Talk:Special pleading

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Examples?

I'd like to see examples for each of the bulleted forms of immunity. Can someone provide this?--Bryan H Bell 04:01, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Would spurious claims of "bias" in the other side (without evidence) be considered a form of special pleading? Kasreyn 00:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is "Sure, an omnipotent benevolent deity could and would prevent evil, but free will prevents that." special pleading? Is it reference to vocabulary ("free will")?67.158.76.126 12:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's special pleading in the same way that ""Sure, an omnipotent benevolent deity could and would prevent evil, but chicken soup prevents that." Or "Sure, it's not physically possible to bend spoons with your mind, but Uri Geller can". They are unjustified claims of an exception. -- 71.102.136.107 10:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"An omnipotent benevolent deity could and would prevent evil" is a false assertion. This particular sentence is a very bad example; not only is it a questionable use of "special pleading", but it has the much more basic flaw of being built on a false assertion. Thus, it is confusing and unclear, so I have removed it.

I think that the "examples" section no longer adds anything to the article (given the more specific examples now present), and I think the examples in it are needlessly contentious. Consequently I have removed it. Rafaelgr 15:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article says: "A more difficult case is when a possible criticism is made relatively immune to investigation. This immunity may take the forms of: reference to vocabulary that is owned by a distinct community with sole rights to assess meaning and application"

But why should I accept that a community can just hijack a word? 92.117.253.175 (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second and third examples here don't seem to match the fallacy described in the beginning of the article, which says it is supposed to be about an unjustified exception to a rule. What rule is broken by talking about the religious beliefs of aliens on another planet? The fallacy as described earlier wasn't about just making unverifiable claims. And the third example is actually an example of a different fallacy which it links to.--108.86.123.184 (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

examples logically ok, but need at least one with more oomph

Special pleading has a negative connotation. The article needs an example the gives this feeling to it, like the special pleading of a pastor caught cheating on his wife and paying for someone's abortion.216.86.177.36 (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, we do need to avoid original research.216.86.177.36 (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever we speak, we assume stuff about what our audience knows or believes. We consequently leave most of that stuff out of what we say--otherwise it would take all day to say much of anything. It's always a gamble, though; you might have misjudged how your listeners will take certain things that you say or leave out. The present definition "... an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception" would unfortunately include such ordinary, good-faith acts of omitted speech. Conciseness shouldn't be defined as a fallacy!

Also, the second example includes a kind of justification--a brief, weak one, but it's there. Apparently, since "we" (= the court, public opinion, ... ?) would reject it out of hand, it's as if no justification had been offered at all. Yet the speaker may have meant to reference what he thought was a common understanding (again, a misperception of other people's thinking, but surely not a fallacy). So mere omission or the use of implication isn't what constitutes this fallacy--one could say somewhat cynically that it's either the failure to produce any argument, OR the use of arguments that someone else (in authority) ultimately deems as weak or invalid.

Finally, just beneath the examples, the article says, "In the classic distinction among informal (material), psychological, and formal (logical) fallacies, special pleading most likely falls within the category of psychological fallacy, ..." but if you follow the link to "psychological fallacy" you find something that seems quite different, to me at least. I frankly don't see the connection.

All in all, I think this article needs help. And I'd really like to read it again after it's gotten that help, since I've never felt that I understood what "special pleading" is supposed to mean. I'm not even sure to what extent it is a fallacy in logic, since there's so much that depends on "the eye of the beholder" about it. DSatz (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I love the examples currently in there, especially the racism one (racism is prejudice based on race, except for this, because this is prejudice based on race that benefits the group!) One I'd love to see in there that has plenty of oomph is any peculiar definition of Christian. Any dictionary will say a Christian is someone who follows Christ, maybe any member of a group that believes Christ was divine. Yet countless competitive religionists will say "anyone who believes in the eternally co-existent and Biblical Christ, without body parts and passions; and sola scriptura and universal salvation by grace without any efforts on our part but reading this poem, and also the Nicene Creed, and the Apostle's Creed, and the various declaration of the Catholic church even though we don't consider Catholics Christian either," etc. etc. I see that kind of special pleading daily and want the world to giggle with me!--Mrcolj (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use by English lawyers

