Difference between revisions of "Nutpicking"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (→Examples: Spelling/Grammar Check & Cleanup, typos fixed: intepreting → interpreting) |
(expanded with reference to the fallacy of extrapolation) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Nutpicking''', named in analogy to "nitpicking" and "[[cherry picking]]," is the [[logical fallacy]] of smearing a whole group of people by finding a few extreme examples, typically in open comment threads, and holding them up as [[putting words in someone's mouth|representative of that group]].<ref>[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009324.php Nutpicking]</ref> Nutpicking is similar to the [[straw man fallacy]]; the difference is the difference between attacking an argument that only a few extreme people use and attacking an argument that no one uses at all. | '''Nutpicking''', named in analogy to "nitpicking" and "[[cherry picking]]," is the [[logical fallacy]] of smearing a whole group of people by finding a few extreme examples, typically in open comment threads, and holding them up as [[putting words in someone's mouth|representative of that group]].<ref>[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009324.php Nutpicking]</ref> Nutpicking is similar to the [[straw man fallacy]]; the difference is the difference between attacking an argument that only a few extreme people use and attacking an argument that no one uses at all. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Nutpicking is similar to the [[fallacy of extrapolation]]. However, nutpicking is also a form of bad-faith argument because it involves cherry-picking examples known not to be representative. | ||
==Examples== | ==Examples== | ||
| − | [[Czech]] [[catholic]] [[professor]] of [[theology]] Ctirad Václav Pospíšil blames partisan of [[militant atheism]] [[Dawkins]] for picking the | + | [[Czech]] [[catholic]] [[professor]] of [[theology]] Ctirad Václav Pospíšil blames partisan of [[militant atheism]] [[Dawkins]] for picking the opinions of problematic fundamentalist groups and equivocating them with all [[Christian]] believers. He calls such approach deceit and points out that after applying it together with interpreting the opinion of opponent in the most twisted sense a person does not engage in an open dialog but struggles with his or her own strawman instead.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Kde se bere tolik nenávisti? (Where so much hatred comes from?) |author=Ctirad Václav Pospíšil |url=http://www.katyd.cz/clanky/prilohy/perspektivy/kde-se-bere-tolik-nenavisti.html |journal=Katolický týdeník |volume 2010 |issue=7 |date=16 February 2010 |quote=Podle Dawkinse jsou však všichni věřící fundamentalisty, kreacionisty a zabedněnci. Je to klasický úskok. Vyberu si názory problematické skupiny a prohlásím, že to platí pro všechny věřící. Dalším úskokem je interpretace názorů toho druhého v tom nejpitomějším možném smyslu. Pak ale nepolemizuji s druhým, nýbrž jen s vlastní interpretací. |accessdate= |language=Czech}}</ref> |
| + | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]] | [[Category:Logical Fallacies]] | ||
Latest revision as of 15:37, February 17, 2020
Nutpicking, named in analogy to "nitpicking" and "cherry picking," is the logical fallacy of smearing a whole group of people by finding a few extreme examples, typically in open comment threads, and holding them up as representative of that group.[1] Nutpicking is similar to the straw man fallacy; the difference is the difference between attacking an argument that only a few extreme people use and attacking an argument that no one uses at all.
Nutpicking is similar to the fallacy of extrapolation. However, nutpicking is also a form of bad-faith argument because it involves cherry-picking examples known not to be representative.
Examples
Czech catholic professor of theology Ctirad Václav Pospíšil blames partisan of militant atheism Dawkins for picking the opinions of problematic fundamentalist groups and equivocating them with all Christian believers. He calls such approach deceit and points out that after applying it together with interpreting the opinion of opponent in the most twisted sense a person does not engage in an open dialog but struggles with his or her own strawman instead.[2]
References
- ↑ Nutpicking
- ↑ Ctirad Václav Pospíšil (16 February 2010). "Kde se bere tolik nenávisti? (Where so much hatred comes from?)" (in Czech). Katolický týdeník (7). http://www.katyd.cz/clanky/prilohy/perspektivy/kde-se-bere-tolik-nenavisti.html. "Podle Dawkinse jsou však všichni věřící fundamentalisty, kreacionisty a zabedněnci. Je to klasický úskok. Vyberu si názory problematické skupiny a prohlásím, že to platí pro všechny věřící. Dalším úskokem je interpretace názorů toho druhého v tom nejpitomějším možném smyslu. Pak ale nepolemizuji s druhým, nýbrž jen s vlastní interpretací.".