Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You know when someone writes a bad review of, say, a film, and sooner or later someone will come along and say something along the lines of "let's see you do better" or "this director's made a film that made millions, what have you ever done?"

Well, something I've been wondering for a while is...is there a formal term for this type of argument? Is there a particular type of fallacy it could be counted as?



BTW, I'm not using this post to list examples of this happening. But if that's what you want to do, go right ahead, it might be entertaining...

That this. You can study it, now why it doesnt work and know that their are reasons.

It's an obvious fallacy. I can't play the guitar, but I'm not tone deaf and I know when someone else can't play it either.

It seems a form of appealing to authority. If someone is supposedly an expert at something, then anything they say/do is correct because they are and expert, and a non-expert saying otherwise must be wrong.

I think it depends on the level of criticism. Is it a technical commentary, or some reprobate hater on the Internet?

I think that's a variation of the "appeal to accomplishment", although it could also be considered a form on an ad hominem attack, as it attempts to invalidate the argument based upon the argument's speaker.

Howard A Treesong wrote:It's an obvious fallacy. I can't play the guitar, but I'm not tone deaf and I know when someone else can't play it either.

It seems a form of appealing to authority. If someone is supposedly an expert at something, then anything they say/do is correct because they are and expert, and a non-expert saying otherwise must be wrong.

I think this can certainly apply to it in some circumstances.

Monster Rain wrote:I think it depends on the level of criticism. Is it a technical commentary, or some reprobate hater on the Internet?

Either really, I don't have a specific example in mind, but yes, Internet comments are usually where this sort of thing comes up.

azazel the cat wrote:I think that's a variation of the "appeal to accomplishment", although it could also be considered a form on an ad hominem attack, as it attempts to invalidate the argument based upon the argument's speaker.

Looks like a good fit! I agree it's also fair to class anything like this as a type of ad hominem as well, seeing as at some level the speaker is directly attacking the person doing the criticising.

If you ask KovnikObama, I think he might be able to identify the specific fallacy's term (if it is different than my guesses) better than I.

At times,

"Your ate up like a soup sandwich" applies in any situatiion

 Fezman wrote:

Well, something I've been wondering for a while is...is there a formal term for this type of argument?

Bad.

 Fezman wrote:

Is there a particular type of fallacy it could be counted as?

Many. You could argue it is proof by verbosity, argument from ignorance, shifting the burden of proof, or even a homunculus fallacy. It really just depend on the specific circumstances and your own skill, given the assumption that its an informal fallacy.

There's also a TV Tropes regarding the matter.

I'm inclined to view it as an "Appeal to Accomplishment".

It's a stupid one I know that.

in case, someone is wondering about Ad Hominem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

And if the OP likes that kind of stuff, I strongly suggest
"The art of being right".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right

As a weather forecaster, I have used this argument a time or two.

"Oh, so you think you can unravel the mysteries of our atmosphere and tell me what it's going to do two days from now? Please, help yourself, I'll just sit back and offer criticism."

Sometimes it's relevant a relevant comeback, sometimes it's not, depends on what they're talking about:

A theatre production, yeah it could be acceptable for Person A to say: "Oh that show was a load of bollocks! The actors were completely unprofessional." Obliviously then person B might say "well you go on there in front of thousands and try to act exactly the same way you prepared for under such pressure," but then person A can just say " Yeah, but that's not the point! I'm the viewer here, I never said to myself that I want to be a great actor or claimed to be! but as an audience member it's my right to bloody criticise seeing as I paid to see a good show and all I see is garbage..."

But then you have another situation where they are watching a documentary somebody goes through something gruelling and strenuous for science/education or something. Person A is like "Why's he complaining so much? What a wuss!" But then person B could say "Well I'd like to see a couch potato like you don't do any better" < I think person B would be more likely to have a point here mainly because the person in the documentary is going out of their comfort zone for the sake of educating layabouts like person A: who probably would never have the courage/drive to do what the journalist on the documentary is doing. Yeah granted couch potato hasn't claimed to have the fortitude to do this and that but he/she isn't appreciating all that the guy on the tv has been through to show you what it's like to get injected with venom, or bloated himself up on a MacDonald's diet, or went to Somalia to talk to pirates, think these people have the right to whine a little. Mr and Mrs couch potato on the other hand are just giving everyone else in the room who's trying to learn from the documentary a massive headache with their own complaining. < So I think in that case the "let's see you do better" argument makes more sense really.

