Question

...
Tamara

Does objection to oversight suggest guilt?

In the company of parents whose children attend public school, a homeschooling parent objects to proposed legislation that would require homeschooling families to submit to state monitoring for signs of child abuse. Public school parents deduce that said parent must abuse his/her children.

Clearly a fallacy. Does it have a name?
asked on Friday, Feb 02, 2018 08:04:34 PM by Tamara

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
Does objection to oversight suggest guilt? Not necessarily, but it is more evidence for guilt than against it. To claim that the parents "must" be guilty is certainly fallacious. To say that it does raise a red flag is certainly reasonable. I can't think of any named fallacy for this.
answered on Friday, Feb 02, 2018 08:40:49 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Comments

...
Jordan Pine
0
I see several potential fallacies. The professor will correct me if I’m wrong:

A priori - assuming from previous knowledge that state monitoring is beneficial/does what it claims to do (core issue)
Dicto simpliciter - along similar lines, there are implied sweeping generalizations here about state oversight and homeschooling parents
Quaterio Terminorum - the fourth term invalidates the syllogism because all parents who reject state oversight are not child abusers
(Or maybe it’s just an invalid syllogism with three terms?)
Argumentum ad Populum - appeal to the common belief that state oversight is something good and, perhaps, that homeschooling is something bad

My top guess is some form of an invalid syllogism. There is another type of fallacy that seems relevant but doesn’t quite fit. It’s the logical trap called a “false dilemma” or “false dichotomy” where only two options are envisioned and that blinds the arguer to other possibilities. Here there is only one possibility argued, which is blinding the arguer to other possibilities.

Whatever the case, it’s terrible deductive reasoning! I’m a fan of Doyle and this reminds me of the type of sloppy ‘Lestrade reasoning’ that Holmes would often mock. Hey, let’s coin a fallacy that describes jumping to poorly supported conclusions called Lestrade Reasoning! Only we will know we made it up! :-)
answered on Saturday, Feb 03, 2018 07:56:31 AM by Jordan Pine

Comments

...
Jordan Pine
0
Speaking of jumping to conclusions, that’s a fallacy:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/114/Jumping-to-Conclusions
answered on Saturday, Feb 03, 2018 08:02:05 AM by Jordan Pine

Comments