Did I classify the fallacy correctly?

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."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

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