Anyone heard of the "Atlantis Fallacy"?

[TithonusSyndrome]

A clever poster on another forum claims to have coined the term the "Atlantis Fallacy", and while I don't doubt his wit, I still have my doubts that he came up with it. Basically, it goes as follows:

Atlantean fallacy: A logical fallacy in which one backs up his argument with a large amount of obviously irrelevant information of dubious source -- the intent being that when one does so, he may proclaim anyone who doesn't wish to waste hours of his time reading and debunking every scrap of it disqualified from the debate.

An example:

Peter argues that if all Biffs are Boffs, and all Boffs are Buffs, then all Biffs must be Buffs.

Mary disagrees but, instead of providing sound logical proof (for which, of course, there is none), she instead alludes to 13, four-page, essays on a variety of topics, ranging from Falun-gong to Atlantis, ancient space travelers, underwater basket-weaving practices of the Hopi Indian tribe, and some dog in Russia that can levitate his water dish. Included are also several video links, of various degrees of irrelevancy to all aforementioned topics. The trap is set! Surely she has won! She knows it's all bullshit, but if Peter can't refute every bit of it, then he has lost the debate!

Peter says that he's not wasting his time reviewing irrelevant or dubious material, and asks for a peer-reviewed journal source on the topic, defending her claim. He then states there isn't possibly one, because her claim defies the basic root of logic, "A = A", and that Mary has just committed and "Atlantean fallacy".

Mary ignores this, and believes she has defeated all debate opponents for centuries to come, even though the entire logical community has declared Peter the winner.

By way of example, he created another thread entitled "Flying Spaghetti Monster Proofs" and filled it with random chunks of text from websites about the elegant geometry of the I Ching and the circumstances under which French rail reform took place in the 19th century. I'm sure we've all encountered it before, but I'm uncertain if it's ever been met with this term.

[Darth Wong]

If he was half as smart as he thinks he is, he would know that this fallacy already has a name: the Red-Herring Fallacy.

[Hawkwings]

Wouldn't this be more "Your refutation is not on-topic" than "You're engaging in a logical fallacy"?

[Darth Wong]

Wouldn't this be more "Your refutation is not on-topic" than "You're engaging in a logical fallacy"?

If the red-herrings are presented as a rebuttal, then that's a logical fallacy because it purports to actually refute the claim with irrelevant detail.

[Darth Raptor]

I wouldn't say the "bury your opponent in information and when he refuses to refute it all you win by default" tactic is necessarily a red herring. Creationists have used it on me numerous times. The sites they link to and the books they pile in my lap aren't always off topic, but expecting me to go through all of it and refute it point by point is ludicrous.

The entry in the OP is confusing. The definition sounds like the "literature avalanche" tactic, but the examples just go on to illustrate a bog standard red herring.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I wonder if he's saying this in jest. I think, specifically, he's attaching a cute, funny name to something already in play. Different fallacies are often reduced to Red Herrings.

The name I think refers to Atlantis, who had the weight of the world thrust on his shoulders. They are bombarding you with the weigh of a thousand worthless sources. If you falter and don't hold up the "weight" of the world of "evidence" you lose.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Correct: not red herrings. Non Sequitors.

[Darth Wong]

I wouldn't say the "bury your opponent in information and when he refuses to refute it all you win by default" tactic is necessarily a red herring. Creationists have used it on me numerous times. The sites they link to and the books they pile in my lap aren't always off topic, but expecting me to go through all of it and refute it point by point is ludicrous.

My stock-standard rebuttal to that tactic is to say that if they read and understood that material themselves, they should be able to summarize the relevant points in their own words. If they can't, then they didn't read or understand all of that material themselves, and they have no right to expect me to do their work for them.

The entry in the OP is confusing. The definition sounds like the "literature avalanche" tactic, but the examples just go on to illustrate a bog standard red herring.

As I said, the person doesn't seem to be half as clever as he thinks he is. Probably the "big fish in a small pond" syndrome.

[Elheru Aran]

I wonder if he's saying this in jest. I think, specifically, he's attaching a cute, funny name to something already in play. Different fallacies are often reduced to Red Herrings.

The name I think refers to Atlantis, who had the weight of the world thrust on his shoulders. They are bombarding you with the weigh of a thousand worthless sources. If you falter and don't hold up the "weight" of the world of "evidence" you lose.

Your mythology is wrong. It was Atlas who bore the weight of the world upon his shoulders. This refers more to Atlantis, the lost continent beloved of Forteans and other pseudohistorians, who just *love* to pull out all manner of bullshit sources upon your ass...

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Oh yea, you're right. I don't know why I said Atlantis. Didn't type what I was thinking.

I guess I mixed up the letters beyond Atla()

Atlantis is the allegory made up by Plato, I think.

[Surlethe]

Atlantis is the allegory made up by Plato, I think.

Right, although, IIRC, the name has a common root with the word "Atlantic." It actually derives from the Atlas Mountains in Africa, which were named after -- you guessed it -- the Titan Atlas.

As for the fallcy, it's simply a form of the Johnny Cochrane fallacy of a thousand questions. The more down-to-earth name is "the drown 'em in bullshit fallacy."

[Molyneux]

Atlantis is the allegory made up by Plato, I think.

Right, although, IIRC, the name has a common root with the word "Atlantic." It actually derives from the Atlas Mountains in Africa, which were named after -- you guessed it -- the Titan Atlas.

As for the fallcy, it's simply a form of the Johnny Cochrane fallacy of a thousand questions. The more down-to-earth name is "the drown 'em in bullshit fallacy."

You mean the Chewbacca defense?

[Lord Zentei]

I wonder whether he has encountered our old friend Kilik at some point.

But yes, the "Atlantis fallacy" is the Red Herring fallacy by another name.