Talk:Egocentric predicament
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Egocentric predicament article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Proposed merge of Appeal to the stone into Egocentric predicament[edit]
The proposal that Johnson's retort is an "informal fallacy" is cute, but basically original research in the sense that "appeal to the stone" is not contained in the most commonly cited lists of informal fallacies. The somewhat fallacious nature of the argument can be discussed according to some of the sources in this article, but to identify it wholly as a fallacy is altogether unwarranted. jps (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Don't Merge I understand the concern with "Appeal to Stone" being original research since other the lists of fallacies I found through a cursory search that mention it seem to cite here. That being said I do not think a merger is appropriate since the two articles are different. Egocentric predicament seems to be related the limits of an individual to conceive of concepts due to their preconceptions. This predicaments often leads its suffers to make an appeal to Stone but they are not the same thing. Appeal to Stone refer to the common practice in argument to simply claim another parties claim to false without addressing it in any way regardless of the claims merit. Elithanathile (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- No merge: I agree with Elithanathile, these are distinct and separate articles. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 01:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- don't merge: I agree with Elithanathile and BappleBusiness. The anecdote does not demonstrate Johnson resorting to a fallacious argument so much as it demonstrates him naming a fallacious argument. Also, Appeal to the Stone is a useful fallacy to know these days, as it's characteristic of much contemporary "post-truth" discourse. Verbal terminology is not static: it changes and expands with the language. If I'm reading jps's argument correctly, it's regarding informal fallacies as a potentially fixed set, like the periodic table of elements, and disqualifying a term on the basis of its apparent provenance. I believe the key issues here, though, are the term's usefulness and relevance in regard to contemporary habits of debate, and that Appeal to the Stone should remain among the list of informal fallacies. Amanuenski (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)