|
|
Did I classify the fallacy correctly?Hey Is it a ''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' fallacy when someone states for example: ''CIA has ties with Amazon, therefore Amazon Echo is spying on people'', or is this another fallacy?
|
| asked on Wednesday, Jan 03, 2018 07:57:29 AM by Warpdrive1 | |
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."
Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.
This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book.
|
|
The format for that fallacy is "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." In this case, we aren't really talking about causes and events; we are talking about drawing an unsubstantiated conclusion from a premise. I would say that this is more of a Non Sequitur or even simply an unsubstantiated claim if we don't accept that the CIA has ties with Amazon. |
| answered on Wednesday, Jan 03, 2018 08:20:05 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
|
|
While I agree completely with Bo's analysis, this fallacy lends itself to further fleshing out.
First, I would characterize this fallacy as follows: " If propositions x and y cannot both be true, then x and y MUST each be false. " Two possible contingencies exist (will use examples to illustrate each). 1. X = All dogs are reptiles Y= All dogs are insects Propositions X and Y cannot both be true, and each proposition separately is false. (If this were the only possibility, no fallacy would exist.) 2. X= All dogs are mammals Y= All dogs are reptiles Again, Propositions X &Y cannot both be true, however, Propositions X IS true, while Y is not. Thus, this contingency illustrates the fallacy of the original statement. In the real-world example cited by the OP, there are of course numerous religions, however, this principle remains intact, and the atheist s proposition is fallacious. |
| answered on Friday, Jan 05, 2018 11:09:26 AM by modelerr |
Comments |
|
| |