Argument from Fallacy, or the Fallacy Fallacy - Logic Comic (Pt.3)
The fallacy fallacy is when someone makes the fallacy of determining a conclusion is false due to a fallacious argument being used to justify it.
In simplified terms, the argument takes the form of:
If P, then Q.
P is a fallacious argument.
Therefore, Q is false
But... fallacious arguments can end with valid conclusions. Something can be true, but the reasoning, rationale, or argument used to demonstrate the truth, is flawed and fails. The flaw or error in reasoning, the fallacy, only means the argument doesn't prove the conclusion.
The fallacy within the argument can be pointed out, and someone can revise their argument to better prove what they want. Then the argument will accurately validate the conclusion.
Most conclusions can be demonstrated and proven through different avenues, paths or chains that link premises in an argument. The conclusion can be demonstrated as valid or invalid with true premises. If one premise in an argument is false, the conclusion is false.
But, since the path of a false premise led us astray, we can course-correct and try to reach a valid conclusion again by correcting any false premises. We can also create entirely different paths from new premises and chart a new course to arrive at our destination, all the while keeping to our steadfast bearing of true premises. So long as the premises (links) in the chain remain grounded in reality, existence and truth, the conclusion will have grounding as well.
Examples:
If I say: All cats are animals, Bella is an animal, therefore Bella is a cat.
Or: I speak French, therefore I am French.
You can see that these are fallacious arguments to make in support of the conclusion. The conclusion might be true, but it's not demonstrated.
The antecedent premise fallaciously concludes the consequent. However, that doesn't mean the conclusion is false. It's a fallacy to think you can conclude an animal is a cat simply because all cats are animals, or that someone is of a particular ethnicity simply because they speak that language. But, even though these are not logical methods of arriving at the conclusion, the conclusions may be accurate: Bella might be a cat, and I may be French.
To show a conclusion is false, the stance or view of that conclusion must be targeted to address it. Pointing out someone is engaging in a fallacy doesn't disprove the conclusion, but it certainly doesn't prove it either. We can legitimately demonstrate an argument is fallacious, without saying the conclusion is false because of it. The stated conclusion is not proven true.
If someone wants to call you out as using a fallacy fallacy simply for pointing out the fallacy of another, then that person is engaging in the fallacy fallacy fallacy.
The argumentor must refine their argument in order to prove their point more accurately. A true statement needs to be defended with true logic, not false logic. If someone can't use any valid arguments to prove something, then it's reasonable to assume their conclusion is false at this time, until they can demonstrate it's accuracy. It's not reasonable to assume the opposite of a fallacious conclusion, despite the opposite possibly being true. Maybe Bella isn't a cat, but that doesn't mean Bella is a dog either...
Type of fallacy? Formal Fallacy and Denying the Antecedent.
[Image sources: 1]
Thank you for your time and attention! I appreciate the knowledge reaching more people. Take care. Peace.
If you appreciate and value the content, please consider:
Upvoting 
, Sharing 
and Reblogging 
below.
me for more great content to come! Please also go through my older work to learn about more topics.
Author: Kris Nelson / @krnel
Contact: [email protected]
Date: 2016-10-24, 8:06am EST