Is there a fallacy where claim P is made, but the reply is to use radical people who have made claim P, but this usage of radical people is supposed to represent everyone who said claim P? I'll give an example below:
1. Suppose claim P is: 9/11 happened because of America's failed US foreign policy.
2. Jean Baudrillard has claimed a, b, and c to support P. Noam Chomsky has said d, e, and f to support P. (Note: Baudrillard and Chomsky are on the fringes of supporting P, meaning that they support P, but in very radical ways.)
3. However, a, b, c, d, e, and f are all false.
4. Therefore, P is false.
Now, of course the fallacy is that one is only looking at two sources who argue for P, and by discounting those claims, there's a hasty generalization to say that P is false. So a hasty generalization, I believe is correct. However, my focus is on concentrating on the fringes. If one wants to argue against P, one doesn't argue against the fringes who argue for P. So it's sort of a straw-man, but at the same time, a, b, c, d, e, and f are true representations of Baudrillard and Chomsky. Specifically, is there a fallacy where one is discounting a claim where one only concentrates on the fringe groups that says P?
Read another response by Louise Antony, Richard Heck
Read another response about Logic