I get the impression that "special pleading" is a technical term in the practice of law in Great Britain. It does not seem to have the pejorative connotations addressed in this article. If this is the case, someone should create a new section explaining the British legal phrase "special pleading". Solo Owl 15:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eall Ân Ûle (talk • contribs)

Good Example

A good example of special pleading fallacy is "Everything requires a first cause. Therefore a god/gods/God made everything." which is the same as "Everything requires a first cause. Except for god, of course." This is quite a commonly-used one. 72.242.35.23 (talk) 08:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

could say what 'special pleading' is more clearly in simple language?

I came to this page to make sure my vague impression of the meaning of "special pleading" is accurate. I leave more confused than ever.

Here is an attempt to illustrate clearly what my understanding of special pleading is:

An exception to an accepted generalization or rule, without a clear explanation why the exceptional case gets a pass. Historical example: "When the president does it, that means it is not illegal." (R. Nixon) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.156.23 (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Often, in real-life special pleading, the pleader does give a clear explanation why their case should get a pass. Clear – but not valid. (If a valid exception applies to them but they neglect to mention it, or they explain it badly, I wouldn't want to call it special pleading.) I think it would help this article if it was made clearer that in special pleading the main point is whether a valid exception applies or not, and the pleader's rhetorical skill (or lack of it) is not really relevant – at least not unless they intend to deceive. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amphibology problem

In the Spanish Wikipedia has an article with the same name but referred to a different fallacy. Given the problem of amphibology, I think that should rename this article from the English Wikipedia as Fallacy of special pleading (double standard) or Fallacy of the funnel, or Fallacy special case.https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falacia_del_alegato_especial. Regards--Javiergeografo (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The idea I propose is to create a new voice: Special pleading, and differentiate the current voice as Special pleading (double standard), for example. There are two different fallacies. Regards--Javiergeografo (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "voice"? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 21:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the context, I guess “article title”. ISTM (caveat: my Spanish is minimal) that the above article describes a type of genetic fallacy similar to an argument from authority or ipse dixit. This may be a case of linguistic difference; I think we would need English-language references supporting the necessity for disambiguation or forking here. Could be worth adding a see-also, though.—Odysseus 1479 22:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Odysseus. I have enough bibliography in English: Clark, J., Clark, T. (2005). Humbug! The skeptic's field guide to spotting fallacies in thinking. Brisbane: Nifty Books.* Dunning, B. "A Magical Journey through the Land of Logical Fallacies - Part 1." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc., 6 Nov 2007. Web. 12 Jun 2013. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4073> * Sagan, Carl. The Demond-haunted World, 1995. Regards--Javiergeografo (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clark, J., Clark, T. (2005). HUMBUG! the skeptic's field guide to spotting fallacies in thinking, page 124 http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/humbug.pdf--Javiergeografo (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many other books which, so far, I have not gotten access. I quote below that, a priori, I find most relevant: References & Further Reading of "Dunning, B. "A Magical Journey through the Land of Logical Fallacies - Part 1." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc., 6 Nov 2007. Web. 15 Jul 2013. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4073>": - Walton, D. Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989. - Miller C., Miller, D. "On evidence, medical and legal." Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. 1 Sep. 2005, Volume 10, Number 3: 70-75. References of chapter 12 of "The Demond-haunted World", of Carl Sagan: - Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life, 7ª ed. (Belmont, CA, Wadsworth, 1992). - Theodore Shick, Jr., y Lewis Vaughn, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age (Mountain View, CA, Mayfield, 1995). - Noel Brooke Moore y Richard Parker, Critical Thinking (Palo Alto, CA, Mayfield, 1991). - J. B. S. Haldane, Fact and Faith (Londres, Watts & Co., 1934).--Javiergeografo (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First example is uncited and may be original research

I checked the citations for both examples and I couldn't find either (ref 4 is dead but I checked it on Wayback and it wasn't there either). The 2nd one had a replacement example in ref 5 so I've replaced it but I couldn't find a suitable one in the existing refs for the 1st. ShabbyHoose (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]