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...


Welcome! This is the place to ask the community of experts and other fallacyophites (I made up that word) if someone has a committed a fallacy or not. This is a great way to settle a dispute! This is also the home of the "Mastering Logical Fallacies" student support.


Dr. Bo's Criteria for Logical Fallacies:

  1. It must be an error in reasoning not a factual error.
  2. It must be commonly applied to an argument either in the form of the argument or in the interpretation of the argument.
  3. It must be deceptive in that it often fools the average adult.

Therefore, we will define a logical fallacy as a concept within argumentation that commonly leads to an error in reasoning due to the deceptive nature of its presentation. Logical fallacies can comprise fallacious arguments that contain one or more non-factual errors in their form or deceptive arguments that often lead to fallacious reasoning in their evaluation.

Contact Form



Send me a copy of this message
Send Message sending message...

Q&A Home Question

0

votes

image loading...
David Blomstrom
Political Activist & Student of Mind Control

Seasoned Vet

image loading...

David Blomstrom

Political Activist & Student of Mind Control

Seasoned Vet

About David Blomstrom

I'm Seattle's only political activist - and, no, that isn't an arrogant statement; it's just the sad truth.
Sun, Oct 13, 2019 - 12:23 AM

Does a pattern constitute evidence, logic or both?

Before they unraveled the secrets of DNA, scientists used a variety of patterns to help them classify living things. These patterns included similarities in appearance and behavior, similar range, and relationships reconstructed from the fossil record.

People also focus on patterns in help them understand the social sciences. For example, the strong have been preying on the weak since time immemorial. Another pattern some have noticed is that the media like to release potentially embarrassing stories on a Friday or Saturday, when many people are too busy enjoying the weekend to pay attention to the news.

Suppose someone invokes such a pattern in claiming that a theory is credible, or plausible. For example, "Its bone structure, combined with the location where its fossils are most common, suggest that this bird is related to the ostrich."

From the political arena: "What a coincidence that this story - which is really pretty sensational - was buried in the middle of the paper on Saturday morning, huh? Having witnessed this type of thing more times than I can count, I smell a cover up."

Would you say that either or both statements are based on evidence, logic, a combination of the two or something else entirely?



Quick Comment On This Question (no login required):
Your comment below will be anonymously sent to the question owner, it will not be posted, and you will not get a response.

Send Comment sending comment...

2 Answers

0

votes

image loading...
William Harpine, Ph.D.

Master Contributor

image loading...

William Harpine, Ph.D.


Master Contributor

About William Harpine, Ph.D.

Sorry, this user has not created a bio yet.
Print Sun, Oct 13, 2019 - 08:37 AM
Based on my knowledge of the media (I'm a retired communication professor), the news outlets do not delay stories to the weekend. Pretty much never. A reporter makes his/her reputation by getting a scoop, by reporting stories as fast as possible before other reporters can beat them to the punch. To a reporter or editor, to delay a story is the kiss of death.

Much more likely is that politicians and businesses like to release bad news at the start of the weekend, hoping that their mistakes will be reported less enthusiastically.

So, you are committing the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. That is, you are using coincidence to deduce a cause and effect relationship that doesn't exist.


Quick Comment On This Answer (no login required):
Your comment below will be anonymously sent to the answer owner, it will not be posted, and you will not get a response.

Send Comment sending comment...

2

votes

image loading...
Bo Bennett, PhD
Author of Logically Fallacious

Moderator

image loading...

Bo Bennett, PhD

Author of Logically Fallacious

Moderator

About Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo's personal motto is "Expose an irrational belief, keep a person rational for a day. Expose irrational thinking, keep a person rational for a lifetime."  Much of his charitable work is in the area of education—not teaching people what to think, but how to think.  His projects include his book, The Concept: A Critical and Honest Look at God and Religion, and Logically Fallacious, the most comprehensive collection of logical fallacies.  Bo's personal blog is called Relationship With Reason, where he writes about several topics related to critical thinking.  His secular (humanistic) philosophy is detailed at PositiveHumanism.com.
Bo is currently the producer and host of The Humanist Hour, the official broadcast of the American Humanist Association, where he can be heard weekly discussing a variety of humanistic issued, mostly related to science, psychology, philosophy, and critical thinking.

Full bio can be found at http://www.bobennett.com
Print Sun, Oct 13, 2019 - 07:11 AM
Let's start with your general question:

Does a pattern constitute evidence, logic or both?

In order to avoid the begging the question fallacy, you should add "or neither" as well :)

A pattern could often be considered evidence, and the strength of the evidence depends on the details as well as what the pattern is being considered evidence for. To use your examples,

1) A "pattern" of physical characteristics to classify organisms sounds a bit like we are shoehorning the word "pattern" in here. It doesn't quite fit the definition. We are referring more to common characteristics.

2) The media releasing stories on weekends they want to "cover up." Be careful not to overreach here. By this, I mean if what you perceive as an "embarrassing story" is run on the weekend, all we can conclude at this point is that what you perceive as an "embarrassing story" is run on the weekend, not that a "cover up" has occurred. Not yet. But here is where the patterns come in...

First, we need to make sure we have a reliable metric for what we consider an "embarrassing story." Then, we need to avoid the confirmation bias and make sure we have a good understanding of how often these embarrassing stories are run during the week versus on weekends. It might be the case that "embarrassing stories" are more for weekends (puff pieces) due to more important news during the week. In other words, a pattern such as this would be evidence for good publishing practice rather than anything nefarious. No doubt there are media sources with political bias, so for example, if MSNBC consistently (pattern) runs dirt about Trump during the week and Fox News holds those stories for the weekend, we can reasonably conclude (evidence) that we are witnessing bias (not really a "cover up"), but we cannot be sure whose bias at this point (likely a bit of both parties). Perhaps if one did have a media source that they felt was neutral, this can be a 3rd data point to see where the bias is.

As for logic, in the informal sense, extracting evidence from patterns is a logical process, as is knowing the that we have a tendency to see patterns where there are none (some much more than others - this is usually referred to as a pattern-seeking bias or Apophenia). In a sense, "patterns" occur all the time in randomness (e.g., if you roll a die a 1000 times, it is a statistical certainty that you will get a long string of the same numbers). The real power of logic and reason is knowing when inferring meaning or agency behind the pattern is justified.
Bo Bennett, PhD
Social Scientist, Business Consultant
Consulting > https://scroops.com/Lm5XFu
About My Businesses > http://www.archieboy.com
About Me > http://www.bobennett.com
Books I’ve Written > https://tinyurl.com/bosbooks
Courses I Teach > https://tinyurl.com/boscourses
Podcasts I Host > https://tinyurl.com/bospodcasts


Quick Comment On This Answer (no login required):
Your comment below will be anonymously sent to the answer owner, it will not be posted, and you will not get a response.

Send Comment sending comment...

Registered User Comments

David Blomstrom
Sunday, October 13, 2019 - 11:03:47 AM
@William Harpine, Ph.D.: Good comment. However, the government and media do have a rather incestuous relationship. I can name several reporters and "journalists" right here in Seattle who got elected to government positions, went to work for big, corrupt corporations or the Seattle School District, etc. I guess it would be more accurate to say the government, corporate sector and media all have various strategies for burying embarrassing news stories, from simply not reporting it to burying it under the "Donald Trump Did Something Stupid" headline to publishing it over the weekend.

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



About Archieboy Holdings, LLC. Privacy Policy Other Books Written by Bo
 Website Software Copyright 2019, Archieboy Holdings, LLC.