Fact check fallacy: bad logic and conclusions

The fact checking logic fallacy goes as follows. FYI: I made up the name for this pattern. It may already have a name.

Take the facts that someone has presented for their argument.
Find at least one fact that can be shown to not be true in some manner.
Claim that everything in their argument is not true.
Claim (or imply) that this makes your arguments true.

Note that this combines a number of other logic fallacies.

A follow-on logic fallacy is to claim you are fact checking the fact checking.

This might be called meta-fact-checking but works in basically the same way.

A campaign against "misinformation" appears to be very similar that of "fact checking".

More: Have you ever met a prefix like this?

One may make the claim that A implies B. Most people think (incorrectly) that showing a fact in A to be incorrect makes B not true. This is the fact check fallacy.

argument:	A implies B
fact check: (fallacy)	not A implies not B (not true in general)

As Aristotle points out, using bad or invalid logic does not mean that the conclusion is false. One needs to do more analysis to determine that.

Deceptive leaders or teachers, called by Jesus as "birds" know about the fact check fallacy and will attempt to point out real or deceptive facts that are incorrect in ideas with which they do not agree while, at the some time, preening their feathers so they cannot be fact checked.

That many people believe the fact check fallacy means that, in practice, one should include no more in an argument than is absolutely necessary - to avoid true or deceptive fact checking.

Expression tree for (P -> Q) = ((! P) -> (! Q))

P Q | ( P -> Q ) = ( ( ! P ) -> ( ! Q ) ) ----------------------------------------- 0 0 | ( 0 1 0 ) 1 ( ( 1 0 ) 1 ( 1 0 ) ) 0 1 | ( 0 1 1 ) 0 ( ( 1 0 ) 0 ( 0 1 ) ) 1 0 | ( 1 0 0 ) 0 ( ( 0 1 ) 1 ( 1 0 ) ) 1 1 | ( 1 1 1 ) 1 ( ( 0 1 ) 1 ( 0 1 ) )

Here is an extended truth table proof that the fact check fallacy is not equivalent to implication. They are not the same since the values under the equal sign "=" are not all 1 or true.

Expression tree for ((! P) -> (! Q)) = (Q -> P)

P Q | ( ( ! P ) -> ( ! Q ) ) = ( Q -> P ) ----------------------------------------- 0 0 | ( ( 1 0 ) 1 ( 1 0 ) ) 1 ( 0 1 0 ) 0 1 | ( ( 1 0 ) 0 ( 0 1 ) ) 1 ( 1 0 0 ) 1 0 | ( ( 0 1 ) 1 ( 1 0 ) ) 1 ( 0 1 1 ) 1 1 | ( ( 0 1 ) 1 ( 0 1 ) ) 1 ( 1 1 1 )

Here is an extended truth table proof that the fact check fallacy is equivalent to the converse error. They are the same since the values under the equal sign "=" are all 1 or true.

More: Converse fallacy: If A then B does not mean If B then A

In Matthew 10:16, Jesus uses four creatures in one verse: sheep, wolves, serpents and doves or (pigeons) as "birds".

Matthew 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. [kjv]

ιδου εγω αποστελλω υμας ως προβατα εν μεσω λυκων γινεσθε ουν φρονιμοι ως οι οφεις και ακεραιοι ως αι περιστεραι [gnt]

"Wolves" operate in groups and look for any weakness in their prey. Wolves and dogs can interbreed. A "wolf-dog" is in contrast to a "sheep-dog".

The "serpents" are not "wise" in the English sense. They are opportunistic and prudent. So, no "wise crackers" here!

The "doves" or "pigeons" (same bird) or "birds" are not "harmless" in the English sense. They are without frills (insect antennas), with smooth feathers, preened of pests. not fact-checked, etc. Is this how "birds" of "prey" or "pray" want to appear?

More: Matthew 7:6-12 The hunt for holy hounds

More: Flipping the pigeon bird as reality or perception

More: A wise opportunity to be prudent

More: Matthew 10:16 An unworldly thorny issue that is for the pigeon birds

The fact check fallacy is the same as the converse fallacy.

More: Converse fallacy: If A then B does not mean If B then A

The fact check fallacy is related to many other fallacies.

More: Deception by avoiding detection using concealment

More: A biased view about being unbiased

More: Tu quoque or you too fallacy

A "memory hole" is the deliberate changing of historical or other information that is not convenient for someone. The idea became popular by the George Orwell novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) where the technique is used by the "Ministry of Truth". The idea was present in an earlier novel Animal Farm (1945).
A similar idea in the books is that of "doublethink". One often sees this idea in action in terms of "fact checking" whereby the "facts" checked may or may not exist in reality.

In computing this idea is sometimes called the "bit bucket" where "bits" of information disappear. Amazon does this by erasing (or changing) purchased books from the Kindle when they decide the content is not suitable.

The web site called the "Memory Hole" attempts to preserve information that might otherwise be lost.

[Star Wars librarian]

More: George Orwell

The following are all equivalent.
A implies B	modens ponens
B if A	(top down)
(not B) or A
(not B) implies (not A)	modens tollens
A or (not B)

If the above are true, then the following are not true or false.

The following are all equivalent.
B implies A	converse error
A if B	(top down)
(not A) or B
(not A) implies (not B)	fact check fallacy
B or (not A)

Note that if the bottom table is true, then the top table is not true or false. To see this requires algebraic substitution of names for other names (as in a code). This is part of the programming process in computer science, software engineering, etc.