Name that logical fallacy

Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I've been wrestling with this one for hours now. i can find commonalities between 2 out of 3, but then the third doesn't conform.

In instance 1, I see affirming the consequent:

a: Deliberate spreading of rabies increases its incidence.
b: Rabies is present in increased evidence at the location.
c(and fallacious): The spread of rabies at the location is deliberate.

I can analyze example 2 similarly, with the improperly affirmed antecedent being that all em activity is from ghosts.

However example 3 does not fit this model. The best I can do with it is denying the antecedent, to wit:

a: We see great complexity (I consider inserting "from randomness" to be a red herring.)
b: Such great complexity is almost certainly not random.
c: Thus, the complexity arose by design.

...I am missing something basic. But I'm not getting a handle on it. cn
Click to expand...
Glad to see you chewing this over. I could not think of a way to set up this fallacy that did not also seem to beg the question, however sources do not link the two fallacies. I think perhaps the difference is in the scope. You can beg the question about anything, yet this fallacy requires a mistake of causation. Question begging is basically restating the premise in the conclusion, i.e. electromagnetic anomalies are evidence of ghosts because ghosts cause electromagnetic anomalies. Notice the conclusion is different in #2. John is not simply saying the house is haunted, he is saying it is the most haunted. And perhaps in #3 randomness is not a red herring, but a clue. #3 is more abstract though, a bit higher concept of the fallacy.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Heisenberg said:
Glad to see you chewing this over. I could not think of a way to set up this fallacy that did not also seem to beg the question, however sources do not link the two fallacies. I think perhaps the difference is in the scope. You can beg the question about anything, yet this fallacy requires a mistake of causation. Question begging is basically restating the premise in the conclusion, i.e. electromagnetic anomalies are evidence of ghosts because ghosts cause electromagnetic anomalies. Notice the conclusion is different in #2. John is not simply saying the house is haunted, he is saying it is the most haunted. And perhaps in #3 randomness is not a red herring, but a clue. #3 is more abstract though, a bit higher concept of the fallacy.
Click to expand...
The way I see it, your statement "electromagnetic anomalies are evidence of ghosts because ghosts cause electromagnetic anomalies" is not begging the question, but a formal fallacy, a misapplication of set theory. It's supplying "all G cause E" as a premise, but then using the illicit reverse "all E are caused by G" to complete the syllogism. Which syllogistic fallacy is characterized by that pattern? Oh my head; it spins a little. cn
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
The way I see it, your statement "electromagnetic anomalies are evidence of ghosts because ghosts cause electromagnetic anomalies" is not begging the question, but a formal fallacy, a misapplication of set theory. It's supplying "all G cause E" as a premise, but then using the illicit reverse "all E are caused by G" to complete the syllogism. Which syllogistic fallacy is characterized by that pattern? Oh my head; it spins a little. cn
Click to expand...
No need for head spins. The statement is indeed committing both fallacies because it is ambiguous, my fault. If it's read as " [all] electromagnetic anomalies are evidence of ghosts because ghosts are the cause of [all] electromagnetic anomalies" it begs the question. If it is read as "[all] electromagnetic anomalies are evidence of a ghost because [all] ghosts cause an electromagnetic anomaly", it shifts quantification.

It seems the original example begs the question, shifts quantification, and then commits this final fallacy. Extra points to you for uncovering an additional fallacy.
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
I am going to go ahead and end this one because even I have a difficult time seeing this fallacy. My brain wants to concentrate on the other fallacies. Just as I could not think of a way to demonstrate reductio as absurdum without ending in a strawman, I can not think of a way to set up this example that doesn't seem to beg the question.

This fallacy is called The Cluster Illusion. When we are dealing with random data, or what we think is random data, our brains want to assign meaning to any cluster points. We see it as a pattern of cause and effect. The fallacy is committed when we use the very same data that made us suspect an effect to conclude the cause. This is also known as The Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Imagine a gunman firing random shots at the side of a barn from a great distance. He finds the space where the bullet holes cluster and draws a bullseye around it, then declares himself a sharpshooter.


1) John is an investigative reporter researching rabies. While reviewing data, John notices a certain town has a much higher rate of rabies among it's animal population than chance calls for. John concludes this town is purposely spreading rabies among it's animals.


John notices a cluster of data, his brain see's it as an effect, and then he uses the very same data to conclude the cause. John ignores that it's possible for this to happen by chance, or to have some other cause, such as the data including test animals at the towns rabies research facility.

