Nora Volkow undermines her own disease theory of addiction by demonstrating her lack of belief in free will. She does this by scare-quoting several free will terms in her writing.
Traditions and common practices can be persuasive, but popularity of a given practice or view simply doesn’t prove it to be correct.
Argumentum Ad Populum An Appeal To The Masses is one of the laziest, weak minded, and philosophically revealing fallacies one can engage in. In short, this is the form of such an argument: Conclusion X is true because everyone (or a majority of people) believes it. That’s all there is to it. It simply […]
Certainly, authority figures have been wrong about many important matters throughout the ages. For each controversial claim, we can find experts who offer vastly different conclusions. Therefore, a mere Appeal To Authority shouldn’t be enough to prove or disprove a claim – if you really care about the truth of a matter you need more than that. This fact doesn’t stop people from shouting down others in the addiction debate with nothing more than an Appeal To Authority though!
An Appeal To Consequences is often the first and last fallacious argument uttered in any debate about the disease model of addiction. This tactic may be persuasive, but it doesn’t prove anything.
It seems impossible to have an honest debate about the nature of addiction and methods for overcoming it. Ad Hominem attacks run rampant in this game. Here we examine this fallacy in action in the great addiction debate.