer gave. I would say that the other user answered the question I asked, and you answered the question I should have asked.

      – DeltaIV
      3 hours ago
















    6












    6








    6







    The OP presents a situation wondering if a logical fallacy has been committed.



    The following claim is made:




    Fossil fuel consumption due to mobile phone usage is similar to that of private transportation, so if you think we should switch to electric/bike to fight climate change, then you should also stop using your mobile.




    The claim is denied without argument.



    The person making the claim provides evidence by citing a paper which shows that




    worldwide, the fossil fuel consumption of all communication networks, including the Internet is estimated to be about half of the fossil fuel consumption for transportation.




    The paper's worth is acknowledged:




    Now the statement is true, but this is not the original statement: it has been unduly extended to make it true. What's the name of this logical fallacy?




    What needs to be done next is to see how much of the fossil fuel consumption in the report was attributed to mobile phone use.



    If the report doesn't have that breakdown one can raise a question about the usefulness of that report. If it does, use that particular number to see if mobile phone use is relevant or not.



    Raising a logical fallacy in an argument can backfire. Those listening (the audience) may start siding with the other side as a result. Bo Bennett also warns that if one does start pointing out an opponent's fallacies the opponent may start doing the same. That tactic of calling an opponent's argument logically fallacious may be a distraction or red herring which can itself be logically fallacious.



    Here is Bennett's description of red herring:




    Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.




    The issue at this point in the argument is whether the data in the report can be used to justify whether one should stop using one's mobile if one wants to fight climate change. Is the associated fossil fuel used large enough? That needs to be addressed and the opponent has taken a risk by providing evidence which can be critically examined.





    Bennett, B. "Red Herring" https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring






    share|improve this answer













    The OP presents a situation wondering if a logical fallacy has been committed.



    The following claim is made:




    Fossil fuel consumption due to mobile phone usage is similar to that of private transportation, so if you think we should switch to electric/bike to fight climate change, then you should also stop using your mobile.




    The claim is denied without argument.



    The person making the claim provides evidence by citing a paper which shows that




    worldwide, the fossil fuel consumption of all communication networks, including the Internet is estimated to be about half of the fossil fuel consumption for transportation.




    The paper's worth is acknowledged:




    Now the statement is true, but this is not the original statement: it has been unduly extended to make it true. What's the name of this logical fallacy?




    What needs to be done next is to see how much of the fossil fuel consumption in the report was attributed to mobile phone use.



    If the report doesn't have that breakdown one can raise a question about the usefulness of that report. If it does, use that particular number to see if mobile phone use is relevant or not.



    Raising a logical fallacy in an argument can backfire. Those listening (the audience) may start siding with the other side as a result. Bo Bennett also warns that if one does start pointing out an opponent's fallacies the opponent may start doing the same. That tactic of calling an opponent's argument logically fallacious may be a distraction or red herring which can itself be logically fallacious.



    Here is Bennett's description of red herring:




    Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.




    The issue at this point in the argument is whether the data in the report can be used to justify whether one should stop using one's mobile if one wants to fight climate change. Is the associated fossil fuel used large enough? That needs to be addressed and the opponent has taken a risk by providing evidence which can be critically examined.





    Bennett, B. "Red Herring" https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 4 hours ago









    Frank HubenyFrank Hubeny

    9,19651551




    9,19651551








    • 1





      ouch, now I'm a difficult position :-) both answers are really nice. I like your "analytical" examination of the opponent's claim, and the indication about the next steps to advance the debate. On the other hand, I did ask explicitly for the fallacy name, which the other answer gave. I would say that the other user answered the question I asked, and you answered the question I should have asked.

      – DeltaIV
      3 hours ago
















    • 1





      ouch, now I'm a difficult position :-) both answers are really nice. I like your "analytical" examination of the opponent's claim, and the indication about the next steps to advance the debate. On the other hand, I did ask explicitly for the fallacy name, which the other answer gave. I would say that the other user answered the question I asked, and you answered the question I should have asked.

      – DeltaIV
      3 hours ago










    1




    1





    ouch, now I'm a difficult position :-) both answers are really nice. I like your "analytical" examination of the opponent's claim, and the indication about the next steps to advance the debate. On the other hand, I did ask explicitly for the fallacy name, which the other answer gave. I would say that the other user answered the question I asked, and you answered the question I should have asked.

    – DeltaIV
    3 hours ago







    ouch, now I'm a difficult position :-) both answers are really nice. I like your "analytical" examination of the opponent's claim, and the indication about the next steps to advance the debate. On the other hand, I did ask explicitly for the fallacy name, which the other answer gave. I would say that the other user answered the question I asked, and you answered the question I should have asked.

    – DeltaIV
    3 hours ago













    2














    This sounds like an example of Moving the Goalposts.



    "Let me cite this paper which proves my assertion that fossil-fuel-derived energy for cellphone use is equal to the same kind of energy consumption by cars. Look, see right there where it proves that all communications network traffic, including cellphones, uses half the fossil-fuel-derived power that cars use? Goal achieved."



    The opponent changed how success was defined in the middle of the discussion.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Jedediah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.

























      2














      This sounds like an example of Moving the Goalposts.



      "Let me cite this paper which proves my assertion that fossil-fuel-derived energy for cellphone use is equal to the same kind of energy consumption by cars. Look, see right there where it proves that all communications network traffic, including cellphones, uses half the fossil-fuel-derived power that cars use? Goal achieved."



      The opponent changed how success was defined in the middle of the discussion.






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Jedediah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.























        2












        2








        2







        This sounds like an example of Moving the Goalposts.



        "Let me cite this paper which proves my assertion that fossil-fuel-derived energy for cellphone use is equal to the same kind of energy consumption by cars. Look, see right there where it proves that all communications network traffic, including cellphones, uses half the fossil-fuel-derived power that cars use? Goal achieved."



        The opponent changed how success was defined in the middle of the discussion.






        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        Jedediah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.










        This sounds like an example of Moving the Goalposts.



        "Let me cite this paper which proves my assertion that fossil-fuel-derived energy for cellphone use is equal to the same kind of energy consumption by cars. Look, see right there where it proves that all communications network traffic, including cellphones, uses half the fossil-fuel-derived power that cars use? Goal achieved."



        The opponent changed how success was defined in the middle of the discussion.







        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        Jedediah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer






        New contributor




        Jedediah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        answered 1 hour ago









        JedediahJedediah

        1211




        1211




        New contributor




        Jedediah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.





        New contributor





        Jedediah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






        Jedediah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






















            DeltaIV is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            DeltaIV is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            DeltaIV is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            DeltaIV is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















            Thanks for contributing an answer to Philosophy Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61248%2fwhats-the-name-of-the-logical-fallacy-where-a-debater-extends-a-statement-far-b%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            How to make a Squid Proxy server?

            Is this a new Fibonacci Identity?

            19世紀