If this were stated as "I know the town is infecting it's animals because the town has a high rate of animal infections" then it is non validating, a non-argument. If it is stated as "I know the town is infecting it's animals because the town has a high rate of infecting it's animals", it is a validating argument, but begs the question. I believe John is saying the former, and so not begging the question.

I believe the reason this is not asserting the consequent is because the premise does not arise from propositional logic, but from a mistake of causation.


2) John is also a ghost hunter in his spare time. John believes electromagnetic anomalies are evidence of ghost activity. He searches all the abandoned houses in his neighborhood and finds one with a high level of electromagnetic activity as compared to the others. He buys this house and declares it the most haunted in the neighborhood.


John is working under the assumption that anomalies are evidence of ghosts, but beyond that, John sees a cluster of data points in what he considers random chance (any abandoned house has a chance of being haunted), and uses that cluster not only to suspect the house is haunted, but to conclude the house is the most haunted.


3) When we look at life we see incredible complexity arise from randomness. The chances of a protein, a cell, a frog, or even the universe forming randomly out of chaos is near nonexistent. We must have a designer.


Of course life did not become complex randomly. Life was shaped by rules and selective pressures. In the scope of this argument however, if we accept that reality is random chaos, we see complexity as cluster points among the randomness. We use these cluster points not only to suspect non-randomness, but to conclude that it's caused by a designer.


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
That was a serious toughie, Heisenberg. i think i was thrown a bit by all the distractions. That is not a complaint, mind you ... the high definition of the usual textbook examples bred a sort of complacency in me, is my best guess. Looking forward to the next one. cn

<add> Ironically, I remember going through the list and seeing Texas sharpshooter, and going naaah. It's a good lesson in the "dirtiness" of the zillion-plus-five variables in a zillion equations that is life. cn
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
1) It is a myth that gay people care about getting married. I have a gay cousin and a lesbian co-worker and neither of them have any interest in getting hitched.

2) Pitbulls get a bad rap. Everyone thinks they are dangerous and can hurt people, but my pit is gentle as a lamb and even plays with my 2 y/o.

3) Modern music sucks. I listened to my son's radio station today while taking him to school, and every song they played was terrible.
 
tyler.durden

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
1) It is a myth that gay people care about getting married. I have a gay cousin and a lesbian co-worker and neither of them have any interest in getting hitched.

2) Pitbulls get a bad rap. Everyone thinks they are dangerous and can hurt people, but my pit is gentle as a lamb and even plays with my 2 y/o.

3) Modern music sucks. I listened to my son's radio station today while taking him to school, and every song they played was terrible.
Click to expand...

Proof by Example, or Inappropriate Generalization...
 
Zaehet Strife

Zaehet Strife

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
I am going to go ahead and end this one because even I have a difficult time seeing this fallacy. My brain wants to concentrate on the other fallacies. Just as I could not think of a way to demonstrate reductio as absurdum without ending in a strawman, I can not think of a way to set up this example that doesn't seem to beg the question.

This fallacy is called The Cluster Illusion. When we are dealing with random data, or what we think is random data, our brains want to assign meaning to any cluster points. We see it as a pattern of cause and effect. The fallacy is committed when we use the very same data that made us suspect an effect to conclude the cause. This is also known as The Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Imagine a gunman firing random shots at the side of a barn from a great distance. He finds the space where the bullet holes cluster and draws a bullseye around it, then declares himself a sharpshooter.


1) John is an investigative reporter researching rabies. While reviewing data, John notices a certain town has a much higher rate of rabies among it's animal population than chance calls for. John concludes this town is purposely spreading rabies among it's animals.


John notices a cluster of data, his brain see's it as an effect, and then he uses the very same data to conclude the cause. John ignores that it's possible for this to happen by chance, or to have some other cause, such as the data including test animals at the towns rabies research facility.

If this were stated as "I know the town is infecting it's animals because the town has a high rate of animal infections" then it is non validating, a non-argument. If it is stated as "I know the town is infecting it's animals because the town has a high rate of infecting it's animals", it is a validating argument, but begs the question. I believe John is saying the former, and so not begging the question.

I believe the reason this is not asserting the consequent is because the premise does not arise from propositional logic, but from a mistake of causation.


2) John is also a ghost hunter in his spare time. John believes electromagnetic anomalies are evidence of ghost activity. He searches all the abandoned houses in his neighborhood and finds one with a high level of electromagnetic activity as compared to the others. He buys this house and declares it the most haunted in the neighborhood.


