|
|
Is there a reverse of the anecdotal fallacy?###posting as DudleyDowell###
People say "Oh that's just anecdotal" as though that prevents it from being true. But it seems to me that although it isn't a formal study, it doesn't preclude it from possibly being true. |
| asked on Friday, Jul 07, 2017 02:29:31 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
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."
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.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
There is an anecdotal fallacy, but that is the opposite… it is when someone provides an anecdote as a way to suggest, imply, or directly claim that a general rule is true (e.g., “Smoking does not kill… My grandfather smoked and lived until 101”).
As for your example, it certainly is fallacious. Concluding that something *cannot* be not true because it is an anecdote, is poor reasoning. For example, people often use anecdotes to help others understand a known truth. Claiming that because an anecdote was used, the point it was supporting was fallacious is problematic (kind of rare, so that is why there is probably no name for this). Most people complain about anecdotes in that they are not proper support for a claim (which is true), they rarely reject the claim as a result of the anecdote. |
| answered on Friday, Jul 07, 2017 02:29:53 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD |
Comments |
|
| |
