Posted: Nov 14, 2015 12:48 pm
by Leucius Charinus
RealityRules wrote:It's almost a formal fallacy or a combination of formal fallacies (most fallacies are informal) -

    the *drawing an affirmative conclusion from negative premises fallacy*
or
    an existential fallacy

It's
    1. an 'accent fallacy' (ambiguity of accent) - a subtle shift in the meaning or intention of an argument by changing the emphasis (accent, tone) of certain words, phrases, or statements.
and
    2. ad lapidem fallacy (throw stones) - dismissing an argument as absurd or false without demonstrating it is false, often with ridicule (or in a bullying manner).
as well as

    Shifting the burden of proof
.




I stumbled across this book in the archives today.

https://archive.org/stream/HistoriansFa ... t_djvu.txt

"Historians Fallacies Toward A Logic Of Historical Thought"
by David Hackett Fischer

In the preface he provides the following description of the logic of historical thought ....

    The logic of historical thought is not a formal logic of deductive inference.
    It is not a symmetrical structure of Aristotelian syllogisms, or Ramean dialectics, or Boolean equations.
    Nor is it precisely an inductive logic, like that of Mill or Keynes or Carnap.
    It consists neither in inductive reasoning from the particular to the general,
    nor in deductive reasoning from the general to the particular.
    Instead, it is a process of adductive reasoning in the simple sense of adducing answers
    to specific questions, so that a satisfactory explanatory "fit" is obtained.
    The answers may be general or particular, as the questions may require.
    History is, in short, a problem-solving discipline.

    A historian is someone (anyone) who asks an open-ended question about past events and answers it
    with selected facts which are arranged in the form of an explanatory paradigm.

    These questions and answers are fitted to each other by a complex process of mutual adjustment.
    The resultant explanatory paradigm may take many different forms: a statistical generalization,
    or a narrative, or a causal model, or a motivational model, or a collectivized
    group-composition model, or maybe an analogy.
    Most commonly it consists not in any one of these components but in a combination of them.
    Always, it is articulated in the form of a reasoned argument.


The fallacies listed in the index are very numerous. Here is just the summarised fallacies by type in the contents.

I wouldn't be surprised that this statement in the OP - made by people supposedly writing in academic literature related to history - has a great many more fallacies associated with it that what RR has listed above.


    CONTENTS ....

    PART I INQUIRY

    Chapter I Fallacies of Question-Framing 3
    Chapter II Fallacies of Factual Verification 40
    Chapter III Fallacies of Factual Significance 64


    PART II EXPLANATION

    Chapter IV Fallacies of Generalization 103
    Chapter V Fallacies of Narration 131
    Chapter VI Fallacies of Causation 164
    Chapter VII Fallacies of Motivation 187
    Chapter VIII Fallacies of Composition 216
    Chapter IX Fallacies of False Analogy 243


    PART III ARGUMENT

    Chapter X Fallacies of Semantical Distortion 263
    Chapter XI Fallacies of Substantive Distraction 282

    Conclusion 307
    Index 319
    Index of Fallacies 337

That Jesus mythicism is "denialism" is one clear example of the many historical fallacies promulgated by Biblical Historians