New logical fallacy.

New logical fallacy.

We've entered a new age of communications, and as such, a new age of accessibility to crackpot theories about Jewish world domination plots and armchair logicians who feel they're the only people on earth who don't have to develop their arguments (and indeed, often don't even develop an opinion on the topic) and can instead spam "link plz" until their opposition surrenders in order to stop the ocular bleeding. This has given birth to the "link plz" logical fallacy. This fallacy is committed when:

1) Information is assumed to be true because it's on an internet site
(e.g. "The earth is flat, here's a link that says so." (which incidentally is already an appeal to authority)),
2) Information is assumed to be false because it's not on an internet site
(e.g. "The earth being round is nothing but your opinion based on anecdotal evidence. Link plz."),
3) Information is assumed to be false because someone doesn't feel like finding it on a web site for you
(e.g. "You're obviously lying about the earth being round or you would show a link.")

Number one is fallacious because you can find a link to support anything at all, can create your own link to support anything at all, and because it's already an appeal to authority regardless. Number two is fallacious because there's quite a good bit of human knowledge that doesn't necessarily exist online (or isn't freely accessible or easy to find or easy to understand if you do find it), particularly during periods of rapid technological or scientific development. It also, depending on the circumstances, can be fallacious for one or more of the same reasons that number one is. Number three is fallacious because it assumes that falsehood of argument is the only possible disincentive for someone to essentially do your homework for you.

Don't discuss. Just study it and use it. Or at least familiarize yourself, because some of you are going to be hearing it a lot in the near future. I guess you can discuss if you really have to post something, but I know one of the first five posts will be "link plz," so link yw.


Diabloii.Net Member
So ... doesn't your link demonstrate rather circular evidence for your argument?



Diabloii.Net Member
This is nothing new. Most people are usually too lazy to go check someone's sources, so they just assume the sources are legit. In my opinion, even peer reviewed scientific literature is prone to this. It often seems as though validity of a statement or idea is a function of how many sources can be found to support it, which doesn't really mean squat if all your sources are themselves wrong.
The only thing circular is that I linked the post to itself to preempt anyone coming in and saying "link plz." The logic itself isn't circular.