1

A man faces various arguments, of different sophistication, consistency and factual accuracy, on a particular matter. Due to him unable to perceive and analyze them, or he just doesn't care, or he's misinterpreting what "critical thinking" actually is, he decides that all the arguments are at the same level, and say "Well, so people don't have a consensus on this matter, which means there's no truth!", and dismiss the more credible ones as "authorities means nothing" as when people refer to it.

Is there a single word to describe such act, or way of thinking?

Improve this question
5
  • 3
    Fox News Viewer.
    – Brian Hitchcock
    Commented Jun 29, 2015 at 5:03
  • @BrianHitchcock I don't think it's a reference many people knows.
    – user108643
    Commented Jun 29, 2015 at 5:25
  • Sorry. It's apt in the US though. Fox specializes in exactly this kind of specious logic, calling it "fair and balanced" as long as they can find one lackey to support their talking points against the overwhelming facts.
    – Brian Hitchcock
    Commented Jun 29, 2015 at 10:08
  • Hmm, it's still a interesting fact to know, though.
    – user108643
    Commented Jun 29, 2015 at 11:52
  • "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - George Carlin
    – user662852
    Commented Jun 29, 2015 at 21:20

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
3

In two words maybe false equivalence fits.

false equivalence: a logical fallacy where there appears to be a logical equivalence (usually in quantity and quality of evidence) between two opposing arguments, but when in fact there is one side has substantially higher quality and quantity of evidence. - skepticalraptor

Improve this answer
1
  • Thanks, this is a good word for describing the behaviour I want to describe.
    – user108643
    Commented Jun 29, 2015 at 11:48
0

Actually, there are a variety of logical fallacies that people fall prey to, which prevent them from sorting out good arguments from empty bloviating. So there is really no one word, other than gullible.

The logical fallacies are too numerous to describe here, but here is a link to a list.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Most politicians, and certain "news" outlets, intentionally exploit these fallacies to mislead and deceive their respective audiences.

Improve this answer
1
  • Reading that list of fallacies made me think about playing buzzword bingo again in my next meeting
    – nickson104
    Commented Jun 29, 2015 at 10:22
0

A man receives conflicting arguments from different sources. The author says the quality of these sources vary and that this quality may be discerned by the man. (At least he implies the man is aware of credentials.)

What the man does...

The man dismisses the authorities and concludes there is no truth because there is no consensus.

Is there a single word to describe such thing? Describe what?

The man makes the decision to consider all arguments equally without considering quality because he doesn't care. Word?

The man makes the decision to consider all arguments equally without considering quality because he's misinterpreting "critical thinking". Word. (This is the logic version of the question that seems to have been addressed already)

The man makes the decision to consider all arguments equally without considering quality because he cannot perceive or analyze them. Word?

(... and implied I think) The man makes the decision to consider all arguments equally without considering quality (as it relates to credential) because of contempt for authority. Word?

Beyond the author's question of the man treatment of the arguments (which I admit I may have wrong) there's this very interesting sub one:

The man assumes consensus relates to truth. Word?

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.