different examples vs. logical fallacy

Hi Linda!

 

Since I advise against eating questionably out of date food, but don't think mountain biking is unacceptable, your question challenges me to face my beliefs. 

I do think you are reasoning fallaciously. But that depends on what you mean by “out of date”. You might mean anything from not being fresh, to having gone bad. Given that your boyfriend was a philosophy major (is this a soft way of saying that he holds a degree in philosophy?), you should ask him what fallacy he believes you have committed. 

The key distinction I myself notice between the food and mountain biking is healthiness. Out of date food, if you mean something like “gone bad”, is unhealthy whereas mountain biking is not. While mountain biking is a healthy sport that might lead to an injury in the case of an accident, out of date food is unhealthy as is and may in its very state sicken or kill you. If you suspect food of being out of date, err in favor of your health and throw it out. Chowing down and passing it off as a culinary equivalent of mountain biking is a false analogy. Again, however, it is important to define what it means to be out of date.

 

Thank you, Linda!

From, Kaiden 

Your boyfriend is correct in pointing out that your reasoning contains a logical fallacy. Specifically, your argument involves a false analogy and a potential tu quoque fallacy.

### False Analogy:
- A false analogy occurs when an argument is made based on misleading, superficial, or implausible comparisons.
- Although both eating expired food and mountain biking carry risks, the nature and likelihood of those risks are significantly different. Eating questionably out-of-date food has a direct risk of causing foodborne illness, which can be relatively immediate and predictable. Mountain biking, while risky, has a broader range of variables that can be managed (e.g., wearing protective gear, choosing safer trails).

### Tu Quoque Fallacy:
- The tu quoque fallacy, or "you too" fallacy, occurs when someone attempts to counter an argument by pointing to an inconsistency in the opponent's own behavior.
- By pointing out your boyfriend’s support for mountain biking to argue against his concern about eating expired food, you're diverting attention from the original issue rather than addressing it directly.

### Cognitive Bias:
- **Confirmation Bias:** You might be selectively focusing on evidence that supports your desire to continue eating questionably out-of-date food, while disregarding the direct health risks involved.

### Poor Logic:
- Addressing your boyfriend’s concern about the direct risk associated with eating expired food by comparing it to another activity with different types of risks does not logically address his argument. One risk has a direct and avoidable health consequence (eating expired food), while the other is a managed and potentially less immediate risk (mountain biking with precautions).

### Improved Argument:
- A more logically sound approach would be to address the specific concerns about eating out-of-date food directly. For instance, discussing how you determine whether food is safe to eat despite the expiration date, or how often you actually get sick from eating such food, would be more appropriate counterpoints.

In conclusion, while you see the activities as comparable in terms of risk, the nature of those risks and the way they're managed differ significantly, making the comparison fallacious and a poor basis for your argument.