Question about certain fallacies

[mr friendly guy]

Are there proper names for these fallacies?

1. This one is like the opposite to an appeal to motive, where instead of accusing them of being bias, you proclaim yourself free of bias.

For example

a) I am no "holy man" but I think Creationism should be taught.
b) I am not racist, but we should limit Asian immigration (and only Asian immigration).

Obviously the above 2 are lying but some people do believe their bullshit. In any event, being not bias is no guarantee of a rational argument, as they may very well be stupid. As always an argument doesn't depend on the characteristics of its author.

2. I tend to dub this the "apologetic fallacy" which seems to cross all sorts of logical boundaries. It goes along the lines of given statement A, if I come up with explanation B (which explains A) or excuse / apologetic statement C (which doesn't obviously deny A), therefore statement A is false.

For example

Bob : Michael Jordan is playing poorly today. Its game over and he only scored 2 points.

John : Hey lay off him alright. Thats because he is just recovering from a viral infection.

While the viral infection bit may explain why Jordan is playing poorly, it doesn't show Bob's statement is false. In fact it explains it.

Example 2

Bob : Polypoidal goatsherd plants cannot reproduce with its non polypoidal parents. Therefore they have become another species and we see evolution in action.

John : The only reason polypoidal plants can't reproduce with their parent plants is because they have extra set of chromosomes. This doesn't count as "macroevolution".

Again John explains why polypoidal goatsherd can't reproduce with their parents, but he expects this explanation to detract from the observation that they can't and hence are not a different species

Example 3

Bob : Jesus was a racist. Look at his treatment of a Canaanite woman asking him to heal her sick child.

John : Such behaviour was the norm back then. You shouldn't judge it with modern standards.

Again John explains the behaviour as due to societal norms, however it doesn't detract from the fact that the behaviour was racist.

3. A type of gross generalisation. Where if part of A is correct, therefore all of A is correct.

The bible is correct about the Romans occupying Jewish lands, therefore we should also take its word on a global flood.

[Darth Wong]

Are there proper names for these fallacies?

1. This one is like the opposite to an appeal to motive, where instead of accusing them of being bias, you proclaim yourself free of bias.

For example

a) I am no "holy man" but I think Creationism should be taught.
b) I am not racist, but we should limit Asian immigration (and only Asian immigration).

Obviously the above 2 are lying but some people do believe their bullshit. In any event, being not bias is no guarantee of a rational argument, as they may very well be stupid. As always an argument doesn't depend on the characteristics of its author.

It's a special variant of the ad-hominem fallacy where you try to focus attention on the man rather than the argument, but the man in question happens to be yourself. The ad-hominem fallacy is, when you think about it, a special case of the red-herring fallacy: attempting to introduce an irrelevant factor and pretend that it is relevant. It applies even when you're doing it in a positive fashion.

2. I tend to dub this the "apologetic fallacy" which seems to cross all sorts of logical boundaries. It goes along the lines of given statement A, if I come up with explanation B (which explains A) or excuse / apologetic statement C (which doesn't obviously deny A), therefore statement A is false.

For example

Bob : Michael Jordan is playing poorly today. Its game over and he only scored 2 points.

John : Hey lay off him alright. Thats because he is just recovering from a viral infection.

While the viral infection bit may explain why Jordan is playing poorly, it doesn't show Bob's statement is false. In fact it explains it.

That is not, however, a fallacy. It would only be a fallacy if it made or at least implied some conclusion which did not logically follow from its premises. This is just an attempt to downplay the importance of the logical conclusion.

Example 2

Bob : Polypoidal goatsherd plants cannot reproduce with its non polypoidal parents. Therefore they have become another species and we see evolution in action.

John : The only reason polypoidal plants can't reproduce with their parent plants is because they have extra set of chromosomes. This doesn't count as "macroevolution".

Again John explains why polypoidal goatsherd can't reproduce with their parents, but he expects this explanation to detract from the observation that they can't and hence are not a different species.

That's a fallacy of suppressed premise. In this case, the suppressed premise is that "macroevolution" does not apply in cases where the chromosome count changes, even though nothing in the definition of "macroevolution" requires chromosome counts to remain constant.

Example 3

Bob : Jesus was a racist. Look at his treatment of a Canaanite woman asking him to heal her sick child.

John : Such behaviour was the norm back then. You shouldn't judge it with modern standards.

Again John explains the behaviour as due to societal norms, however it doesn't detract from the fact that the behaviour was racist.

Once again, this is not a fallacy, but a rhetorical technique of attempting to minimize the logical conclusion. Note how he does not actually dispute that Jesus was racist; he simply tries to downplay the importance of his racism.

3. A type of gross generalisation. Where if part of A is correct, therefore all of A is correct.

The bible is correct about the Romans occupying Jewish lands, therefore we should also take its word on a global flood.

Hasty generalization fallacy.

[Surlethe]

Are there proper names for these fallacies?

1. This one is like the opposite to an appeal to motive, where instead of accusing them of being bias, you proclaim yourself free of bias.
<snip>

This is a special appeal to authority: "I am free of motive (therefore I am an authority on the subject), so what I say is true."

2. I tend to dub this the "apologetic fallacy" which seems to cross all sorts of logical boundaries. It goes along the lines of given statement A, if I come up with explanation B (which explains A) or excuse / apologetic statement C (which doesn't obviously deny A), therefore statement A is false.
<znib>

This is a fallacy of irrelevant thesis (a.k.a. red herring); I'm sure you can see why.

3. A type of gross generalisation. Where if part of A is correct, therefore all of A is correct.

The bible is correct about the Romans occupying Jewish lands, therefore we should also take its word on a global flood.

This is a fallacy of composition, where because one part of the bible is true, he assumes the entire bible is true.

[mr friendly guy]

Thanks guys for your help.