|
|
Pretend that my views represent everyone in the broader groupLet’s say aliens come to earth and they have heard of socialism but they don’t really know what it is. The aliens ask me to define it. Let’s say I am a democratic socialist and I know that there are dozens of different kinds of socialism, some of which are against democracy. I know that the various types of socialists disagree with each other vehemently. This is embarrassing so I present socialism as a cohesive group who all agree on every topic. I want the aliens to prefer my type of socialism so I tell them that the type of socialism I believe is representative of the whole group. What fallacies am I committing? I know that rationalists tend not to like socialism. I could be talking about anything. Do all feminists believe that stripping is empowering or exploitative? I would be lying if I said they all agreed. Thanks |
| asked on Sunday, May 15, 2022 11:38:41 AM by noblenutria@gmail.com | |
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."
Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.
This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book.
|
|
In the first example: what we're doing is defining terms in a way that is favourable to our argument. This is a definist fallacy. In the second example: if you said "all feminists agree on X" then that'd just be a false premise. However, if you go further, and say 'those who do not agree on X are not feminists', this would be considered a no true scotsman.
|
| answered on Sunday, May 15, 2022 11:52:18 AM by TrappedPrior (RotE) | |
TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
|
|
By limiting the definition of socialism to the one that you feel is easier to defend you are falling foul of the definist fallacy by cherry picking. You have distorted the definition of socialism by limiting its scope (rather than just redefining it to suit your purposes). By telling the aliens that the type of socialism you believe is representative of the whole group you are either mistaken (possibly the fallacy of composition) or being deliberately misleading. Whenever we use nominalisations (socialism, feminism) we freeze a process and therefore misrepresent it. Socialism and feminism are broad categories that house a range of characteristics (intentions, inferences, behaviours, etc). So if someone asks what socialism we are charged with providing a high level, intensional definition - when a more meaningful understanding requires the inclusion of an extensional one. |
|||
| answered on Wednesday, Jun 01, 2022 07:17:05 AM by Trevor Folley | ||||
Trevor Folley Suggested These Categories |
||||
Comments |
||||
| ||||
|
|
You're committing the fallacy of waking dreamworld idealismism. Or what I call the unique ismism fallacy....'laughs' 'jeers' 'boos'? |
| answered on Thursday, May 19, 2022 09:04:01 AM by skips777 | |
skips777 Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
