Using a symbol in the wrong context
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Hi there,
I'm trying to find a good classification for a group of fallacies that belong together, but aren't usually grouped. Maybe you can help.
Let's take a bottle labelled "Gift", for example. The meaning of the label is very different whether you interpret it as Englisch (meaning it's a present) or German (in which case it is poison). Mixing these meanings is a form of ambiguity, which could be, depending again on the context e.g. a fallacy of equivocation or something similar.
Or imagine one would walk in the streets wearing a big white pointy hat with holes for the eyes only. Again, the context makes the difference: if someone does that in the south of the US, he's probably a racist - if he does that in certain parts of Spain during Easter, he's a devout catholic (of course, he could be both, but that's a different issue :-)
Now if someone comes from the US to, let's say Salamanca and sees the procession of hooded figures, he might accuse the Spaniards of racism, based on the wearing of hoods that (US) racists wear.
This is clearly fallacious, but I find that although it is very similar to certain equivocation fallacies, there is a more precise term needed. Any thoughts on this? Or is there something I've missed?
I'm trying to find a good classification for a group of fallacies that belong together, but aren't usually grouped. Maybe you can help.
Let's take a bottle labelled "Gift", for example. The meaning of the label is very different whether you interpret it as Englisch (meaning it's a present) or German (in which case it is poison). Mixing these meanings is a form of ambiguity, which could be, depending again on the context e.g. a fallacy of equivocation or something similar.
Or imagine one would walk in the streets wearing a big white pointy hat with holes for the eyes only. Again, the context makes the difference: if someone does that in the south of the US, he's probably a racist - if he does that in certain parts of Spain during Easter, he's a devout catholic (of course, he could be both, but that's a different issue :-)
Now if someone comes from the US to, let's say Salamanca and sees the procession of hooded figures, he might accuse the Spaniards of racism, based on the wearing of hoods that (US) racists wear.
This is clearly fallacious, but I find that although it is very similar to certain equivocation fallacies, there is a more precise term needed. Any thoughts on this? Or is there something I've missed?
Answers
2It seems as this might be a form of Jumping to Conclusions . The difference is, there appears to be no argument in your presented contexts (they might be creating arguments from their conclusion, but not responding to an argument), so the person might be most accurately just displaying poor/sloppy reasoning skills or displaying biases. That's my take.
Hello Bo, thanks for your answer :-) I was thinking more in line with a semiotic fallacy – in the sense of confusing symbol and object, but here it is that the symbol is recognized as such, but it is interpreted in the wrong context.
It is true that this also implies jumping to conclusions, but I think the root of the fallacy is somewhere else.
In any case, thanks for your answer. May need to think about it ;-)
Best greetings
/sascha
It is true that this also implies jumping to conclusions, but I think the root of the fallacy is somewhere else.
In any case, thanks for your answer. May need to think about it ;-)
Best greetings
/sascha
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course