Fallacy?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
How can “science” tell you where to draw the line between bad behavior and sickness? If a therapist is to remain neutral in values, then why should one state of mind be considered preferable to another? If guilt is sometimes a misguided neurosis and at other times a proper response to wrongdoing, who decides, and by what authority?
Answers
2I would consider this argument of the beard . On one extreme, you have some mental illnesses that have a clear physical cause that shows up in a brain scan, and/or puts them in a mental state where they truly cannot control their actions or are totally out of touch with reality. On the other hand, many mental illnesses are diagnosed by psychologists just based on their perceptions of the patient's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. For a lot of people with mental illnesses, it can pressure them towards certain behaviors, but doesn't totally rob them of agency. While it's not totally objective, the American Psychiatric Association publishes a manual on how to diagnose mental illnesses. Part of it is criteria for individual illnesses, but also a more general definition that states that the symptoms must be abnormal, which is a judgement that can be made based on data, and must inhibit a person's ability to do things like function in a job or society. And part of that is accpeting that a therapist can't be completely neutral, as societal expectations are an integral part of how they make their evaluations.
1. **Equivocation Fallacy**: The passage uses the term "science" ambiguously. Science in itself does not dictate moral or ethical distinctions such as those between bad behavior and sickness. Scientific findings might inform these distinctions based on evidence about human health and behavior, but they do not inherently make value judgments.
2. **False Dichotomy**: The passage implies that therapists either remain completely value-neutral or dictate states of mind without any clear criteria. This overlooks the possibility that therapists might use evidence-based practices to guide individuals in personal development while still maintaining a professional detachment from imposing personal values.
3. **Appeal to Authority Fallacy**: The passage questions the "authority" by which scientific or therapeutic decisions are made, but fails to acknowledge that in many cases, these decisions are based on a collective understanding within the scientific and psychological communities, grounded in rigorous research and peer-reviewed studies.
4. **Loaded Question**: The questions presume a problematic scenario, such as science overstepping its bounds or therapists lacking authority to make such decisions, without providing evidence for these premises.
5. **Slippery Slope**: There is an implicit suggestion that if science or therapy can make distinctions about mental states, it might lead to arbitrary or unfounded value judgments, although no clear connection or evidence is presented to support this outcome.
Overall, the passage reflects skepticism about the role of science and therapy in moral and ethical judgments, but it leans on several logical fallacies and a questioning tone without addressing how practical guidelines and ethical standards are developed and applied in these fields.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course