|
|
What is this fallacy: two things have one (or few) thing(s) in common and you expect them to be the same?I heard it this morning,
A man claims that pornography is art for two reasons. 1. Leonardo made naked statues / Porn has naked people 2. People pay to see them / People pay to see porn 3. Leonardo made art, and porn has two of the same characteristics. 3. Therefore porn is art. I would argue that porn is not art, for several reasons. Despite the fact that these few things are common, it does not make the two equal. Another example would be: "Both milk and urine are simply fluids from animals". The claim is true, but it does not justify you to put urine and milk to the same category. -> The other one is meant for nourishment, the other one for garbage (C.S.Lewis). What is this fallacy? (one thing in common, does not mean two things are the same) |
| asked on Sunday, Oct 11, 2015 03:52:39 PM by Joni | |
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."
Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
Well I know there is a thing called false analogy fallacy. But as far as the art moniker. Lets put it this way. I went to an art exhibit and "competition" in Miami Fla. In the late 80s. First place was a mannequin painter painting a wall and it had splattered paint on the figure, the wall, and drop cloth. Second place was an actual Dali inspired type "melting" figures in nature oil painting. A brilliant work actually reflective of artistic talent. Third place was, and I kid you not, a Campbell's soup can in a large zip lock bag hanging on the wall. It was selling for 3000 bucks. Oh the can was dented if that matters and I'm pretty sure there wasn't a Warhol signature anywhere. So, basically I decided from that moment on everything is apparently art....lol
|
| answered on Monday, Oct 12, 2015 12:30:36 AM by Joni |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
The problem I see here is not only the content fallacy per se but also the lack of definition for both "art" and "pornography". Only after we clearly defined the concepts - by specifying the necessary and sufficient conditions (upon which we agree) - we can evaluate arguments of this kind.
In my view, the argument (aside from committing the bad analogy fallacy) contains the some/all confusion . Is all/some pornography art? |
| answered on Monday, Oct 12, 2015 11:59:24 AM by Sergiu |
Comments |
|
| |