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