Trying to identify a particular informal fallacy

[Gadarene]

I'll give an example or two of it:

Premise: Occasionally scientific theories are found to be incorrect.
Conclusion: Therefore the specific theory of global warming is wrong.

Premise: Some people who disagree with Barack Obama are motivated by racism.
Conclusion: Therefore person who is disagreeing with Barack Obama is racist.

(not the best examples in terms of trying to keep people on-topic, I know, but bear in mind, they are fallacious arguments, and I thought I'd be better off using examples people would have come across before)

The fallacy is in taking a correct premise that states that a particular value judgement/truth claim applies to a particular category of entities occasionally, and directly concluding from there that the value judgement/truth claim applies to a specific individual entity from that category. One cannot do this from the general statement, one needs specific evidence/rationale beyond that to conclude that it applies to the entity in question.

If you've followed me this far, my question is simple - does this fallacy have a name?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Hasty Generalization?

 

[dbcsf]

I'll give an example or two of it:

Premise: Occasionally scientific theories are found to be incorrect.
Conclusion: Therefore the specific theory of global warming is wrong.

Premise: Some people who disagree with Barack Obama are motivated by racism.
Conclusion: Therefore person who is disagreeing with Barack Obama is racist.

(not the best examples in terms of trying to keep people on-topic, I know, but bear in mind, they are fallacious arguments, and I thought I'd be better off using examples people would have come across before)

The fallacy is in taking a correct premise that states that a particular value judgement/truth claim applies to a particular category of entities occasionally, and directly concluding from there that the value judgement/truth claim applies to a specific individual entity from that category. One cannot do this from the general statement, one needs specific evidence/rationale beyond that to conclude that it applies to the entity in question.

If you've followed me this far, my question is simple - does this fallacy have a name?

Possibly the fallacy of accident.

Logical Fallacy: Accident

 

[Resha Caner]

If you've followed me this far, my question is simple - does this fallacy have a name?

I would just call it a non sequitur: the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

What is interesting about the examples you gave is their similarity to the problem of induction. Put simply, in scientific terms "deduction" is arguing from the general to the specific: because of the law of gravitation (the general) I predict this rock will fall to the ground when I release it (the specific). "Induction" is arguing from the specific to the general: This rock fell to the ground (the specific), and I conclude this was caused by gravitation (the general).

Induction is used frequently in science, but it can easily fall prey to the type of non sequitur you expressed.

 

[Gadarene]

Hasty Generalization?

It's the opposite of that. Hasty generalisation extrapolates broad conclusions from a narrow sampling window. This fallacy goes from the broad to the specific.

Possibly the fallacy of accident.

Logical Fallacy: Accident

That's close, although it seems like the description takes the majority case as the premise rather than the minority case (in terms of the example they used, the majority case is that most birds can fly, the minority case is that some birds can't - whereas in the examples I gave, I think the premises are focusing on the minority case. Even if you don't agree with that, I'm sure you can think of some other pertinent example).

I would just call it a non sequitur: the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Sure, but some informal fallacies are special cases of the formal ones. Was more curious to see if it had a name, as I've spent a fair bit of time trying to learn the named ones, and I couldn't recall ever seeing this one.

What is interesting about the examples you gave is their similarity to the problem of induction. Put simply, in scientific terms "deduction" is arguing from the general to the specific: because of the law of gravitation (the general) I predict this rock will fall to the ground when I release it (the specific). "Induction" is arguing from the specific to the general: This rock fell to the ground (the specific), and I conclude this was caused by gravitation (the general).

Induction is used frequently in science, but it can easily fall prey to the type of non sequitur you expressed.

I've generally thought of scientific laws, like the law of gravitation as inductive statements (i.e. in situation x, y will always be observed *problem of induction alert*) but for convenience or for functional purposes, whereas scientific theories (like a theory of gravitation) attempt to be deductive, at least from more fundamental principles. Maybe that's not a great characterisation, but it seems to hold.

 

[Crandaddy]

Your fallacy looks a lot like cherry picking to me. The arguer bases his conclusion upon cherry picked, insufficiently supportive evidence summed up in a single premise.

 

[bricklayer]

I'll give an example or two of it:

Premise: Occasionally scientific theories are found to be incorrect.
Conclusion: Therefore the specific theory of global warming is wrong.

Premise: Some people who disagree with Barack Obama are motivated by racism.
Conclusion: Therefore person who is disagreeing with Barack Obama is racist.

(not the best examples in terms of trying to keep people on-topic, I know, but bear in mind, they are fallacious arguments, and I thought I'd be better off using examples people would have come across before)

The fallacy is in taking a correct premise that states that a particular value judgement/truth claim applies to a particular category of entities occasionally, and directly concluding from there that the value judgement/truth claim applies to a specific individual entity from that category. One cannot do this from the general statement, one needs specific evidence/rationale beyond that to conclude that it applies to the entity in question.

