Is the so called by some Chesterton fence fallacy really a fallcy?

Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.

Original Question

"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it" . ( American Chesterton Society) .

The main idea is that if it does not seem to be a reason for a particular law, principle, institution policy etc. ("the fence") it does not mean that there is none. In my understanding, seeing the reason for "the fence" it is somehow a prerequisite ("“If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think") for reform or change.

What do you think?

Answers

I don't personally think there is a problem,

Chesterton is speaking about the idea of "reforming". His main idea is that a "modern overly critical reformer" simply rebels against
everything and only attacks tradition for the sake of rebellion (simply clear the fence).

Chesterton then argues that you should not rebel against anything until you understand what it is (go home and think about it). This is actually a key principle in
all rational thinking: Understand what the other side is saying before you oppose it.

I would think that most people fight laws they fully don't understand. Because of motivated reasoning, they don't want to fully understand. This is an example of poor reasoning. However, it is problematic for a governing body to enact a law and not give reason for it, rather just say "go away and think." That is like saying a good reason exists, but you are just not smart enough to understand/see it. Kind of like claiming that Jesus/Allah/Krishna, etc. exists, but only if you have to have enough faith to experience him. Or that I am the best-looking guy in the world, but you need to have really good taste in human aesthetics to see it. This can be classified as a form of a Self-Sealing Argument , since no evidence can be brought against it.

Its a parable for wisdom, not a fallacy, used to teach lessons that you should think about why fences exist, having a purpose and to thoughtfully weight that function, rather than just see it as organization of sticks in the ground that's in your way. Apparently everything is a fallacy if you don't like it or don't want to think about it, or want to justify something you shouldn't. Its not hard to find an edge case to justify something. A more fundamental problem is that you can justify anything--minimize it away, compare it away, redefine it away--the reason to "go and think about it" or heed the consequences.

The Chesterton Fence Fallacy actually is a response to an Argument from Ignorance (ad ignorantium) with an ad Fidentia fallacy.

Description: Ad Ignorantium: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.
Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

In this particular parable, the claimant argues that because s/he cannot see the use of such a fence, it, therefore, must be useless.
"I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.”

Logical Form

X is true because you cannot prove that X is false. The fence is useless because I cannot prove its usefulness.
X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.

To which the response is, “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. He offers no evidence for the
fence's usefulness, but merely attacks the confidence or competence of the original claimant or an Ad Fidentia argumentum ad fidentia fallacy (also known as: against self-confidence)

Description: Attacking the person’s self-confidence in place of the argument or the evidence.

Want the full book?

Get the complete guide to logical fallacies by Bo Bennett.

Buy the Book

Master Logical Fallacies Online

Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.

View Online Course