I want to give your wrongness a title.
January 4, 2012 1:17 AM Subscribe
Looking for the accepted or widely-used names of a couple of informal logical fallacies.
The first example is one I see a lot, and I'll give you a real-life example: SNL recently did a sendup of Tim Tebow and his faith. I saw it on Yahoo, and tons of commenters said something along the lines of, "SNL wouldn't DARE do this if Tebow was a Muslim! They're always picking on Christians, etc."
Well, he's NOT a Muslim, nor have their been any Muslim NFL players that have been in Tebow's specific situation, and so we can't know with certainty that SNL would treat him differently if he was. Is there a more specific term for this type of argument than just "strawman?"
Second one: I'm c/p this from the interwebs where I can't seem to get a straight answer; it used to be part of the Wikipedia entry on the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, but it doesn't seem to fit and indeed has been deleted from the page as an example.
"-- A million people participate in a random raffle. The raffle is drawn and Joe wins. However, Jane points out that "the odds of Joe's winning are a million to one. There's no way he could have won a random draw. He must have cheated and rigged the raffle!" Of course, the chances of anyone else winning the raffle was also a million to one, and if anyone else had won, Jane could have accused anyone of cheating. However, the chances of somebody winning is 100% guaranteed. When the raffle was drawn, somebody must win. Joe simply lucked out, and it's not logical for Jane to claim that the raffle was non-random and rigged, simply because the odds of Joe winning were small. As with the Texas sharpshooter, Jane singles Joe out by drawing a bullseye around Joe after the random draw had taken place, making Joe's win seem like a non-random event. "
....although, really, I'm looking for something slightly more broad if it exists: the position that something quite unlikely happened (even if it is not guaranteed) must be invalid/rigged/whatever based solely on its improbability. There a name for that argument/fallacy?
Any holp? Thanks in advance!
The first example is one I see a lot, and I'll give you a real-life example: SNL recently did a sendup of Tim Tebow and his faith. I saw it on Yahoo, and tons of commenters said something along the lines of, "SNL wouldn't DARE do this if Tebow was a Muslim! They're always picking on Christians, etc."
Well, he's NOT a Muslim, nor have their been any Muslim NFL players that have been in Tebow's specific situation, and so we can't know with certainty that SNL would treat him differently if he was. Is there a more specific term for this type of argument than just "strawman?"
Second one: I'm c/p this from the interwebs where I can't seem to get a straight answer; it used to be part of the Wikipedia entry on the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, but it doesn't seem to fit and indeed has been deleted from the page as an example.
"-- A million people participate in a random raffle. The raffle is drawn and Joe wins. However, Jane points out that "the odds of Joe's winning are a million to one. There's no way he could have won a random draw. He must have cheated and rigged the raffle!" Of course, the chances of anyone else winning the raffle was also a million to one, and if anyone else had won, Jane could have accused anyone of cheating. However, the chances of somebody winning is 100% guaranteed. When the raffle was drawn, somebody must win. Joe simply lucked out, and it's not logical for Jane to claim that the raffle was non-random and rigged, simply because the odds of Joe winning were small. As with the Texas sharpshooter, Jane singles Joe out by drawing a bullseye around Joe after the random draw had taken place, making Joe's win seem like a non-random event. "
....although, really, I'm looking for something slightly more broad if it exists: the position that something quite unlikely happened (even if it is not guaranteed) must be invalid/rigged/whatever based solely on its improbability. There a name for that argument/fallacy?
Any holp? Thanks in advance!
The first example is one I see a lot, and I'll give you a real-life example: SNL recently did a sendup of Tim Tebow and his faith. I saw it on Yahoo, and tons of commenters said something along the lines of, "SNL wouldn't DARE do this if Tebow was a Muslim! They're always picking on Christians, etc."
This isn't any sort of argument at all, in my view. It's just an utterly baseless, unsupported allegation.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 1:44 AM on January 4, 2012
This isn't any sort of argument at all, in my view. It's just an utterly baseless, unsupported allegation.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 1:44 AM on January 4, 2012
I think the first one is just a plain non sequitur: an assertion that doesn't follow from premises. In this case, they're not citing any premises at all, it's just an unsupported assertion.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 1:55 AM on January 4, 2012
posted by TheophileEscargot at 1:55 AM on January 4, 2012
I don't know much about SNL, it not being available where I live, and I have no idea who Tim Tebow is, but is it possible that actually they wouldn't send him up if he was a Muslim? Maybe in part because for it to be funny to their audience, which is overall much less familiar with Islam than with Christianity, they'd have to make it broad to the point of stupidity?
That's not a strawman at all. On the other hand, attributing a mental state (daring/lack of daring) to SNL itself could be an example of the fallacy of reification similar to the pathetic fallacy.
