Forum:How would you respond, and what's the formal term for this logical fallacy?

< Index | General discussion

TLDR: "New Age theories exist outside the scope of scientific and rational critique"; how do you respond?

I'm losing my sibling to New Age woo. One of his arguments is something I'm not sure how to respond to (described below). I also don't know what this kind of argument is called (and what kind of a fallacy it is, if it is a fallacy), so I was hoping you good people of RW could help me out:

<New Age Concept> exists outside of (logic/rationality).

This <New Age Concept> is what he called "knowing". It's synonymous to "intuition", in that you somehow intuitively know the answer to any question. "Knowing" is basically knowing the answer to something - anything. Crazy, right?

Of course, my sibling believes in conspiracy theories (multiple theories) as well, and he believes he can find esoteric meaning in re-watching popular films.

Anyways, so I was trying to explain how it isn't rational in any way to hold his kinds of beliefs. But after repeated discussions, we came to the same stalemate (bolded above).

He even agrees that it's "not rational" (which is even scarier, because he makes out irrationality to be something good).

How would you respond to this, and what is this called? ^{— Unsigned, by: Poopie / talk / contribs}

They are called "delusions," I think. Those who reject reason cannot be reasoned with; I would instead respond by dousing him repeatedly with ice water.

You could also read our articles on conspiracy theories and "other ways of knowing." ListenerX^TalkerX 05:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You got it! That "other ways of knowing" was the perfect article that linked to non-Overlapping Magisteria. I also thought it was Special pleading. Extra Question: Is there any other formal synonym for Non-Overlapping Magisteria? I just wanted to explore this phenomenon in its entirety. Btw, awesome funny site. I get laughs out of reading articles on here everytime.--Poopie (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Could we turn this into a general-purpose thread?

The layout of the OP seems quite sound for a general-purpose thread to me.--The Madman (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

How could we do that? I would be happy to provide more details. Poopie (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)