What is the Kettle Logic Fallacy?

An explanation of the Kettle Logic Fallacy, often originally attributed to Sigmund Freud, including several examples.

Here are some videos you might enjoy:

Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Collier-MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Dictionary of Continental Philosophy, and more!

[kitebrethren]

“The kettle did not have these holes when I returned it, in fact the kettle already had holes when I borrowed it, in fact I never even borrowed the kettle” sounds like an argument I’d have with my friends at 3am. I also only just realized that there was a problem with the second statement so this is not making me look any more sane.

[studentofsmith]

Sounds like when businesses or politicians say they never did the bad thing and have also stopped doing it.

[MrDee]

This is well known in legal circles where it is called the "Case of the borrowed teapot" or the like. In civil cases, pleadings are not required to be consistant. For example X sues Y saying Y borrowed a good teapot and returned it broken. Can Y plead that they never borrowed it, it was broken when they borrowed it, and they returned it in good shape? The law says yes and this makes perfect sense in a case where, for example, Y has died and X is suing the estate of Y. The executor of the estate has no idea what actually happened so they submit an inconsistent pleading whose effect is to put on X the burden of proving all of the required elements for their case. So the law says that Y, or Y's representative or lawyer can always submit such an inconsistent pleading.

[ReynaSingh]

Kettle logic is less concerned with presenting a valid argument than it is with finding gaps in the opponents

[sentry]

imagine someone borrowing your teapot, and returning it without any holes.

[Matthew-cpeg]

1 he returned the kettle filled with cement.
2 the kettle, to be a kettle, must have holes in it to begin with, since it was a kettle (top and spout), and he stole it for his project to mix cement in.
3 he returned it after he stole it (making it borrowed) since it was ruined with cement in it.

[GlennCheriton]

It would appear that Russia is employing kettle logic in their claims about Ukraine: 1. We didn't invade Ukraine as it does not exist. 2 It is not an invasion or war, just a special military operation. 3. If we did invade Ukraine, we would already have taken it, so it was just a feint.

[David-bcrh]

This form of fallacy is prevalent among narcissists who are gaslighting their designated supply. "Word Salad" is a term that describes this behavior.

[TheRationalPi]

The fallacy is specific to deductive reasoning's form for determining validity, though. The deductive process is to set up a relationship between multiple premises and a conclusion, then suppose all premises are true and determine if the conclusion is also true in that case.

In probabilistic logic and legal arguments, you can allow for the premises to take different truth values. In that case, Kettle logic is called "alternative pleading" and is a sound defense so long as any of the (mutually exclusive) premises can be shown to be true.

[NoLongerBreathedIn]

“I borrowed two kettles from different people, and I'm not sure if either of them is the plaintiff. But one of them was broken when I got it, and the other one was fine when I returned it.”

[donovanmedieval]

#1. The FBI planted the documents. #2. The documents automatically became declassified when he took them home to read them.

[usuck]

I feel like it wouldn't be too hard to miss these kind of things in a heated argument since in the moment you miss a lot of details.

[kapitankapital]

Imagine complaining that your kettle has holes in it. That's like the whole point of a kettle.

[Dalthos]

My ex-wife was the epitome of kettle logic. I dealt with this for 5 years and was unaware that there was a term for it.

[DavidFMayerPhD]

A guy is on trial for accidentally setting his apartment building on fire. Contrary to the advice of his counsel, he insists on testifying in his own behalf.
Prosecutor: I propose the following consecution of events. You came home drunk. You climbed the stairs to your bedroom. You got into your bed. You lit a cigarette while in bed. You fell asleep while smoking. You dropped the cigarette onto the bedclothes when you fell asleep. The burning bedclothes set fire to the building, causing you to flee you apartment. What do you have to say to that?
Defendant: I was NOT drunk at all. I did not light a cigarette while in bed. Furthermore, the bed was on fire when I got into it.

[deathybrs]

Bart springs immediately to mind.

"I didn't do it, nobody SAW me do it... you can't prove anything."

[malkomalkavian]

I have an example from today's news:

"Announcing the show's cancellation, The Pleasance director, Anthony Alderson, added: 'The Pleasance is a venue that champions freedom of speech and we do not censor comedians' material.

'While we acknowledge that Jerry Sadowitz has often been controversial, the material presented at his first show is not acceptable and does not align with our values.

'This type of material has no place on the festival and the Pleasance will not be presenting his second and final show.'"

[julie-the-julie]

This sounds a lot like the narcissist's prayer to me? That didn't happen -> it wasn't that bad -> it's not that important -> it wasn't my fault -> I didn't mean to -> you deserved it

[arcanondrum]

Actual Kettle Logic from this week : _"It's a totally made up story, I didn't take the documents."_ But ALSO _"If they wanted the documents they just had to ask, they didn't need to make it a political issue."_

[angledcoathanger]

I can see the need to be wary of most fallacies, but I can't imagine being caught out by this in a debate for example. Does anyone know an example where this fallacy could seem valid?