Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Dr. Bo is creating online courses in the area of critical thinking, reason, science, psychology, philosophy, and well-being. These courses are self-paced and presented in small, easy-to-digest nuggets of information. Use the code FALLACYFRIENDS to get 25% off any or all of Dr. Bo's courses.
|
Interesting question. Your first example, in part, is a display of bulverism The person is assuming that the claim is wrong because of a group the person belongs to. Also implied in the argument is a demonstration of the fallacy you mentioned, the circumstantial ad homenim, as the person is assuming the arguer is biased on the issue because they're a pilot. The second example I think is display of the guilt by association fallacy. They are trying to make the arguers position seem untenable by associating it with something that is generally disavowed (racism). While it's almost certainly the case that racists do not believe in affirmative action, it doesn't mean that everyone who doesn't believe in affirmative action is racist. |
answered on Thursday, May 20, 2021 07:26:59 AM by Monique Z | |
Monique Z Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
These are both examples of bulverism where someone is assumed to be wrong, and the arguer skips to explaining how they came to be wrong (typically using some pseudo-psychoanalysis). Implicitly they can also fall under ad hominem (circumstantial). A pilot being disposed to desire a higher salary does not mean that paying pilots more is a poor idea; there could be arguments independent the identity of a pilot that justify the higher wage rate. |
|||||||||||
answered on Thursday, May 20, 2021 09:46:36 AM by TrappedPrior (RotE) | ||||||||||||
TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories |
||||||||||||
Comments |
||||||||||||
|