Question

...
Warpdrive1

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."

Reason: Books I & II

This book is based on the first five years of The Dr. Bo Show, where Bo takes a critical thinking-, reason-, and science-based approach to issues that matter with the goal of educating and entertaining. Every chapter in the book explores a different aspect of reason by using a real-world issue or example.

Part one is about how science works even when the public thinks it doesn't. Part two will certainly ruffle some feathers by offering a reason- and science-based perspective on issues where political correctness has gone awry. Part three provides some data-driven advice for your health and well-being. Part four looks at human behavior and how we can better navigate our social worlds. In part five we put on our skeptical goggles and critically examine a few commonly-held beliefs. In the final section, we look at a few ways how we all can make the world a better place.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
0

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.

Logical Form:

Claim A is made (''CIA has ties with Amazon")
Evidence is presented for claim A (none is here, but if we can assume we agree that the CIA has ties with Amazon...)
Therefore, claim C is true ("Amazon Echo is spying on people'') -> Say what? We took a huge leap that would require many supporting facts. We simply skipped those steps.
answered on Wednesday, Jan 03, 2018 08:20:05 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
modelerr
0
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