Dissolution of Logic
AKA “Escape to Philosophy” fallacy. It consists of abusing philosophy as a means to ignore logic. It involves using philosophical concepts in a way that undermines productive discussion.
Essentially, it boils down to “What’s the point of proving me wrong if the entirety of human knowledge is based on beliefs and implicit conventions?”
Examples
- When someone wants to “ensure everyone is on the same page” (not genuine understanding) by enforcing exaggerated specificity from all parties in a debate.
- When someone pretends to advocate for “rigorous definitions” in a trial, but instead becomes overly skeptical of everything anyone says, driving the trial off-topic, by questioning the very nature of reality and standard legal definitions.
- When someone does a “Reductio Ad Absurdum” fallacy, to dismiss an opponent’s argument as having the same level of validity/truth.
- When someone exposes implicit (but clear) assumptions about a subject, pretending to “debunk fallacies”, but with the intent to distract everyone from the main purpose of the conversation. Thereby casting unnecessary doubt and ambiguity.
Common cases
- Religious believers using the “False Equivalence” fallacy to dismiss atheism as “just another belief system” (AKA “Everyone has faith!!1!11!1” braindead argument)
- Lawyers trying to defend someone who is “clearly guilty” by questioning all evidence and demanding “unambiguous statements” from witnesses.
Motivation
Why would someone commit this fallacy?
- Maybe they fear facing the truth or consequences.
- Maybe they don’t even realize they’re doing it, and genuinely have no idea how to properly reason about a subject.
etc
True skepticism involves questioning evidence with a reason, not being suspicious of everything to the point of derailing the process.
The most important characteristic of every skeptic, is to question themselves, not just other people and the environment. Otherwise, they’re just a closed-minded double-standard person