A content Fallacy creates an argument that is dubious (doubtful) because the basic premise cannot be trusted. Some are generalities. Often they include words like "always" "anything" or "everyone". Others may be based on creating false choices "It's the devil or the deep blue sea" when there may be other choices, such as my friends on dry land. Others create false reasoning for someone's actions attributing the cause of action to a group the actor belongs to or a position the person holds. Some make their argument based on false emotional chains "You should follow the rules because you believe in order." Well, I may like things neat, but I also choose to break a few rules now and then.
I think the Fallacy that bothers me the most is called "Mistaking the person (group) for the argument" by Epstein in his book Critical Thinking (2006). This fallacy is based on generalization, not only of group members but of the group's viewpoints - or the person's stand on an issue with his or her approach to other matters. "Carol says yoga is good because she's a Buddhist." In fact, although yoga may be done by some Buddhist sects regularly, there are many that don't do it at all. And in some sects that don't practice yoga, there are individuals who may practice hatha yoga (yoga for health). In a similar manner, the argument may be “Susan is a Republican. Republicans are against abortion - so Susan must be a Right to Lifer.” Maybe, maybe not. But you cannot assume that the group determines belief.
Statements based on this fallacy are rarely correct about groups and even more rarely about how individuals see the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment