What is the easiest and least frustrating way to explain the difference between the following two statements?
X is good.
X is bad, but your proposed solution Y only makes things worse.
Does fallacy to distinguish between these two have a standard name? I mean, when someone criticizes Y, and the reponse is to accuse them of supporting X.
Technically, if Y is proposed as a cure for X, then opposing Yis evidence for supporting X. Like, yeah, a person who supports X (and believes that Y reduces X) would probably oppose Y, sure.
It becomes a problem when this is the only piece of evidence that is taken into account, and any explanations of either bad side effects of Y, or that Y in fact does not reduce X at all, are ignored, because “you simply like X” becomes the preferred explanation.
A discussion of actual consequences of Y then becomes impossible, among the people who oppose X, because asking this question already becomes a proof of supporting X.
EDIT:
More generally, a difference between models of the world is explained as a difference in values. The person making the fallacy not only believes that their model is the right one (which is a natural thing to believe), but finds it unlikely that their opponent could have a different model. Or perhaps they have a very strong prior that differences in values are much more likely than differences in models.
From inside, this probably feels like: “Things are obvious. But bad actors fake ignorance / confusion, so that they can keep plausible deniability while opposing proposed changes towards good. They can’t fool me though.”
Which… is not completely unfounded, because yes, there are bad actors in the world. So the error is in assuming that it is impossible for a good actor to have a different model. (Or maybe assuming too high base rate of bad actors.)
What is the easiest and least frustrating way to explain the difference between the following two statements?
X is good.
X is bad, but your proposed solution Y only makes things worse.
Does fallacy to distinguish between these two have a standard name? I mean, when someone criticizes Y, and the reponse is to accuse them of supporting X.
Technically, if Y is proposed as a cure for X, then opposing Y is evidence for supporting X. Like, yeah, a person who supports X (and believes that Y reduces X) would probably oppose Y, sure.
It becomes a problem when this is the only piece of evidence that is taken into account, and any explanations of either bad side effects of Y, or that Y in fact does not reduce X at all, are ignored, because “you simply like X” becomes the preferred explanation.
A discussion of actual consequences of Y then becomes impossible, among the people who oppose X, because asking this question already becomes a proof of supporting X.
EDIT:
More generally, a difference between models of the world is explained as a difference in values. The person making the fallacy not only believes that their model is the right one (which is a natural thing to believe), but finds it unlikely that their opponent could have a different model. Or perhaps they have a very strong prior that differences in values are much more likely than differences in models.
From inside, this probably feels like: “Things are obvious. But bad actors fake ignorance / confusion, so that they can keep plausible deniability while opposing proposed changes towards good. They can’t fool me though.”
Which… is not completely unfounded, because yes, there are bad actors in the world. So the error is in assuming that it is impossible for a good actor to have a different model. (Or maybe assuming too high base rate of bad actors.)
Sounds like a complex equivalence that simultaneously crosses the is-ought gap.