C. S. Lewis name of logical fallacy

Tim Robbins

In on of his books C. S. Lewis describes a logical fallacy whereby instead of arguing someones argument you argue why they came up with that argument. A bufferism or something. He used the name after explaing it thru a story by someone like Mr. Buffer.

It's a type of ad hominen.

What is the name he gives the fallacy again, thanks?

Edit - it's a bulverism.

ISAW

Tim Robbins wrote: »

In on of his books C. S. Lewis describes a logical fallacy whereby instead of arguing someones argument you argue why they came up with that argument. A bufferism or something. He used the name after explaing it thru a story by someone like Mr. Buffer.

It's a type of ad hominen.

What is the name he gives the fallacy again, thanks?

Edit - it's a bulverism.

could it be chronoligical snobbery?

raah!

Genealogical fallacy is another word for that.

I wouldn't put too much stock into learning the names of different "fallacies" however, as they are almost always context dependent.

Tim Robbins

raah! wrote: »

Genealogical fallacy is another word for that.

I wouldn't put too much stock into learning the names of different "fallacies" however, as they are almost always context dependent.

That's the doesn't make any sense fallacy.

Right mods - you can close or delete this thread.

raah!

It doesn't make sense to you that whether or not something is a 'fallacy' depends on context? Learning the names of "fallacies" is not a substitute for actually being able to think.

This is a major problem with todays culture of youtube scholars and facebook intellectuals. It's right up there with those IQ test spams.

im invisible

raah! wrote: »

It doesn't make sense to you that whether or not something is a 'fallacy' depends on context? Learning the names of "fallacies" is not a substitute for actually being able to think.

This is a major problem with todays culture of youtube scholars and facebook intellectuals. It's right up there with those IQ test spams.

a strawman arguement if ever i saw one

Peregrinus

Tim Robbins wrote: »

In on of his books C. S. Lewis describes a logical fallacy whereby instead of arguing someones argument you argue why they came up with that argument. A bufferism or something. He used the name after explaing it thru a story by someone like Mr. Buffer.

It's a type of ad hominen.

What is the name he gives the fallacy again, thanks?

Edit - it's a bulverism.

It's "appeal to motive" or "appeal to interest".

For example, I could say that Eamon Gilmore is an atheist who wishes to diminish the status of the Catholic church in Ireland, and therefore we should disregard his argument that the Irish Embassy to the Holy See shoulc be closed to save money.

It's true that Gilmore is an atheist and, while I have no idea if he wishes to diminish the status of the church in Ireland, let's suppose for the purposes of the illustration that he does. It doesn't follow from this that the economic argument for closing the embassy is without legs, or can be dismissed without further examination.