Appeal to Possibility Fallacy: Occurs when someone argues that because
something is possible, it is therefore relevant, probable, or sufficient
to refute a claim, even when the possibility is remote, speculative, or
completely unsupported.
Claim: "That we are going to die is an example of an objective truth."
Response: "That can't be objectively true because scientists might cure death one day."
This
is a fallacy because: The original claim is based on current biological
reality and overwhelming empirical evidence. The rebuttal does not
disprove the claim but invokes an unfounded hypothetical. The mere
possibility of future immortality does not negate the current truth of
human mortality.
The one committing the fallacy is appealing to a speculative possibility (that something might happen in the future) as if it refutes a claim grounded in current reality.
Possibility is not probability, and it certainly isn’t evidence. To
appeal to a speculative possibility as if it overturns a truth grounded
in present reality (and to think it is a valid form of reasoning) is to
manifest ignorance. It replaces evidence with abstraction, and smuggles a hypothetical into the place of fact,
as though what 'might be' is somehow more legitimate than what is. This
is not argumentation, but a psychological refusal to engage with
reality, dressed up in the illusion of thoughtfulness. A hypothetical
future is not a rebuttal to the present. This maneuver appeals not to
logic, but to comfort. The hypothetical future becomes a safehouse for denial (a way to delay or reject truth without having to directly refute it).
"One obvious occasion when the possibility of fallacious reasoning arises is that when we are closely attached to an issue that is being argued. Full detachment from issues, or complete objectivity, is not possible, so that is not what is being suggested. But we should try to monitor our attachments so that we avoid falling into error. When we feel strongly about a topic we may rush hastily to defend a position, drawing a conclusion that is not fully warranted; or we may not listen carefully to what another person is saying and assume that his position is something it is not; or we may be inclined to engage in personal attacks on the one who holds a contrary view to our own." Fallacies and Argument Appraisal, p.15, Christopher W. Tindale. Cambridge University Press 2007
-
-
-