Here's Wikipedia's giant list of fallacies, anyway.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 2:05 AM on January 4, 2012
That's not a strawman at all. On the other hand, attributing a mental state (daring/lack of daring) to SNL itself could be an example of the fallacy of reification similar to the pathetic fallacy.
Here's Wikipedia's giant list of fallacies, anyway.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 2:05 AM on January 4, 2012
Best answer: The first one is an example of committing α logical fallacy, in this case that of denying the antecedent.
Lots of people go from: if p then q; (so then) if not-p therefore not- q
It doesn't follow. You can see this on a truth table.
Even if p were false, it would not follow that q was false (or wasn't). Either is allowed.
Only scenario that's not allowed is p being true and q being false.
In your example:
SNL recently did a sendup of Tim Tebow and his faith. I saw it on Yahoo, and tons of commenters said something along the lines of, "SNL wouldn't DARE do this if Tebow was a Muslim! They're always picking on Christians, etc."
If p (is Christian) then q (SNL picking on Christians); If not p (p is not Christian) then not q (SNL doesn't pick on non-Christians).
Not true. SNL may or may not pick or non-Christians irrespective of whether they pick on Christians.
posted by mkdirusername at 2:25 AM on January 4, 2012 [7 favorites]
Lots of people go from: if p then q; (so then) if not-p therefore not- q
It doesn't follow. You can see this on a truth table.
Even if p were false, it would not follow that q was false (or wasn't). Either is allowed.
Only scenario that's not allowed is p being true and q being false.
In your example:
SNL recently did a sendup of Tim Tebow and his faith. I saw it on Yahoo, and tons of commenters said something along the lines of, "SNL wouldn't DARE do this if Tebow was a Muslim! They're always picking on Christians, etc."
If p (is Christian) then q (SNL picking on Christians); If not p (p is not Christian) then not q (SNL doesn't pick on non-Christians).
Not true. SNL may or may not pick or non-Christians irrespective of whether they pick on Christians.
posted by mkdirusername at 2:25 AM on January 4, 2012 [7 favorites]
Mod note: folks, OP is looking for the name of this phenomenon, not your opinion on whether folks are right about this or not
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:40 AM on January 4, 2012
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:40 AM on January 4, 2012
Is the first example considered a logical fallacy because the wording is that SNL "wouldn't" do this? In other words if the wording was "chances are" or "I'd bet" or "SNL would probably not DARE do this if Tebow was a Muslim" does that change it from being a fallacy to a supposition?
posted by 2manyusernames at 7:56 AM on January 4, 2012
posted by 2manyusernames at 7:56 AM on January 4, 2012
Best answer: There is a slight stink of the red herring about the first one, although it's a rather specific form of it and I tend to agree that it's really just an unsupported assertion which amounts to little more than a whine from someone who feels something he supports is being picked on.
The second one is, according to Wikipedia, a type of Prosecutor's Fallacy:
Argument from rarity – Consider this case: a lottery winner is accused of cheating, based on the improbability of winning. At the trial, the prosecutor calculates the (very small) probability of winning the lottery without cheating and argues that this is the chance of innocence. The logical flaw: the prosecutor has failed to account for the low prior probability of winning in the first place.
posted by Decani at 9:23 AM on January 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
The second one is, according to Wikipedia, a type of Prosecutor's Fallacy:
Argument from rarity – Consider this case: a lottery winner is accused of cheating, based on the improbability of winning. At the trial, the prosecutor calculates the (very small) probability of winning the lottery without cheating and argues that this is the chance of innocence. The logical flaw: the prosecutor has failed to account for the low prior probability of winning in the first place.
posted by Decani at 9:23 AM on January 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Is the first example considered a logical fallacy because the wording is that SNL "wouldn't" do this? In other words if the wording was "chances are" or "I'd bet" or "SNL would probably not DARE do this if Tebow was a Muslim" does that change it from being a fallacy to a supposition?
Good point, I think you're right. But I would like to know what sort of fallacy it is in in the former case, when they say "SNL would NOT do this," without any "chances are" qualifications.
Which mkdirusernames covered so I marked it as a favorite, but still, I feel like I've seen a more rhetorically elegant explanation/title of this, when someone accuses another of a double standard, when the half of the double standard they failed on never occurred.
posted by mreleganza at 1:37 PM on January 4, 2012
Good point, I think you're right. But I would like to know what sort of fallacy it is in in the former case, when they say "SNL would NOT do this," without any "chances are" qualifications.
Which mkdirusernames covered so I marked it as a favorite, but still, I feel like I've seen a more rhetorically elegant explanation/title of this, when someone accuses another of a double standard, when the half of the double standard they failed on never occurred.
posted by mreleganza at 1:37 PM on January 4, 2012
« Older how to set up kids business selling homemade... | Buddhist way to honor a friend's death in Laos? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by vacapinta at 1:29 AM on January 4, 2012 [1 favorite]