| | Well, I'm not Phil [wipes brow, looks up and mouths a thank-you], but I'll 'take a stab' at the answer, Kat ...
It may sound a little Ad nauseam -- but this is probably not the case here, in this instance. I'm leaning toward Amphibology -- if, for no other reason, than that it sounds cool. A convincing case might be made for the Animistic fallacy -- as the animation of others' emotion is at play -- but then Appeal to emotion would seem to be a superior alternative, so so much for that.
Appeal to motive seems exceptionally commensurable with that which has been articulated by 'the good doctor' -- but, in this instance, an Argument from ignorance (the ignorance of a trans-pacific dictaphone) provides ample competitive commensurability to maintain a degree of cautious skepticism, as does the oft-used, rarely uncovered Argument from setting a precedent.
Argumentum ad Capslock is definitely off of the table, as the quote included more smalls than caps -- as can be directly ascertained via visual inspection. Argumentum ad Google might be the sleeping giant here, but more details are needed before passing that Rubicon. The politically-omnipresent Argumentum ad populum is always fair game, when it comes to press releases -- but that broad stroke can be effectively dis-empowered by a skillful combination of Base rate fallacy and Begging the question.
One might accuse the 'interlocuted' of Cherry picking -- but only if one could, simultaneously, avoid a Converse accident. The Definist fallacy just about submits itself, as a dark horse worthy of intellectual focus -- but an especially cunning marriage of the Dicto simpliciter with the Doublespeak argument would seem, to any fair-minded onlooker, to keep this horse in the stables.
The Fallacy of four terms is clearly not at play here, as there are, decisively, more than four terms in the afformentioned quote -- but the Fallacy of misplaced concreteness is especially attractive, and compellingly and groundingly down to earth. Let's not count-out Greedy reductionism -- though 'the Coates Fallacy' might, ultimately, be viewed as a fallacy of Greedy Ambiguity.
A Hasty generalization seems to be at the front of the pack -- though the If-by-whiskey fallacy could be affecting my personal perception on that particular point. Ignoratio elenchi sounds like the name of a man, not a fallacy, but I do, now, digress [hiccup]. As there is something illicit to the thing, either Illicit major or Illicit minor would seem to be rival competitors for the prize of Coates-ness -- but, in order to make the distinction, one would have to rule out having made an Incomplete comparison.
The Infinite regress is too far off on a tangent to even be considered here -- as the Inverse gambler's fallacy eloquently and demonstrably articulates. The Joint effect is, perhaps something that should only be elaborated on behind closed doors -- and, in public, one should ne'er admit to any sort of incrimination by inhalation, else a Juxtaposition of 'living quarters' just might ensue.
Misleading vividness, irreconcilably related to the Joint effect -- is still arguably, at least potentially, a candidate with special and illuminative powers of explanation of the present dynamic. No true Scotsman has already been mentioned above, but it's effect on the needed global scale has not ever been demonstrated, much less the effect of male skirt-wearing, and the consequent drunken middle-agers in pubs -- watching The Simpsons.
The dear-to-all-our-hearts Package-deal fallacy is, perhaps, one of my more favorite picks of the bunch -- but a Parade of horribles stands in my way of reaching that conclusion without psycho-epistemological disfigurement, hence my current confabulations.
The Perfect solution fallacy should not (perhaps ever!) be counted out -- as well as it's current relation to Presentism (literary and historical analysis). Though, contrarily, the Psychologist's fallacy can be discounted a priori -- as it's intractable Questionable cause most-easily leads down to the under-utilized Reductio ad Hitlerum, a special case of the Reductio ad absurdum.
Reification, along with all of its Sciabarrian conceptual schematisms, should be viewed with a wide focus, so as not to fall into a certain sort of Retrospective determinism. A special option is Special pleading, which might lead, via a Spurious relationship to the Style over substance fallacy -- a fallacy eerily similar to that which doctor has implied.
The Suppressed correlative should be 'removed' from the discussion -- and with the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, if necessary. Three men make a tiger sounds more like a rock band, than like a fallacy -- but I do, again, digress. And if we are ever to assess the Truthiness of a certain sort of Wisdom of repugnance, then we should take pains not to engage in Wishful thinking -- all the while heading in the Wrong direction.
Ed
[to any curious, and perhaps stupefied, onlookers -- yes, this is how I 'unwind' after a tough day]
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/19, 12:02am)
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/19, 12:04am)
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/19, 12:20am)
|
|