All depends on the scenario, even then it's not certain, because even this discussions a matter of opinion and I'm sure someone could contradict what I've just said in a million different ways (as they may do.) Just my own thoughts on this really...

judge not, less you be judged

but really, its not an arguement at all, its simply statement based in subjectivity
ie
"I think that movies sucks"
"lets see you do better"
"regardless of if I can make a better movie or not, I still dislike the movie we just saw"



remember, those with talent DO
those without, TEACH,
those who cannot teach, critique

Ugh, So teachers are Talentless then?

No. That would be counselors.

(I keed, I keed!)

A less subjective-based idea is this:

"that movie sucks"
"let's see you do better"
"regardless whether or not I can do better, that does not change the fact that that movie sucks"

It's important to note that the argument is not based in opinion or subjectivity; it also applies to declarations and statements; not just editorials. In effect, what the "let's see you do better" speaker is implying is akin to a might-makes-right line of reasoning.

I honestly hate this argument, I don't need to be a chef to know if something tastes awful.

 easysauce wrote:
remember, those with talent DO
those without, TEACH,
those who cannot teach, critique

This has got to be close to the stupidest saying that gets bandied about as common knowledge that I have the unfortunate displeasure to hear or read all too often.


No offense to you, easysauce. I know you're not the one who created this monster.

I know a lot of proffs who are damn good at what they do, and can't teach for scraps.

I know a lot of proffs who can teach while being able to do with the best of them.

I know a lot of proffs who can't teach or do.

And a lot of times, critique is used as a method to teach and understand doing

At the end of the day, teaching and critiquing are just other avenues of doing. Just as much as any other talent or profession. There are people out there with a talent for teaching, and a talent for critique. And I'd sure as hell have someone with a talent for teaching teaching me how to do something, rather than someone who manages to be good at something, but can't convey it to save their lives.

 Hordini wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
remember, those with talent DO
those without, TEACH,
those who cannot teach, critique

This has got to be close to the stupidest saying that gets bandied about as common knowledge that I have the unfortunate displeasure to hear or read all too often.


No offense to you, easysauce. I know you're not the one who created this monster.

Yeah, it is easily one of the stupidest things I hear bandied about quite often. Usually by braindead gibbons.

Also, on the "let's see you do better" front, I consider it the last resort of someone with no actual argument.

Tu Quoque, I believe. Not the literal translation of it, but it's a red herring and it turns the argument onto the critic.

It occurs when somebody cannot tell the difference between somebody who can judge and somebody who can do.

For example, a Theater Critic may not be able to act for his life, but they damn well know if you can't.

 Hordini wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
remember, those with talent DO
those without, TEACH,
those who cannot teach, critique

This has got to be close to the stupidest saying that gets bandied about as common knowledge that I have the unfortunate displeasure to hear or read all too often.


No offense to you, easysauce. I know you're not the one who created this monster.

None taken, I meant it as a joke, its one of those completly untrue sayings that everyone knows for some reason

 djones520 wrote:
As a weather forecaster, I have used this argument a time or two.

"Oh, so you think you can unravel the mysteries of our atmosphere and tell me what it's going to do two days from now? Please, help yourself, I'll just sit back and offer criticism."

Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

the "can you do better" arguement falls apart every time, simply because "can you do worse" would also be on the table

if people cannot say something "sucks" simply because they dislike it, and lack the talent to make somthing better

then can they even say something "rocks" despite being able to make something much worse themselves?

its like how titanic and avatar were HORRIBLE movies that I could not make it through (left both in under 45 minutes and asked for my $ back)...

yet those are the top grossing movies, so obs a lot of people think I would be "wrong"
but I am not, and neither are they, it is quite possible (and quite often) that two opposite opinions can be held on the same object/subject and both be "true"

There are pieces of work that can be objectively poor however.
There are various conventions to which books, poetry, music, art and films are made...
Actually scratch art, that's gone off the rails entirely...

 purplefood wrote:
There are pieces of work that can be objectively poor however.
There are various conventions to which books, poetry, music, art and films are made...
Actually scratch art, that's gone off the rails entirely...

Ever heard of Birdemic?

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
There are pieces of work that can be objectively poor however.
There are various conventions to which books, poetry, music, art and films are made...
Actually scratch art, that's gone off the rails entirely...

Ever heard of Birdemic?

4 words.

The.
Eye.
Of.
Argon.

That thing is stuff of legend.