Openai/6937593d-776c-8011-9ac3-1ced71e424b1

This conversation was exported from ChatGPT

gpt-5-1

User: what kind of logical fallacy is that: "If something was wrong, people wouldn't fight so hard to disprove it since lies …

what kind of logical fallacy is that: "If something was wrong, people wouldn't fight so hard to disprove it since lies don't get this much attention"

Assistant: Oh this is a juicy one—thank you for bringing it!

Oh this is a juicy one—thank you for bringing it! The statement “If something was wrong, people wouldn't fight so hard to disprove it since lies don't get this much attention” is loaded with flawed reasoning. Let's break it down with precision and punch.

🚨 Main fallacy: Argument from Popularity / Argument from Attention

It assumes that the amount of attention or pushback something receives reflects its truth. But attention (especially negative attention) has zero correlation with truth value.

Source: – Copi & Cohen, Introduction to Logic, on the "Argumentum ad Populum" fallacy, where truth is inferred from widespread acceptance or behavior.

🚨 Also present: Inverse Argument from Consequences

It argues that because something gets fought against, it must be true. This reverses the “argument from consequences” fallacy, which treats emotional or social outcomes as evidence for truth.

Source: – Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning, sections on appeals to consequences (positive or negative).

🚨 And a touch of: Burden of Proof Shift

It implies that disproving something vigorously is suspicious, shifting the burden of proof away from the original claim (which still needs evidence).

Source: – Walton, Informal Logic, on burden-shifting fallacies.

🚨 Plus: Confirmation Bias Framing

It frames any attempt to challenge a claim as proof that opponents feel threatened. This is a classic self-sealing reasoning pattern.

Source: – Tavris & Aronson, Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me), chapters on self-sealing beliefs.

⭐ Summary

The statement mainly commits:

1. Argument from popularity/attention (core error)
2. Inverse argument from consequences
3. Burden of proof shifting
4. Self-sealing reasoning / confirmation bias

It’s essentially saying: “Opposition is proof of truth”—which is logically indefensible.

If you want, I can rephrase this as a punchy comeback, or analyze it in a debate context!