Comments on: logical fallacy identification

Question: logical fallacy identification

lyam — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:50:19 -0800

Is there a formal name for the logical fallacy shown by the following statement; "We don't have to worry about lead paint in our homes because we grew up in such homes and turned out fine."? Thanks.

By: Leon

Leon — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:58:20 -0800

Generalization or rationalization, apparently (search: logical fallacy and "it never did me any harm")

By: box

box — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:59:33 -0800

Saturnism.

By: null terminated

null terminated — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:59:38 -0800

I'm not sure, but it sounds like an "Appeal to ignorance".

By: burnmp3s

burnmp3s — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:59:44 -0800

Second Leon, it seems to be a specific type of generalization.

By: Happy Dave

Happy Dave — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:07:43 -0800

GENERALIZATION
(Rash Generalization/ anectodal evidence/prejudice and provinicialism)
-"A general statement based on insufficient evidence." (101, Warburton 96)

"It Never Did Me any Harm": "a common and particularly irritating form of rash generalization in which someone defends some unattractive practice on the grounds that they survived having the same thing done to them." (74, Warburton 96)
-often relies on anectdotal evidence
-generalizing from a single case
-can also be wishful thinking
-Arguing from a single case

By: MarkAnd

MarkAnd — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:08:02 -0800

I would consider that to be misuse of anecdotal evidence.

By: Breo

Breo — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:13:54 -0800

That's called a "Hasty Generalization" if you want to be specific.

By: briank

briank — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:32:47 -0800

It's also a bit of a solipsism -- counting one's own experience as the only valid filter for reality.

By: lyam

lyam — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:33:14 -0800

Thanks guys! I tried skimming through (extensive) lists of fallacies but didn't see this one.

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:41:49 -0800

It seems like some for of non sequitur

A= "living in a lead painted house"
B = "becoming sick"

P1 : A causes B
P2: There is no B after A
P3:Therefore A doesn't cause B

While P1 and P2 are TRUE ( living in lead painted house may make some sick / there was no sickness after living in lead painted houses) , P3 just doesn't follow

From the wiki

Another common non sequitur is this:

1. If A then B. (e.g., If I am in Tokyo, I am in Japan.)
2. Not A. (e.g., I am not in Tokyo.)
3. Therefore, not B. (e.g., Therefore, I am not in Japan.)

The speaker could be anywhere else in Japan. This sort of non sequitur is called denying the antecedent.

By: gaspode

gaspode — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:43:10 -0800

And the snarky rejoinder is "the plural of anecdote is not data".

By: Gyan

Gyan — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:28:58 -0800

elpapacito, P3 does follow, given your premises.

If P1 were 'A sometimes leads to B'
P2 were 'in my non-exhaustive experience of A, B didn't follow'
then your P3 wouldn't follow

As for the OP, I'd call it the problem of induction.

By: londongeezer

londongeezer — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:48:19 -0800

In terms of the ancient art of Rhetoric, this kind of argument would probably be deemed an example of the Argument from Experience (Argumentum ad Experientiam). In Rhetoric, it is the most common argument, consisting of personal anecdotes which in the author's view support the claim. It's recognised as fallacious. No number of isolated anecdotes can establish a general theory.

By: mbrubeck

mbrubeck — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:16:49 -0800

This example also shows some survivor bias, since the people who did suffer neurological damage from lead poisoning as children were probably less likely to grow up to become your colleagues or friends.

By: lyam

lyam — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:30:28 -0800

This example also shows some survivor bias, since the people who did suffer neurological damage from lead poisoning as children were probably less likely to grow up to become your colleagues or friends.

That's been my typical response.

By: Orb2069

Orb2069 — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:47:55 -0800

Selection bias is a phrase that might apply to the "All Lead-addled children raise your hands!" problem.

By: euphotic

euphotic — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:19:04 -0800

There is no logical fallacy involved, I think. The problem is that logic has limitations. It's not useful for thinking about risk and uncertainty. For that you need something like probablility theory.
In logic you can make a statement like "If I am exposed to lead, then I will become sick." From that you can logically conclude, if you did not become sick, that you were not exposed to lead, or that lead does not cause illness. But in reality, exposure to lead does not always make you sick, it just increases the probablility that you will suffer from some illnesses. You may or may not actually get sick. Statistical methods are designed to handle this kind of situation.