Too Complicated Method Fallacyfleeting
Fallacy occurring when people claim that they practice a method but not really because it is too complicated.
The fallacy goes like this:
- some person P says per practice the method M,
- you study M and find out incoherence that clearly lead you to say that P does not practice M,
- then P rationalize saying that no one practice M, because it is too much complicated. But P claims that per follow the spirit of M, tend to it and would do it if per could.
Somehow, in those situation, it is important for P to claim practicing M, even then there are evidences showing that it is not the case. Like claiming to do M would be an important final objective or something.
Too, me it looks like the following absurd scenario. Say that instead of the method M, we imagine the person claims to be superman.
- some person P says per is superman,
- you make P acknowledge that per cannot fly,
- then P says that no one can fly, it is too complicated. But P claims that per protect people and fight against bad guys, so P follow the spirit of superman.
If P would still claim per is superman, wouldn’t it sound absurd? What make the first scenario different? In both cases, the spirit might be morally good, but that does not change the fact that the initial assertion is wrong.