Who is not a fan of informal logic? Who can resist the exploration of the subtle mis-turns of reasoning that lead us into the swamp of error?
In honor of professor whatshisname, who was gracious enough to let me pass his logic class, I induct an Internet-age fallacy into the great book of fallacies.
It’s called the Transparency Fallacy, defined as an appeal to social transparency. It can apply to individuals, but I see this as applying mainly to organizations.
Here’s a couple of examples of the fallacy in action:
There can’t be a problem in what Bill said, his reasoning was spelled out.
Trust us–our decisions are a matter of public record.
And because no fallacy deserves to be without a Latin translation, I invoke the google translator and dub the fallacy argumentum ad diaphaneitas.
Unfortunately, the term already exists, but in a different context. John Fiske used ‘transparency fallacy’ in reference to the ostensible neutrality of TV news. Since that usage isn’t as relevant anymore (we are post-Fox after all), I will claim the term for a new era.