|
|
Fallacy of misapplied modelIs there a fallacy where we apply a certain model or theory to a situation it does not apply to?
I'm thinking here about the concept of 'domains of validity,' wherein a scientific model is predictive at one scale or in certain circumstances but may not apply on other scales or in other circumstances, and so lead to erroneous conclusions and failed predictions. Depending on the answers I get, I will provide an example to illustrate. I actually have another more specific question regarding this fallacy, but first I'm just checking with you all to see if I'm on the right track or not. |
| asked on Wednesday, Mar 06, 2019 05:17:07 AM by Daniel | |
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.
|
|
There is the ludic fallacy, which is the incorrect application of games to model real life situations. It like trying to apply a situation with controlled factors to a dynamic environment with uncertainty and risk.Might be useful, but misleading.
|
| answered on Wednesday, Mar 06, 2019 05:27:57 AM by Alan |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
It might depend on the particular misapplication you have in mind; so examples would be appreciated.
I think you're likely dealing with equivocation, in particular you have a theory/model which applies to all X, and you have a case in front of you which you say is an X, but that is not really an X of the relevant sort. The equivocation is that both the set of applicable cases and your case might be called X, but aren't the same at all. |
| answered on Thursday, Mar 07, 2019 11:23:33 AM by Keith Curley |
Comments |
|
| |
