Definitions by Dumu The Void

Logic Biases

A variant of Logical Biases, emphasizing biases that affect how we use and evaluate logic itself. Logic Biases include: treating logic as neutral when it's culturally specific; assuming that logical skill equals intelligence; privileging logical argument over other forms of knowing; using logic as a weapon rather than a tool. Logic Biases are meta-biases—biases about logic, not just in logic. They shape who gets heard, what counts as reasonable, and which conclusions are considered valid.

Logic Biases "He thinks he's won every argument because he's 'more logical.' That's Logic Bias—treating his particular logical style as universal reason. But his logic is one logic among many, and his bias makes him blind to other ways of reasoning. Logic isn't a contest; it's a conversation. Logic biases turn conversation into combat."

Logic Biases by Dumu The Void March 1, 2026

Logical Biases

Systematic distortions in reasoning that arise not from breaking logical rules but from the way logical systems themselves are constructed, selected, and applied. Unlike cognitive biases (which are psychological), Logical Biases are built into the logic we use—the assumptions that certain logical forms are universally valid, that classical logic is the only logic, that formal validity guarantees truth. Logical Biases include: preferring deductive over inductive reasoning even when deduction isn't appropriate; treating logical consistency as the highest virtue when life requires contradiction; assuming that what's logically possible is actually possible. Logical Biases are what happen when logic becomes ideology—when the tool becomes the master.

Logical Biases "He keeps demanding that my ethical argument be deductively valid. That's Logical Bias—applying deductive standards to ethics, which isn't deductive. His logic biases him against forms of reasoning that don't fit his logical framework. Logic should serve inquiry, not constrain it. When logic becomes a bias, it stops being logic."

Logical Biases by Dumu The Void March 1, 2026

Argument from Reality

A rhetorical move where someone argues that their position must be accepted because it corresponds to reality, with "reality" functioning as a self-justifying foundation. The argument is circular: it's real because it's real. The fallacy lies in treating reality as unproblematic, as given, as something we have direct access to rather than something we interpret. Argument from Reality is dogmatism with a metaphysical accent—using the weight of "reality" to crush alternative views without engaging them.

"Your perspective is interesting, but reality is on my side." That's Argument from Reality—claiming reality as your ally, your possession, your proof. But reality doesn't take sides; interpretations do. Reality is what we're all trying to understand, not a weapon to use against each other. Argument from Reality is just argument from authority, with reality as the ultimate authority—conveniently aligned with you."

Argument from Reality by Dumu The Void February 28, 2026

Appeal to Reality

A rhetorical fallacy where someone invokes "reality" as an authority to settle a question without acknowledging that reality is interpreted, not given. "Get your head out of the clouds and face reality" becomes a way of dismissing alternative perspectives as unrealistic. The fallacy lies in treating one's own interpretation of reality as Reality Itself, with a capital R. But reality is mediated—through perception, through language, through culture, through theory. Appealing to reality as if it were unmediated is appealing to your own framework while pretending it's the only one.

"You think the system could be different? That's not realistic. Face reality." That's Appeal to Reality—treating your interpretation of what's possible as Reality Itself. But reality includes change, includes alternatives, includes possibility. 'Realistic' often means 'what I'm used to,' not 'what must be.' Appealing to reality is just appealing to your own assumptions dressed up as the way things are."

Appeal to Reality by Dumu The Void February 28, 2026

Argument from Truth

A rhetorical move where someone argues that their position must be accepted because it is true, with "true" functioning as a self-justifying predicate. The argument is circular: it's true because it's true. The fallacy lies in treating truth as a property that can be asserted rather than demonstrated, as a conclusion rather than a claim. Argument from Truth is the most basic form of dogmatism—truth as mantra, as magic word, as conversation-ender.

"Why should I accept your view? 'Because it's true.' That's Argument from Truth—truth as assertion, not demonstration. But truth isn't a badge you wear; it's a claim you support. Calling your view true doesn't make it so; it just shows you've stopped arguing and started declaring."

Argument from Truth by Dumu The Void February 28, 2026

Appeal to Truth

A rhetorical fallacy where someone invokes "truth" as an authority to settle a question without specifying what truth means, whose truth, or how it applies. "I'm just interested in the truth" becomes a way of positioning oneself as objective while dismissing other views as biased. The fallacy lies in treating truth as a possession rather than a goal, as a club rather than a horizon. Everyone claims to seek truth; the claim doesn't settle anything. Appeal to Truth is argument from authority with truth as the authority—an authority that conveniently aligns with the speaker's position.

"I presented my perspective. Response: 'I'm just concerned with the truth, not your perspective.' That's Appeal to Truth—using the word as a weapon, not a goal. Truth isn't something you have and others lack; it's something we seek together. Claiming truth as your ally is just a way of declaring victory without argument."

Appeal to Truth by Dumu The Void February 28, 2026

Loops of Debunking

Self-reinforcing cycles where debunking generates more debunking, creating closed systems of skepticism that never reach resolution. In Loops of Debunking, each debunking can be debunked, each skeptic can be skeptically examined, each critique can be critiqued—and the loop continues indefinitely because there's no external reference point, no shared ground, no stopping principle. The loops reveal that debunking alone doesn't lead to truth—it just leads to more debunking. Without constructive engagement, without positive claims, without shared frameworks, debunking becomes an infinite game with no winners.

"He debunks alternative medicine. She debunks his debunking by exposing pharmaceutical ties. He debunks her exposure by questioning her sources. She debunks his questioning... and around and around. That's Loops of Debunking—skepticism as infinite regress, debunking as closed loop. No resolution, just more rounds. The loop doesn't lead anywhere because debunking alone doesn't build—it just tears down, then tears down the tearing down."

Loops of Debunking by Dumu The Void February 28, 2026