If you've followed me this far, my question is simple - does this fallacy have a name?

Correlation is not causation.

Examples:
95% of the people in the US who go blind after the age of twenty have eaten carrots.
95% of the people in the US who die are under a doctor's care.

Although the above examples correlate, there is no causation.

Correlation is not causation.

 

[Gadarene]

Thanks for the input, everyone. I suspect it may actually be the fallacy of division.

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/division.htm

One of the Aristotlean fallacies, apparently. Evidently I have seem catching up to do

 

[Received]

Check out the Person Who Statistical Fallacy. It's a behind-the-scenes one, but a real doozy, and something I always thought (like you) was there but didn't know the name. Found it in the text Everyday Statistics by Lawson (which is a fantastic mix of psychology and statistics, even working within psychology *of* statistics, which to me is nerd paradise) a few months back, and it has really opened up doors of power via knowledge. I throw the name down all the time it the American Politics section here.

Person Who is seen best when people say something like:

• Scientists have overwhelming data to conclude that cigarrettes cause cancer
• But I know four people who have smoked two packs a day their entire lives and don't have cancer
• Therefore, cigarettes don't cause cancer

You know, one or two (or four) people say otherwise, therefore the rule (or law, or theory, etc.) doesn't hold. Another way: anecdotal evidence negates methodical evidence. To me, this is similar ground to Hasty Generalization territory (like Tinker pointed out), but a bit different.

It's also very, very popular thinking for Neoconservatives. Like, there's probably an emotional element to committing this argument that can be reduced to brain structure and functioning, and Neocons are more likely to have this structure/functioning. No, seriously.

I love this stuff.

 

[Resha Caner]

Mmm, formal fallacies are something no one should dispute - akin to a mathematical mistake. But don't you think that at times some of the informal fallacies might be an "eye of the beholder" kind of thing?

 

[Gadarene]

Mmm, formal fallacies are something no one should dispute - akin to a mathematical mistake. But don't you think that at times some of the informal fallacies might be an "eye of the beholder" kind of thing?

Example?

 

[Crandaddy]

Thanks for the input, everyone. I suspect it may actually be the fallacy of division.

Division

One of the Aristotlean fallacies, apparently. Evidently I have seem catching up to do

I don't think it's the fallacy of division. Accordingly, a property is falsely attributed to a part of some whole because the property applies to the whole which contains the part. But I don't think your fallacy deals with wholes and parts. If it does, then of what whole would the specific entity be a part? And what property would the whole have that is attributed to the part?

 

[Received]

I think it's closest to a hasty generalization, in that it uses a few examples to generalize; but where it differs is in comparing it to a claimed rule, law, principle, etc., and works against it. Not just, "I know A, B, and C, therefore I know the rest," but, "I've heard a principle of A, B, and C, but I've seen differently, so the principle can't be right, but what I've seen can generalize in its place."

 

[Resha Caner]

Example?

I was going to say the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Whether one accepts a certain citation as authoritative or not can be quite subjective.

But then I checked the following link and got rather confused:
List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They list "appeal to authority" as a red-herring fallacy, which doesn't make sense to me. Further, they list "false attribution" as an informal fallacy, but the way they describe it, it sounds exactly like "appeal to authority", which doesn't make sense either. They also list "begging the question" and "circular reasoning" as 2 separate fallacies whereas I've always considered them to be the same thing.

Either the link isn't a good resource, or I'm missing the subtlties of some of these fallacies. Regardless, "appeal to authority" seems to me to be a fallacy that is somewhat subjective. Another might be the ad hominem fallacy. It certainly happens, but sometimes people claim it simply because they don't like being criticized.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The link in my first post above is to Nizkor.org. The front page is about Holocaust denial. But http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ is a list of fallacies that has been maintained for at least 12 years. I remember people referring to it on my first message board in 2000.

I don't know how good it is, but you might check it out.

 

[Resha Caner]

The link in my first post above is to Nizkor.org. The front page is about Holocaust denial. But Fallacies is a list of fallacies that has been maintained for at least 12 years. I remember people referring to it on my first message board in 2000.

I don't know how good it is, but you might check it out.

Yes. I did look at your original link, and saw that "hasty generalization" has other names as well. The one I liked best was "hasty induction" - maybe because it fits with what I'm saying. Sometimes it becomes gray whether something is a fallacy or not. Induction is a useful tool, but done hastily it leads to the nonsense in Gadarene's examples.

 

[Gadarene]

I don't think it's the fallacy of division. Accordingly, a property is falsely attributed to a part of some whole because the property applies to the whole which contains the part. But I don't think your fallacy deals with wholes and parts. If it does, then of what whole would the specific entity be a part? And what property would the whole have that is attributed to the part?

