Accused of a fallacy? Suspect a fallacy? Ask Dr. Bo and the community!

Quickly register to comment, ask and respond to questions, and get FREE access to our passive online course on cognitive biases!
Register!

one moment please...



Accident Fallacy

a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid

(also known as: destroying the exception, dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, dicto simpliciter, converse accident, reverse accident, fallacy of the general rule, sweeping generalization)

Description: When an attempt is made to apply a general rule to all situations when clearly there are exceptions to the rule. Simplistic rules or laws rarely take into consideration legitimate exceptions, and to ignore these exceptions is to bypass reason to preserve the illusion of a perfect law.  People like simplicity and would often rather keep simplicity at the cost of rationality.

Logical Form:

X is a common and accepted rule.

Therefore, there are no exceptions to X.

Example #1:

I believe one should never deliberately hurt another person, that’s why I can never be a surgeon.

Explanation: Classifying surgery under “hurting” someone, is to ignore the obvious benefits that go with surgery.  These kinds of extreme views are rarely built on reason.

Example #2:

The Bible clearly says, “Thou shall not bear false witness.” Therefore, as a Christian, you better answer the door and tell our drunk neighbor with the shotgun, that his wife, whom he is looking to kill, is hiding in our basement. Otherwise, you are defying God himself!

Explanation: To assume any law, even divine, applies to every person, in every time, in every situation, even though not explicitly stated, is an assumption not grounded in evidence, and fallacious reasoning.

Exception: Stating the general rule when a good argument can be made that the action in question is a violation of the rule, would not be considered fallacious.

The Bible says, “Thou shall not murder,” therefore, as a Christian, you better put that chainsaw down and untie that little kid.

Tip: It is your right to question laws you don’t understand or laws with which you don’t agree. 

References:

Bile, J. (1988). Propositional justification: another view. Contemporary Argumentation & Debate, 9, 54–62.



Registered User Comments

Kay
Sunday, February 26, 2017 - 03:10:06 AM
Hello Professor,
I think your Ex1 is a fallacy of Oversimplification, not Accident.
For me, Accident means treating as permanent a condition that may only be temporary.
I really confuse about your definition, please explain more!!!
Thanks so much.

login to reply
1 reply
0 votes
 
Reply To Comment
working...
 

Bo Bennett, PhD
Sunday, February 26, 2017 - 06:04:06 AM
The two fallacies are similar. Ignoring exceptions is, in a sense, oversimplification. This could be seen as a more specific form of that fallacy where an exception to a rule is ignored or overlooked.

login to reply
 
0 votes
 
Reply To Comment
working...

skips777
Saturday, December 17, 2016 - 02:21:09 PM
Example 2 isn't even remotely a correct example of what thou shalt not bear false witness entails. If a neighbor asks you a question or makes an assertion in which there is a truthful answer the commandment is not violated if an individual decides to not answer the question in the affirmative or a denial. This seems to be fallacious reasoning by implying the commandment only has two choices a person can make, that's a false dichotomy. Not answering or telling the neighbor "it is none of their business" or etc is also a viable response that is involved. You imply "thou shalt answer everything your neighbor asks you" is included in the definition of the commandment. It is not.

login to reply
1 reply
0 votes
 
Reply To Comment
working...
 

Bo Bennett, PhD
Saturday, December 17, 2016 - 02:28:37 PM
Example 2 isn't even remotely a correct example of what thou shalt not bear false witness entails.
If this were Sunday school, you would have a good basis for an argument. However, the fictional characters in my fictional examples only need to make claims—they are often fallacious... thus the point of the example. Again, "I" don't imply anything... the character in the example is the one doing all the implying.

login to reply
 
0 votes
 
Reply To Comment
working...


Become a Logical Fallacy Master. Choose Your Poison.

Logically Fallacious is one of the most comprehensive collections of logical fallacies with all original examples and easy to understand descriptions; perfect for educators, debaters, or anyone who wants to improve his or her reasoning skills.

Get the book, Logically Fallacious by Bo Bennett, PhD by selecting one of the following options:


Not Much of a Reader? No Problem!

Enroll in the Mastering Logical Fallacies Online Course. Over 10 hours of video and interactive learning. Go beyond the book!

Enroll in the Fallacy-A-Day Passive Course. Sit back and learn fallacies the easy way—in just a few minutes per day, via e-mail delivery.

Have a podcast or know someone who does? Putting on a conference? Dr. Bennett is available for interviews and public speaking events. Contact him directly here.


About Archieboy Holdings, LLC. Privacy Policy Other Books Written by Bo
 Website Design and Software Copyright 2017, Archieboy Holdings, LLC.