Question

...
noblenutria@gmail.com

Beliefs of member of group are not representative of beliefs of all members.

My dad told me a story once where he met a gay guy who told him that he only became gay because he could not convince any women to date him. Then for decades after that he thought that all gay people were gay because they all first failed with women.

So lets just focus on the fallacies my dad made and not the fallacies of the gay guy. Which specific fallacies are at work here?

The stereotype fallacy. That one is pretty obvious.

What about the fallacy of composition? This one seems similar to the stereotype fallacy, maybe to the extent that the stereotype fallacy is a set contained within the fallacy of composition.

How about this? This is the same but different. A man belonging to race X proclaims A, B, and C. The man asserts that all members of race X believe A, B, and C. The audience believes him, but man of race X is either mistaken of lying. It is true that a small number of race X believe A, B, and C, but they are in a small minority. The majority of race X believes D, E, and F.

Which fallacies are these?
asked on Thursday, Apr 19, 2018 10:13:51 PM by noblenutria@gmail.com

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 most obvious to me is the Hasty Generalization , which is drawing a conclusion based on a small sample size, rather than looking at statistics that are much more in line with the typical or average situation.

More importantly, this kind of thinking is the antithesis of scientific inquiry.

answered on Friday, Apr 20, 2018 06:00:56 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
mchasewalker
0
Essentially, Dad was provided an anecdotal story (opinion) that played off his own Confirmation Bias about gay people. He then projected that bias to gay men in general as a Part-to-Whole Fallacious deduction.
answered on Friday, Apr 20, 2018 12:07:24 PM by mchasewalker

Comments