I think it's closest to a hasty generalization, in that it uses a few examples to generalize; but where it differs is in comparing it to a claimed rule, law, principle, etc., and works against it. Not just, "I know A, B, and C, therefore I know the rest," but, "I've heard a principle of A, B, and C, but I've seen differently, so the principle can't be right, but what I've seen can generalize in its place."

I may well have been incorrect. If fallacy of division refers to some identifiable property of the "whole", then that likely excludes arguments that begin with a premise like "some people in group X are Y", which is describing a partial property of X, not a property of X as a whole.

I should explain more about why I chose the examples I did. The premise is taken, or at least expressed as true - where the undesirable behaviour forms a minority of cases, but is, when convenient, used directly to infer that an undesirable response must be informed by the minority behaviour.

In other words - people making this fallacy generally don't seem to have a problem with science in general and how it operates, until a theory they don't like comes along. People generally don't seem to have a problem with political opinion in general until their pet politician is criticised. It's this inconsistent objection that I'm trying to address. (Maybe the fallacy is just good old special pleading?)

Maybe I'm simply being optimistic here - maybe people prone to such thinking really do think that anyone objecting to Obama is racist, or people who think that theory x is wrong really do take issue with science as a whole - and maybe they arrived at this stance through hasty generalisation.

 

[AHJE]

I'll give an example or two of it:

Premise: Occasionally scientific theories are found to be incorrect.
Conclusion: Therefore the specific theory of global warming is wrong.

Premise: Some people who disagree with Barack Obama are motivated by racism.
Conclusion: Therefore person who is disagreeing with Barack Obama is racist.

(not the best examples in terms of trying to keep people on-topic, I know, but bear in mind, they are fallacious arguments, and I thought I'd be better off using examples people would have come across before)

The fallacy is in taking a correct premise that states that a particular value judgement/truth claim applies to a particular category of entities occasionally, and directly concluding from there that the value judgement/truth claim applies to a specific individual entity from that category. One cannot do this from the general statement, one needs specific evidence/rationale beyond that to conclude that it applies to the entity in question.

If you've followed me this far, my question is simple - does this fallacy have a name?

Yes, Gadarene, this is the fallacy of Hasty Generalization.

Premise: Occasionally scientific theories are found to be incorrect.
Conclusion: Therefore the specific theory of global warming is wrong. (implies that all scientific theories are wrong)

Premise: Some people who disagree with Barack Obama are motivated by racism.
Conclusion: Therefore person who is disagreeing with Barack Obama is racist. (implies that all who disagree with Barack Obama are racists)

 

[Gadarene]

I was going to say the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Whether one accepts a certain citation as authoritative or not can be quite subjective.

It's only ever part of the picture at most, even if the source turns out to be valid. One doesn't know that if you only factor in who the author is and what their reputation is. So regardless of whether it's a good source or bad, the key is to look at their argument.

I've had it used on me enough times ("Einstein believed in God, and you're not going to argue with Einstein, are you?!") to encourage me want to refrain from siccing it on others.

But then I checked the following link and got rather confused:
List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They list "appeal to authority" as a red-herring fallacy, which doesn't make sense to me.

Clicking on the category header takes you to a page for Ignorantio elenchi - "the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

Which doesn't seem to make it any better. Arguments to authority don't address the issue, but they're also invalid arguments.

Further, they list "false attribution" as an informal fallacy, but the way they describe it, it sounds exactly like "appeal to authority", which doesn't make sense either.

Sounds like an attempted argument to authority where the "authority" actually isn't one.

That said, I don't actually know what "false attribution" is supposed to be.

They also list "begging the question" and "circular reasoning" as 2 separate fallacies whereas I've always considered them to be the same thing.

Can't see the difference there either. Nizkor claims they're the same as well.

Either the link isn't a good resource, or I'm missing the subtlties of some of these fallacies.

I suspect the former. That said, I think informal fallacies are always going to be harder to categorise as they seem to be about soundness rather than mere logical validity. Issues with soundness are more numerous.

Regardless, "appeal to authority" seems to me to be a fallacy that is somewhat subjective. Another might be the ad hominem fallacy. It certainly happens, but sometimes people claim it simply because they don't like being criticized.

Oh, definitely. Too often people take it as simply "being mean", which while not making for a great atmosphere conducive to discussion, is not exactly a flaw in reasoning.

If I say "you've just committed a hysteron proteron fallacy, you ****ing ****socket", I may very well be correct, and I'm not being very nice - but it's not an ad hominem, as the vitriol is not intended to address the argument.

This I do like: http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

 

[Resha Caner]

Dilbert's Logical Fallacies