Timeline for Searching for name of this logical fallacy: presuming a consensus
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 22, 2022 at 18:28 | comment | added | Mark Andrews | “Presuming a consensus” sounds like a specialized category of the appeal to authority. | |
| Mar 20, 2022 at 0:32 | comment | added | C D | @DavidGuderman: As elaborated in the accepted answer by "J D": my software example is also a case of "contested premise" by glossing over details. The premise, being presented as uncontested, can be easily refuted with counter-examples if the speaker is an engineer or a peer. However, details are lost in the case of "boss of boss". As pointed out, there is no disagreement: everyone agree with the goal/"judgement call". The problem is the pattern used to dismiss/downplay conversations that examine the details to get to that goal. | |
| Mar 20, 2022 at 0:14 | comment | added | David Gudeman | Your software example isn't a fallacy; it is an engineering judgment call that you disagree with. | |
| Mar 20, 2022 at 0:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/1505333305532633091 | ||
| Mar 19, 2022 at 23:29 | vote | accept | C D | ||
| Mar 19, 2022 at 23:28 | comment | added | C D | NOTE: Added BLM example in my comment to "David Blomstrom". Intentionally left out from my question post because it can be inflammatory. | |
| Mar 19, 2022 at 23:19 | history | edited | C D | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 36 characters in body
|
| Mar 19, 2022 at 14:11 | history | edited | J D | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited tags
|
| Mar 19, 2022 at 14:02 | answer | added | J D | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 19, 2022 at 13:21 | history | edited | J D | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 7 characters in body
|
| Mar 19, 2022 at 8:30 | comment | added | C D | To be fair, such fallacy is easy to refute if it comes from an engineer/a peer: by giving a counter-example (e.g., "A and B does NOT work the same way?"). However, for upper management ("boss of boss"), they don't know what are A & B's differences. I guess a fallacy name would be a succinct way to stop upper management from being dismissive while I can explain the details/complexity. It also helps in the long-run when ppl stop using that excuse to dismiss others' contribution to conversation. I'm totally open to more effective ways to deal with that. | |
| Mar 19, 2022 at 7:58 | comment | added | C D | You're right. I generally don't mind if that's a Holy Grail "solution" we all aim for (e.g., unified deployment to k8s/Heroku). However, I'm bothered by the fact that ideal "solution" is used/mistaken as a "fact" to dismiss other from approaching that "solution", similar to the simplified example. | |
| Mar 19, 2022 at 7:49 | comment | added | Cody Gray - on strike | Oh, right; I see. Yeah, making the example a bit more concrete did make it clearer to me. False Equivalence may still work, but I think a better fit is Faulty Generalization (fallacy of defective induction). I, also, see this a lot. Some people don't like to think about the details. They think at a very high level, and they pride themselves on preferring "solutions" over problems. So, when you point out technical details that get in the way of doing what they perceive, at a high level, to be a simple task, they think you are the problem, rather than accepting inherent complexity in the world. | |
| Mar 19, 2022 at 7:43 | comment | added | C D | I also noticed it's way more subtle in real-life. That's why I need to create a simplified example to generalize the pattern. At the same time, the real-life examples can be too technical. Since you are software developer, I think this full-on technical example may help: "since they are all SpringBoot services" -> "deploying to Kubernetes would be same as Heroku". It ignored those SpringBoot services that consumes from Kafka (aka, the "disabled" services) that requires special handling ("wheelchair"). However, boss of boss can use that statement to dismiss "wheelchair" need for those. | |
| Mar 19, 2022 at 7:32 | comment | added | Cody Gray - on strike | False Equivalence? I admit, though, that by the third paragraph, I lost the ability to follow the example, despite being a software developer. What you are describing in the third paragraph and the bullet points seems rather different from the simplified example in the second paragraph. | |
| S Mar 19, 2022 at 7:31 | review | First questions | |||
| Mar 19, 2022 at 14:02 | |||||
| S Mar 19, 2022 at 7:31 | history | asked | C D | CC BY-SA 4.0 |