John is working under the assumption that anomalies are evidence of ghosts, but beyond that, John sees a cluster of data points in what he considers random chance (any abandoned house has a chance of being haunted), and uses that cluster not only to suspect the house is haunted, but to conclude the house is the most haunted.


3) When we look at life we see incredible complexity arise from randomness. The chances of a protein, a cell, a frog, or even the universe forming randomly out of chaos is near nonexistent. We must have a designer.


Of course life did not become complex randomly. Life was shaped by rules and selective pressures. In the scope of this argument however, if we accept that reality is random chaos, we see complexity as cluster points among the randomness. We use these cluster points not only to suspect non-randomness, but to conclude that it's caused by a designer.


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy
Click to expand...
This is fucking amazing by the way, art in itself.

But just as, concluding that there is a designer, would conclude that something would design "IT"... which would result in infinite regression, which is a fallacy in it's own right.
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
guy incognito said:
Anecdotal evidence
Click to expand...
tyler.durden said:
Proof by Example, or Inappropriate Generalization...
Click to expand...
cannabineer said:
Hasty generalization; subset "from the particular". cn
Click to expand...
All are correct enough for points, but the bear was the most specific. A hasty generalization occurs when we judge a large and diverse group by an inappropriately small sample size. Although guy didn't name the fallacy, he is correct in that hasty generalizations are one of the prime reasons we must hold anecdotal evidence highly suspect. Humans get through life making generalizations, but they have no place in logic.
 
tyler.durden

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
All are correct enough for points, but the bear was the most specific. A hasty generalization occurs when we judge a large and diverse group by an inappropriately small sample size. Although guy didn't name the fallacy, he is correct in that hasty generalizations are one of the prime reasons we must hold anecdotal evidence highly suspect. Humans get through life making generalizations, but they have no place in logic.
Click to expand...
I looked at Hasty Generalization as a possibility, and then settled on Proof by Example as it seemed more suited to your scenarios. Your scenarios in each case made a generalization from a cited personal example. From Wiki on Proof by Example:

Proof by example (also known as inappropriate generalization) is a logical fallacy whereby one or more examples are claimed as "proof" for a more general statement.[SUP][1][/SUP]

This fallacy has the following structure, and argument form:
Structure:
I know that X is such.Therefore, anything related to X is also such. Argument form:
I know that x, which is a member of group X, has the property P.Therefore, all other elements of X have the property P. The following example demonstrates why this is a logical fallacy:
I've seen a person shoot someone dead.Therefore, all people are murderers. The flaw in this argument is very evident, but arguments of the same form can sometimes seem somewhat convincing, as in the following example: I've seen Gypsies steal. So, Gypsies must be thieves.

From Wiki on Hasty Generalization:


Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence— essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables. In statistics, it may involve basing broad conclusions regarding the statistics of a survey from a small sample group that fails to sufficiently represent an entire population.[SUP][1][/SUP] Its opposite fallacy is called slothful induction, or denying the logical conclusion of an inductive argument (e.g. "it was just a coincidence").

Context is also relevant; in mathematics, the Pólya conjecture is true for numbers less than 906,150,257, but fails for this number. Assuming something to be true for all numbers when it has been shown for over 906 million cases would not generally be considered hasty, but in mathematics a statement remains a conjecture until it is shown to be universally true.
[h=2]Contents[/h]

[h=2] Examples[/h] Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern
X is true for A.
X is true for B.
X is true for C.
X is true for D.
Therefore, X is true for E, F, G, etc.

  • A person travels through a town for the first time. He sees 10 people, all of them children. The person then concludes that there are no adult residents in the town.
  • A person is looking at a number line. 1 is a prime number, 3 is a prime number, 5 is a prime number, 7 is a prime number, 9, that does not mean anything, probably some anomaly, 11 is a prime number, 13 is a prime number. Therefore, the person says, all odd numbers are prime.


It seems both answers are correct, but mine was more specific regarding the structure of your examples. This thread rocks, I'm learning so much...


 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
This will require some study on my part. I was thinking of what I now realize is a more classic view, hasty generalization vs neglecting qualification, but I have come across a paper proposing hasty generalization be broken down to be more specific. I am currently dealing with a back injury which makes doing anything difficult aside from laying here and drooling. I'll give this some study and sort it out when I am better able, hopefully in a few days.
 
tyler.durden

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
So sorry to hear about the back injury, Heis! Those can be the worst, you can't sit, stand or even lie down comfortably. I'm sure you have plenty of great, heavy indica to smoke, so you'll be alright. Let us know how it goes, I'll be praying for you...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top