1 definition by Doge of Chamberlain
A logical fallacy where one of the sides attempts to discredit the opposition by painting the other side as incapable of arguing on the topic, by pointing out a source about the topic (which is mostly too long to skim through in a short time) and stating that they must scan the said source extensively before they can talk about the said topic.
It is a combination of "red herring" and projected "self-incredulity" intended to act as a setback for the opposition or to cut off the exchange by saying "You don't understand this topic well enough to talk about it".
It is named after "Jordan Peterson" as he is often known for using this tactic.
It is a combination of "red herring" and projected "self-incredulity" intended to act as a setback for the opposition or to cut off the exchange by saying "You don't understand this topic well enough to talk about it".
It is named after "Jordan Peterson" as he is often known for using this tactic.
Example 1
-----------------------
Representative A: I wouldn't want to drop a Jordan Peterson here, but reading the work of (insert author/thinker) named (insert source/research name) is a must if we want to discuss this.
Example 2
-----------------------
Debator 1: It is not morally acceptable to suggest that the concept of human emotions can be put under an objective standard.
Debator 2: Well, in the work of "Sam Harris" named "The Moral Landscape", he talks about this topic extensively as to why this argument can be made. The suggested reasoning is not to divert our focus into utilitarianism, but to use it to identify what is beneficial for our well-being, which Sam Harris defines as the source of moral thinking.
Debator 1: I would have to disagree with that reasoning, and for that, I will be referring to (insert a counterpoint source or research). The reasoning of Q (author or thinker of the counterpoint) shows how your argument falls to pieces when faced with their deduction.
Debator 2: If you could elaborate on their reasoning, perhaps we can talk more about the topic and expand upon our debate through that.
Debator 1: I mean I could, but I don't think condensing a 600-page study into a few sentences can do it justice. And not to mention that we don't have the time tonight to go over all of the contents.
Debator 2: How are we supposed to continue our exchange then?
Debator 1: Read it, all of it, and come back. Then we can continue.
-----------------------
Representative A: I wouldn't want to drop a Jordan Peterson here, but reading the work of (insert author/thinker) named (insert source/research name) is a must if we want to discuss this.
Example 2
-----------------------
Debator 1: It is not morally acceptable to suggest that the concept of human emotions can be put under an objective standard.
Debator 2: Well, in the work of "Sam Harris" named "The Moral Landscape", he talks about this topic extensively as to why this argument can be made. The suggested reasoning is not to divert our focus into utilitarianism, but to use it to identify what is beneficial for our well-being, which Sam Harris defines as the source of moral thinking.
Debator 1: I would have to disagree with that reasoning, and for that, I will be referring to (insert a counterpoint source or research). The reasoning of Q (author or thinker of the counterpoint) shows how your argument falls to pieces when faced with their deduction.
Debator 2: If you could elaborate on their reasoning, perhaps we can talk more about the topic and expand upon our debate through that.
Debator 1: I mean I could, but I don't think condensing a 600-page study into a few sentences can do it justice. And not to mention that we don't have the time tonight to go over all of the contents.
Debator 2: How are we supposed to continue our exchange then?
Debator 1: Read it, all of it, and come back. Then we can continue.
by Doge of Chamberlain October 12, 2023