This post contains a number of statements and implicit claims. Let’s dissect them to identify any potential logical fallacies:
Anecdotal Evidence: “I received a grant from Dfinity and it was horrible.” This is a personal experience and doesn’t necessarily represent the experiences of all grantees. While anecdotes can be useful in some contexts, relying solely on them to make a broad claim or to generalize can be misleading.
Ad Hominem: “@WilliamLaurent3 & @shashis132 were the absolute worst to work with…” Attacking the individuals instead of addressing the issue at hand (i.e., the alleged issues with the grant process) is a type of ad hominem fallacy.
Vague Assertion: “I promise there’s some foolery going on.” This claim lacks specific evidence or details.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (After this, therefore because of this): “I received money 4 times from them and the $ICP came from 4 different wallets.” The implication might be that because the payments came from different wallets, something nefarious is going on. But the fact that funds came from different wallets doesn’t necessarily indicate any wrongdoing.
Appeal to Ignorance: “I’ll post the address they came from below if someone that knows how to dig into the information to see where it’s coming from and where it’s going.” This implies that because the information is not yet known, it might reveal something suspicious. However, just because something isn’t known or understood doesn’t mean it’s suspect.
Hasty Generalization: “Money is handed out every second Friday and most people dump and sell.” The statement suggests that because money is handed out regularly and some people sell, there’s a widespread problem. This is a leap in logic without sufficient evidence.
False Dilemma: “I do not think this is an overall Dfinity issue I just think there is some bad apples handling money.” The assertion suggests there are only two options: it’s either an issue with Dfinity as a whole or a few bad apples. Reality might be more nuanced.
Appeal to Fear: “I wanted to post this for awhile but I was afraid I could get my neuron locked forever or legal repercussions…” The implication is that because the author feared repercussions, there must be something to hide or some form of oppression. Fear doesn’t necessarily validate the truth or importance of a claim.
Ambiguity Fallacy: “I’m just posting information based on facts due to my happenings.” The term “facts” is ambiguous here. While the author believes their experience is factual, this doesn’t mean the extrapolations and implications drawn from that experience are factual or logically sound.
False Equivalence: “We’re not silicone valley.” Comparing the Dfinity community to Silicon Valley implies that they should adhere to the same standards or that they’re equivalent in some way, which isn’t necessarily the case.
In analyzing the post, it’s also essential to recognize that pointing out logical fallacies doesn’t necessarily invalidate the author’s entire argument or experience. The key is to separate the actual experiences or valid points from the statements that may not be logically sound.