This fallacy occurs when a claim is made (adding salt will reduce cooking time, turning off the wifi will save energy), that is both true, and negligible. The claim may convince one to do something (add salt, turn off the wifi), even though the advice is completely useless. This is a fallacy because the person making the claim can always argue that “The claim is true”, in some logical sense, while the person receiving the advice is mislead to believe that is “The claim is relevant”. It is difficult to fight the person making the claim, because they could always shift the debate toward the truth of the claim.
Why ‘fight the person making the claim’?
Just saying “that’s true but not relevant” seems fine enough to move on?
Why ‘fight the person making the claim’?
Just saying “that’s true but not relevant” seems fine enough to move on?