Logic hates

[j4]

Is there a name for the (il)logical pattern that goes something like:

"I believe/think/have experienced X. You believe/think/claim to have experienced not-X. Therefore you are deluding yourself"

?

I've been tagging it as "false consciousness" in my brain, but that's a bit of a misnomer.

Comments

[j4.livejournal.com]

I have experienced gravity acting to pull objects towards the earth. You claim to have experienced gravity acting to pull objects into the sky. Therefore you are deluding yourself.

I'm not arguing with the conclusion (!) but I think the use of "therefore" is misplaced. There's no logical path from "I have experienced X and you have experienced not-X" to "you are deluding yourself" -- it's just that we happen to know enough about gravity etc to know that the person who claims to have seen it work backwards is probably mistaken, lying, mad, on drugs, etc. The handwavyness is around the shared assumptions that it's okay to take as a given... which mostly depends on context.

[teleute.livejournal.com]

So perhaps you'd be more comfortable with the statements "X has been scientifically proven, you claim to have experienced not-X, therefore you are deluding yourself."? Or is it the use of 'deluding' that is bothering you? I certainly agree that personal experience of X does not give one the right to assume delusion in anyone who hasn't experienced X.