Question

...
Ed F

One Size Fits All

Today's Appeal To Faith question posted by Alex (see below) brings up another question.  What is the fallacy of thinking that "One Size Fits All."   That one explanation or solution should be given for all persons or cases, on the premise that we must be consistent, even when the circumstances are different in different cases?    Alex's question asks whether if some scientist or other authority is unreliable, why shouldn't we distrust them all?

Appeal To Faith Question:  If someone doesn’t “believe” what scientists say about evolution, the shape of the earth or climate change because there’s no proof that they’re really trustworthy, and then I tell him that we should trust them regardless, am I committing the appeal to faith fallacy? What if this person then says that, to be consistent, you should also believe in what self-proclaimed prophets say?

One example of this that comes to mind is the Covid restrictions and mandates that apply to everyone, whether they're in high risk groups or not, and whether they've had Covid before or not  (and in some jurisdictions, whether they've been vaccinated or not).

asked on Thursday, Jan 13, 2022 11:01:20 AM by Ed F

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

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

Bo's Book Bundle

Get all EIGHT of Bo's printed books, all autographed*. Save over $50!

* This offer is for residents of United States and Canada only.

Get the Book Bundle

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
1

We need to be careful to distinguish from the belief that "one size fits all" and the practice . For example, believing that as soon as kids turn 17, they are mature enough to handle rated-R movies would be a false belief (not necessarily a fallacy). However, supporting a law/rule that states one must be at least 17 to watch rated-R movies is not unreasonable. Often, a "one size fits all" approach is necessary or even just convenient.

answered on Thursday, Jan 13, 2022 07:54:37 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
account no longer exists
1

fallacy of composition  :)
answered on Thursday, Jan 13, 2022 11:52:20 AM by account no longer exists

account no longer exists Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
0
Ed F writes:

I don't see this as being the same as Composition.  Composition seems to be specifically of this form:

Premise:         All parts (or members) of X have property P. 
Conclusion:   Therefore, X itself has property P. 

The examples in the book are all of that form: e.g., Hydrogen is not wet.  Oxygen is not wet.  Therefore, water (H2O) is not wet (what's true of the parts is true of the whole).

My question had to do with treating all the members of a group the same even when there's no rationale for treating them the same.   I don't think that's the same as Composition.  It would seem the this fallacy should have a name (I'm suggesting "One Size Fits All" until someone can come up with a more accepted name).

posted on Thursday, Jan 13, 2022 01:42:14 PM
...
0
account no longer exists writes:

The example you gave me is not the fallacy of composition but rather the ecological fallacy, check it and have a look, they do look similar but they are not similar.

posted on Thursday, Jan 13, 2022 02:00:00 PM
...
0
Ed F writes:

For the record, the example I gave is from Dr. Bo's book.  I think it is a correct example of Composition.  I looked at other Logic textbooks and they give similar examples of Composition.  Composition is assuming what's true of the parts is true of the whole.  As I understand it, the Ecological Fallacy is related to the Fallacy of Division, which is the converse of Composition.   see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco. . .

posted on Thursday, Jan 13, 2022 08:16:08 PM
...
0
account no longer exists writes:
[To Ed F]

The main fallacy behind, "One Size Fits All" is that if one thing fits one person, then it must for all people. This is called taking a sample of 1 person or just a very small sample and then saying that it, "fits all" when it necessarily doesn't, maybe it does but the logic used to come to that conclusion is inherently irrational.

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Jan 14, 2022 10:38:56 AM