Countless counterfeits fallacy

{{logic}}
{{Cquote|Simply put, the [[true believer]] mistakenly thinks that whether or not a piece of [[evidence]] is good is a matter of chance, so that the more pieces of [[evidence]] there are, the more likely it is that one is reliable. “Throw the dice long enough and eventually you’ll get a Yahtzee.” But this is not how evidence works. I can’t pile up a 1000 pieces of bad evidence that you committed a murder and claim it’s likely that one proves you did. Whether a piece of evidence is good is not a matter of chance; it either is or it isn’t.|||David Kyle Johnson<ref name=ccpaper/>}}
The '''countless counterfeits fallacy''' is an [[informal fallacy|informal logical fallacy]] in which the existence of a lot of bad [[evidence]] is treated as if it implies the existence of some good evidence. "Surely it can't ''all'' be false?", the [[credulous]] who fall victim to this fallacy may ask.

While the existence of counterfeit money may imply the existence of real [[money]], the same isn't generally [[true]] of other things; for example, fake [[paranormal]] events and abilities don't imply the existence of real ones, but rather lead to the question of why there's such a need to fake them if there supposedly also exists something real. This fallacy is often used to argue for [[ghost]]s, [[alien]] [[UFO]]s, [[demon]]s, [[alternative medicine]], and [[conspiracy theories]], notes David Kyle Johnson {{lived|1977}}, who coined the term.<ref name=ccpaper>Johnson, D.K. (2018). [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119165811.ch24 Countless Counterfeits.] In ''Bad Arguments'' (eds R. Arp, S. Barbone and M. Bruce). DOI: 10.1002/9781119165811.ch24 ([https://www.academia.edu/21565648/Fallacy_The_Countless_Counterfeits_Fallacy Non-paywall link for chapter.])</ref>

At the heart of the fallacious thinking is a mistaken approach to evidence and its nature. A [[true believer]] arguing for a belief tends to start with the most compelling thing they can mention, and if it's convincingly argued against, move on to the next, then the next, and so on, until they run out. Thereafter the general idea remains that there's many more cases or examples that could potentially be made or found. This "bottom of the barrel" being scraped, the [[vague]] idea that there's something more out there that would do it, feels like a huge thing, since there's so many claims and rumors floating around yet to be discussed and yet to be personally looked at in detail.

[[Confirmation bias|Already believing]], the true believer may simply treat it as a matter of chance whether or not a particular piece of evidence or argument they may use will turn out good or not. One or another thing ought to do it, it's just a matter of finding it if you're already sure of the big picture. Even if [[skeptics]] shoot down many pieces of evidence, it's never quite good enough, since there's always more that could potentially be found and pointed to&nbsp;– for example, among all the rumors passed around on [[social media]].

[[Statistic]]ally, things work better in the opposite direction&nbsp;– the more things of a kind are shown to be fake, the likelier it is that the rest also are. And a [[skeptical]] explanation that successfully rules out a large portion of claimed evidence&nbsp;– such as exposing a common variety of fraud or fakery&nbsp;– makes it more likely that something similar is the case for the rest.

==Late to be described==
In a 2020 ''[[The Skeptics Society|Skeptic Magazine]]'' article, Johnson made his case for seemingly being the first to describe this fallacy, relating how a conversation with a believer in alien UFOs led to exploring the matter.<ref>[https://www.academia.edu/42950172/Countless_Counterfeits_A_New_Logical_Fallacy Countless Counterfeits: A New Logical Fallacy?] by David Kyle Johnson (2020) ''Skeptic Magazine'' 25(1):48-49.</ref> Whether or not Johnson is truly first (no counterexample is known), it is clearly a less-described fallacy, not found in prominent older lists of logical fallacies.

Evidence for how large a role this fallacy plays in the world remains without much study. [[Anecdotal evidence|Anecdotally]], it seems to fit the reasoning in many of the [[crank]] communities that [[RationalWiki]] looks at. For people who believe in "suppressed knowledge", common in conspiracy theory, [[conspirituality|its mixing with New Age and spirituality]], alternative medicine, and a great deal of crank culture in general, it may seem a matter of [[luck]] whether or not some favorable evidence has been left available to be clearly seen in the world&nbsp;– rather than suppressed by the nefarious ''they''. It may be that belief in conspiracy theory easily leads to this fallacy. Note here that belief in ''invisible'' conspiracy by paranormal alien or [[Satan]]ic forces works the same way as belief in fleshly or nuts-and-bolts actors.

==Combining counterfeits fallacy==
{{Cquote|As Arkowitz and Lilienfeld make clear, it is now known that [[eyewitness]] testimony is notoriously unreliable. Perception and [[human]] [[memory]] is far more unreliable than we assume and can even be molded by something as simple as [[leading question]]s. Knowing this, a juror might not be convinced by the testimony of a single eyewitness who was not carefully questioned. But what if the prosecution produced 50 such testimonies? Would he be convinced then? Probably, but he shouldn’t. By asking leading questions, I could produce as many such witnesses as you like, but that doesn’t mean the defendant is guilty&nbsp;– it just means I’m good at asking leading questions. “Weak evidence” plus “weak evidence” does not equal “strong evidence.”|||David Kyle Johnson<ref name=ccpaper/>}}
A different yet related variety of fallacy that tries to turn bad evidence into good evidence is called the '''combining counterfeits fallacy''' by David Kyle Johnson, though it also has other names. It is when multiple pieces of bad evidence, instead of being seen as implying that some good evidence also exists, are combined into a bogus "good" collection or synthesis as an argument.<ref name=ccpaper/>

In [[rhetoric]], this is also known as the [[Gish Gallop]], a favorite of [[creationists]] arguing against the scientific understanding of [[evolution]].

==See also==
*''[[Argumentum ad populum]]'' (a.k.a appeal to popularity) — suggesting that something is true because it's popular
*[[Balance fallacy]] — considering both sides equally regardless of their merits; for example, insisting on looking for the truth between a lie and the truth
*[[Gish Gallop]] — rhetorical tactic using many bad arguments as one compelling argument (or at least wearing out the people who try to call [[bullshit]])
*[[Science was wrong before]] — therefore my crank idea is right

==References==
{{reflist|1|80%}}

{{logfal}}

[[Category:Fallacious arguments]]
[[Category:Informal fallacies]]

Categories: Fallacious arguments, Informal fallacies