Question

...
nathan

Fallacy for asserting conclusions from constructed assumptions (fiction)

What fallacy best suits deriving a conclusion about the real world from a set of fabricated assumptions, in the case of a piece of fiction, or possibly a set of assumptions fabricated for the sake of an argument that are meant to model the real world but the accuracy of these assumptions is dependent on the arguer's ability to simulate the real world in their assumptions. Ultimately this seems to be a case of presuming assumptions that have the possibility of reflecting reality, but I'm not sure how well it matches up to well-known fallacies.

asked on Sunday, Aug 30, 2020 07:37:05 PM by nathan

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

...
0
mchasewalker writes:

This question could apply to a variety of fallacies. If you can provide a more specific syllogism or coherent argument rather than the general one presented here we might be able to be more helpful.

posted on Sunday, Aug 30, 2020 08:32:24 PM
...
0
Dr. Richard writes:

I always say to back to the basics: check your premises.

posted on Monday, Aug 31, 2020 10:23:28 AM
...
0
Rationalissimo writes:

This seems like it may be a question of loaded premises (contentious assumptions taken as fact) on the part of the reasoner.

Circular Reasoning (or some form of it) comes to mind, but I need context.

posted on Monday, Aug 31, 2020 06:11:10 PM
...
0
nathan writes:

I guess my problem is with the reasoning itself that it's always fine to draw conclusions about something (say values, morals, worldview) from a hypothetical situation. I don't think the context is super important because my issue is with the generalization, but for example, in the argument I had, the other person brought up Moby Dick and how it's fine to learn a lesson from that "vengeance is bad" or whatever more nuanced lesson you take from that "maybe vengeance is ok just don't let it consume your life". My issue with this is that the scenario is completely authored, and doesn't necessarily reflect any situation that could occur in real life, and so anything you "learn" from the account doesn't necessarily apply to a real life scenario.

posted on Monday, Aug 31, 2020 06:22:22 PM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
DrBill
0

There are some points about the question which I'd need to see clarified so that it seems more objective and less "loaded".

I think most issues of reality are quite complex and that arguments meant to address them or it, do so by simplifying, and use analogies.  The question then becomes one of accepting or rejecting them as "apt", or adequate for the purpose of logical analysis.

In terms of the current question, the loaded terms "fabricated, fiction" bring the possibility of intentionally misleading assumptions.  If the argument starts on such a basis, it probably can't be continued.

If the original question was not intended to include the implication of intention we are left with the usual possibilities for logical analysis, which in civil discourse will benefit imo from taking the time to reach agreement on the analogy's aptness.

Such agreement-reaching might in fact be the sum and substance of the discussion.

answered on Monday, Aug 31, 2020 11:12:09 AM by DrBill

DrBill Suggested These Categories

Comments