|
|
Is asking for too specific of proof a fallacy?Is there a fallacy for insisting someone needs specific evidence instead of general?
For example- A new tax is proposed that will tax everything classified as food. Evidence exists to make this abundantly clear. Guy A: "The new tax is for all food. Bread is food. Bread will be more expensive." Guy B: "Prove bread in particular is more expensive. You have provided no proof bread will be more expensive so you are wrong until you prove bread is more expensive." I think this is a breakdown in simple logic but I wonder if there's a specific fallacy associated with this? Alternatively, is Guy A wrong and he simply cannot prove bread specifically is going to be more expensive? |
| asked on Sunday, Jun 03, 2018 10:42:10 PM by Kiko | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Part one is about how science works even when the public thinks it doesn't. Part two will certainly ruffle some feathers by offering a reason- and science-based perspective on issues where political correctness has gone awry. Part three provides some data-driven advice for your health and well-being. Part four looks at human behavior and how we can better navigate our social worlds. In part five we put on our skeptical goggles and critically examine a few commonly-held beliefs. In the final section, we look at a few ways how we all can make the world a better place.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
Hey Kiko, by definition having to pay more money than you previously had to pay for something makes it more expensive....
i.e. adding money (tax) to a food (bread) makes is more expensive. Guy B is involved in a line of reasoning, well maybe, called invincible ignorance fallacy... |
| answered on Monday, Jun 04, 2018 04:23:43 AM by skips777 |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
Seems like the rejection of a basic syllogism:
P1: All food will be taxed. P2: Bread is a food. C: Therefore, bread will be taxed. To reject this is to reject logic. |
| answered on Monday, Jun 04, 2018 06:38:40 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
First of all you don't prove bread, you prove dough.
Ahem, anyway ... probably best not to interchange evidence and proof too much. Scientists tend to avoid the word proof, in law you use various evidence to make a conclusion of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but in this case it's a matter of maths (or math depending on where you're from (but it is maths, it's plural)) and can be proven by using a formula. Saying that one needs to provide proof that bread is more expensive to show that it will be more expensive is a non sequitur and an irrelevant conclusion. I suspect that you may have mistyped that but I make a point of clarity in arguments as what may appear insignificant can suddenly become the lynchpin of the argument once you've been lead into agreeing with something poorly worded. And there's an argument from ignorance in saying that a lack of proof equals proof that you are wrong. It's only proof of a lack of proof and allows for no conclusion. |
| answered on Monday, Jun 04, 2018 08:35:27 AM by Bryan |
Comments |
|
| |
