what is this fallacy?

Philosophical, mathematical and computational logic, linguistics, formal argument, game theory, fallacies, paradoxes, puzzles and other related issues.

what is this fallacy?

Postby hyksos on October 22nd, 2016, 11:54 pm 

What is the formal name of the fallacy that goes, "All serial killers drank water, therefore water might cause your kid to be a serial killer" ?
User avatar
hyksos
Member
 
Posts: 988
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: what is this fallacy?

Postby hyksos on October 23rd, 2016, 12:02 am 

Hmm.. I think I may have found it already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
User avatar
hyksos
Member
 
Posts: 988
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: what is this fallacy?

Postby Braininvat on October 23rd, 2016, 10:47 am 

It's also similar to "post hoc ergo propter hoc." ( which would be - the murderer drank water before killing, therefore water consumption causes homicidal acts....) The association fallacy arises from multiple uses of the propter hoc fallacy.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 5500
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: what is this fallacy?

Postby hyksos on October 23rd, 2016, 11:56 pm 

Braininvat, when doing experiments on lab mice, they will try to have two groups, where one is the 'control', and they carefully make sure both groups of mice are eating the same things and in the same environment. This is specifically done because of this fallacy.
User avatar
hyksos
Member
 
Posts: 988
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: what is this fallacy?

Postby Scott Mayers on January 18th, 2017, 4:01 am 

hyksos » October 22nd, 2016, 10:54 pm wrote:What is the formal name of the fallacy that goes, "All serial killers drank water, therefore water might cause your kid to be a serial killer" ?

Technically, there is no error with the word "might" in there. It would be odd for one to assert though without context. This might be used to compare an equal kind of argument another might be trying to make as though some consequent is more relevant than it is.

One might argue: "Given that in some study of inmates incarcerated in some large prison All serial killers are Male, it suggests that being male is a likely sufficient cause to become a serial killer."

This kind of argument is made a lot politically because it is not technically illogical but has unclear quantifiers or appropriate ones that rhetorically suggest something more than it is. It is an error of irrelevance for being insufficient as a justification. It might be classed as an error of missing evidence.

A feminist might use this, for instance, to suggest why they specifically believe it only relevant to have laws to protect women's rights by imposing stronger penalties against men as a class in some law being proposed. While it doesn't deny that women too could be serial killers, the rhetorical defense of their position implies women are either never serial killers or are too insignificant to be concerned about.

So to counter, you might use your initial statement to show the fault by an exaggeration for contrast.
Scott Mayers
Member
 
Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015



Return to Logic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests