The Most Dreaded Fallacy of All Fallacies

The ability to easily exchange and digest massive amounts of information on every kind of topic around the globe has led to millions of individuals far and wide taking back their own education and mental development by using the great web at their fingertips.

There has been a wide resurgence of interest in philosophy and the discipline of Logic as the method for using language to understand and speak about reality. With the vast swathes of information to pick apart and process which are available through a simple Google search or a site like Wikipedia, there are now many individuals out there who, at the very least, understand basic fallacies and even have a cursory understanding of the Law of Non-contradiction.

Yet in all the flow of conversation among this epic returning of Critical Thought, I have seen many well-intentioned and self-made Wiki-philosophers and Google-logicians fall into a rather heinous mental trap (for what it's worth, I use terms like "wiki-philosopher" affectionately, not derogatorily).

This mental hole which is stumbled into, is more of an oversight than anything. It is the oversight of what I call The Most Dreaded Fallacy of All. The newbie to Critical Thought has overlooked the fact that an argument for a certain truth can be a poor argument (a fallacious one, that is) and that has no bearing on whether the claim made is true or false. The well-meaning thinker points to the fallacious reasoning of the argument as a reason to entirely dismiss the claim or conclusion the arguer came to, and in so doing has fallen by the wayside on the search for actual truth.

This, my friends, is the Fallacy Fallacy. It is the act of saying that someone who makes a fallacious argument for a claim must be wrong about the claim. But the search for truth is never just about the arguments themselves, since an individual who seeks truth understands that whatever is true or not must be true outside of someone's ability to use language to argue for it.

This why I can say that:

If it is not a true debate where the direct aim of the conversation is to present a sound argument (premise, supporting points, conclusion), then it is irrelevant in the quest for truth to point out every fallacy the opposition might make. The arguer might present a truth claim, and then on the road to defending it espouse some fallacious reasoning in poor defense. Proceeding to then shout “Aha, fallacy!” is not equivalent to “Aha, you are wrong!”

To presume the other person’s assertion of a fact or truth must be wrong because they argued badly (fallaciously) for it fails to keep TRUTH in sight as the real goal, and irrationally makes it about the arguer themselves as though they are the source of the truth.

As a simple example:
A person may make an assertion that the earth is not round, and then attempt to defend it as such:
“I conclude the earth is not round, because it was from a fortune cookie that I heard it was round, and fortune cookies can’t be trusted.”

I could say that this is a bad argument, and commits the Genetic Fallacy of assuming that the source of the claim has any bearing on the truth of the claim.

However, it would commit the Fallacy Fallacy for me to say,
"That’s a genetic fallacy and therefore you are absolutely wrong.” It would still be incumbent upon me, if I am interested in the truth, to attempt to demonstrate that the assertion--that the earth is not round--is either true or false, regardless of the fallacy made by the other party.

The only real question is, and always will be:

Is the claim made true or isn’t it?

The questions is not:

Did you commit a fallacy while arguing for it, or didn’t you?

A thing is either true or it is not, independent of the one who is speaking about it.

I would assert that if your focus is always on how the other person argues for their claim, and how many fallacies they are making, your focus is not really on what is or is not true, and you are very likely disingenuous in your pretense of caring for truth.

If you indeed desire to know what is true, you will openly review all potential data/evidence from all sides and actively attack and attempt to destroy your own view.

You will overlook the bad arguments others have and go after the good ones yourself, and pursue real evidence that exists wherever you can find it, and it whatever form.

Use your own mental faculties to weigh as much evidence as you can.

If you are waiting for a decent arguer to come to you and present to you a flawless argument, you aren’t really interested in any rigorous assessment of reality.