2

What is it called when person A makes an argument, then person B picks on a minor error in A's argument (such as a typo or misattribution of a quote) and uses this small error to argue that everything A says cannot be trusted and (by implication) must be false?

The closest I've got is "straw man", but that isn't quite right, since in this case the error is genuine.

I feel this technique must have a name, since it seems to be incredibly common in real-world debate!

  • 1
    Generally just nitpicking, missing the forest for the trees. – Dan Bron Dec 8 '16 at 22:54
  • 1
    This is a key legal technique; if a witness has tripped up in one place, the rest of their testimony can be put into doubt. Perhaps there is a legal term for it? – BladorthinTheGrey Dec 8 '16 at 22:57
  • 1
    I'm almost certain that this exact question has been asked here before. – Edwin Ashworth Dec 8 '16 at 23:22
3

From Wikipedia:

"Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), fallacy fallacy, fallacist's fallacy, and bad reasons fallacy."

  • 1
    +1. Depending on what is picked on, it might also be cherry picking or possibly witness impeachment . Presumably, whether you think it's a logical fallacy or a legitimate impeachment will depend on the probative value of the error (e.g. a singular error introduced by a third party vs. a symptom of a wider pattern of sloppiness in record keeping) and which side of the case you're on. – 1006a Dec 8 '16 at 23:18
  • That's the one, thank you! And thank you for the comment @1006a. – Richard Dec 9 '16 at 17:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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