Question

...
Shawn

is there a fallacy here?

P1: more and more teenagers are playing violent games

P2: video games themselves have become more graphically and realistically violent

P3: the number and variety of video games have expanded dramatically

C: school violence is mainly caused by teenagers playing violent video games

asked on Thursday, Sep 30, 2021 09:56:45 AM by Shawn

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments
...
2
Shawn writes:

There is an attempt here to make a direct causal link between teens playing violent games and school violence. But what we see from this statement is a correlation which is not the same as a causal one. There has been no causal link been made between the two statements (variables). I would call that, among other things, the fallacy of jumping to conclusions 

One has to realize that the truth behind any social phenomena is way more complex than can be captured by simplistic statements such as this. There are numerous interacting variables to take into consideration when providing a more accurate explanation of why something is.  And even then, we cannot be 100% certain that we are correct. 

posted on Friday, Oct 01, 2021 09:29:14 AM

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

...
TrappedPrior (RotE)
5

Obvious non sequitur. There's no attempt to justify why more teenagers playing increasingly violent games necessarily means that school violence is mainly caused by these games. There's also no evidence presented to defend the claim.

answered on Thursday, Sep 30, 2021 10:06:46 AM by TrappedPrior (RotE)

TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
TrappedPrior (RotE)
0

Totally invalid conclusion.

answered on Thursday, Sep 30, 2021 05:56:08 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE)

TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
richard smith
0

It is an assumption. There is nothin there that explains why. I am sure there as been studies on this but no studies have been cited.

answered on Friday, Oct 01, 2021 09:05:55 AM by richard smith

richard smith Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
Dr. Richard
0

This is a variation of the old argument that they all used toothpaste, so toothpaste must be causing X. It does not follow. Correlation does not equal causation. 

answered on Friday, Oct 01, 2021 10:36:34 AM by Dr. Richard

Dr. Richard Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
Arlo
0

Yep!

As Shawn says, this claim confuses correlation (things happening at the same time) with causation.  It's a common point of confusion, but things happening together doesn't mean they cause each other.  It seems like the questionable cause fallacy.  I've also heard it referred to as cum hoc ergo propter hoc ... for the latin scholars among us.

Depending on how this approach is used, it can lead to lying with statistics if one presents a high correlation as evidence of causation.
answered on Friday, Oct 01, 2021 12:42:47 PM by Arlo

Arlo Suggested These Categories

Comments