What fallacy does argument commit ?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
" I don't have to wear a mask in public because nobody else is wearing them
Comments on Question
Answers
4By form, it is a simple non sequitur . It does not follow that because nobody else is doing it, that we don't have to do it. It could be the case the rules are different for us than everyone else. It could be the case that "nobody" is following the rules. We don't have enough information to warrant this as a strong argument.
I am confident there is some hyperbole involved as well. Although not fallacious, it is a rhetorical technique to which one needs to pay attention as it could lead to poor reasoning (e.g., if one really thought "nobody else" was wearing a mask, when it was more like 5% of the people).
From a practical standpoint, this would be a reliable heuristic. For example, if one walks into a restaurant and sees that nobody is (or a very small percentage of people are) wearing masks, it is reasonable to conclude that masks are not required. From a rule-based perspective, they would be correct in stating that they (probably) "don't have to wear a mask." From a personal health perspective, they may "have to" wear a mask because they are high risk (or have covid, been exposed, etc.); however, that part has little to do with what other people are doing, so in context, it is clear this person is referring to the rule-based perspective. And again, they have come to a reasonable conclusion by observing the mask-wearing behaviors of others.
I don't have to do X because nobody else is doing X. It is a simple non sequitur.
Appeal to popularity
I think the arguer meant he shouldn't be punished for not wearing a mask since nobody isn't wearing one. I don't think this is a fallacy. If he would have to wear one because otherwise he would be punished, while all the others wouldn't, then that would be unfair; that would be a case of double standard .
(Although the 'nobody is wearing' part I think is factually incorrect, but if it was true, then it's not fallacious.) If nobody follows a law, either the law should be enforced for all, or the law should be changed.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
As there were a number of reasons from the outset I didn't believe in a novel virus or pandemic I did what I believed was my responsibility as a citizen to stand against authority and not comply with all rules as much as I was able, including not wearing a mask, so I was often the only person in the train carriage, the only person in the supermarket, the only person on the plane, the only person in the doctor's waiting room not wearing a mask - that aspect worried me only minimally, what concerned me more was being forced to comply in order to do or get something I felt I really needed. I ended up incurring two hefty fines which I'd planned on fighting in court but paid instead, however, I have no regrets.
These are the two guideposts and two fundamental rules of critical thinking I follow to come to conclusions about the truth of things which I also followed to come to my conclusions about the pandemic. I've written a three-part article, Critical thinking: The moon landings, 9/11 and covid. The third part is Part 3: The second fundamental rule of critical thinking applied to covid.
THE TWO GUIDEPOSTS
1. Every relevant piece of information will at least support if not favour the correct hypothesis
It is useful to constantly bear in mind that the nature of reality is that every single relevant piece of information will at least support if not favour the correct hypothesis. Any relevant item selected at random will show that it at least is consistent with the hypothesis if not favour it. If not, the hypothesis isn’t correct. Sometimes seeming anomalies might contradict the correct hypothesis but on closer inspection will be revealed to be only seeming anomalies not real anomalies.
2. Internal consistency and consistency with expectations
Where all the evidence is both internally consistent and consistent with expectations, unless a good reason is put forward for doubt we should accept an hypothesis as correct.
THE TWO FUNDAMENTAL RULES
Rule 1: Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong
When I came across the statement by Kary Mullis, the Nobel-prize winning inventor of the PCR technique, in an interview with Gary Null, "The scientist aims to prove their hypothesis wrong," I thought, "Bingo! That's what I do.” If ever what I believe is challenged by anyone or anything I review my hypothesis against the challenge to see if it still holds. I also go out of my way to investigate the opposing arguments sufficiently to ensure I can respond to them … and if I can’t respond with a good argument, I change my mind or at least “park” the challenge for later review. Richard Feynman effectively said the same thing as Kary Mullis in his commencement address at Caltech in 1974 entitled, Cargo Cult Science.
Rule 2: Confine your analysis to the most relevant and unarguable-with data in the first instance
If the nature of reality is that every single piece of evidence will at least support if not favour the correct hypothesis then if there is a reasonable amount of unarguable-with data and all of it supports your hypothesis if not favours it over any other then it's going to be rather difficult for another hypothesis to be correct.
Following my Rule 2 of confining analysis to the most relevant and unarguable-with data in the first instance we can only conclude there is no novel virus, no pandemic and no requirement for a jab. However, I always follow my Rule 1 - so happy to be proved wrong!
If you believe in the pandemic I wonder what rules of critical thinking you use to come to that belief.