Humbug! Online: "Wicked Stuff" - Tim van Gelder, and "Irreverent" - Gary Curtis. Buy Humbug! the book from the Australian Skeptics - Only $16.50 (in Australian dollars)!

Monday, July 24, 2006

Examples of the WTF? Fallacy

The advocate puts forward a claim that is comprehensively and self-evidently flawed - a claim that is beyond flawed - it borders on the insane.
The advocate's claim is so error ridden that one would not actually know where to begin in trying to analyse it. (Moreover, one would have to take a leave of absence for a year or so in order to do so.) The WTF?* Fallacy is only to be invoked when the claim under consideration is so lacking in any rational basis that one is left speechless with perverse admiration - how could anyone, in their right mind make such an astonishingly stupid assertion? The only possible response is those three little words, muttered in hushed and awed tones: "What the F....?

Though similar in nature to Simple-Minded Certitude, the WTF? Fallacy is more extreme. WTF?ers ought to have seen the absurdity of their claim for themselves. There is simply no point in engaging with a WTF?er, as meaningful interaction will be nigh on impossible. Our advice is to completely avoid any interaction. If you must engage in social intercourse, a supercilious attitude is best, and moreover, such an attitude is completely justified. Heap nothing but scorn and derision upon the advocate.

A clue for spotting WTF?ers is that initially one would naturally assume that the deluded one was putting forth an absurdist joke. To which your natural response might be: "Good one mate... Hahahaha... That's a hilarious suggestion."

But there will be no reciprocal jovial response from the WTF?er, merely a blank stare. A blank stare which should be met with raised eyebrows, and a comment such as: "Please tell me you're not serious?"

The WTF?er of course will continue to stare blankly... no data can ever enter that tinfoil-covered case-hardened skull.

You should avoid drooling when your mouth reflexively drops open at this point (A shorthand way of describing your state at this moment of realisation is "gobsmacked". Take a step backward (for reasons of personal safety - at this point you realise you are not dealing with a rational human being after all), turn on your heel, shake your head, beat a safe retreat, and mutter: "What the Fuh...?"
___________________-
* We are aware that there may be other interpretations of WTF?, however as far as we're concerned it stands for "What the Fuh…?"

4 comments:

ltart said...

on the downside...since WTF always implies derision & incredulity, my husband throws a WTF at me when I am making Perfect sense just so HE doesn't have to continue the discussion.

I in turn have to say something using the word [inappropriate language] because when someone throws a [inappropriate language] at you what can you come back with but another [inappropriate language]? Then it's a [inappropriate language]ing free for all...[inappropriate language]ing idiot, [inappropriate language]ing jerk, shut the [inappropriate language] up.
any suggestions?

Ben said...

It's probably because women inhabit a bizarre parallel reality where 'Smacco's Razor'(reverse of Occam's Razor) applies. I.e. the more assumptions/steps in an explanation for a phenomenon, the more likely it is to be true...

L>T said...

Gosh, sorry.
I got carried away. The word[inappropriate language]kinda does that to me. I Forgot about the kiddies.

Thanks ben, I'm sure that's it.

Jef Clark said...

Just a suggestion, but frick, fricking, fricked etc are useful substitutes for the f-word as they are less awkward than (say) "expletive deleted", and can be used as noun, adverb and adjectival form... and therefore fit nicely into the structure of sentences where frick and its derivatives are used as substitutes for... well, "frick"... if you know what I mean.