|
|
Damn Company Z for saying their product doesn't contain poison!Corporation X produces a chemical called HealthyYou that hasn't been thoroughly tested. There is growing evidence that it may be harmful to both human health and the environment, but the government does all it can to suppress such evidence.
Some food companies respond by putting the following message on their products: "Does not contain HealthyYou." Some may even raise the price, figuring people will be willing to pay more for healthy produce. People who promote HealthyYou fire back by charging that these food companies are exploiting people's fear and paranoia, further claiming that scientists have given HealthyYou their seal of approval. What they don't mention is that only a subset of scientists, funded by corporations, have endorsed HealthyYou; most scientists think HealthyYou is dangerous. What kind of fallacy is it when you claim that a product that advertises the fact that it doesn't contain something that might be harmful is an example of exploitation? If it isn't a fallacy at all, then what would you call it? |
| asked on Monday, Feb 05, 2018 06:19:13 PM by David Blomstrom | |
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.
|
|
...but the government does all it can to suppress such evidence. I hope this is just a hypothetical-world example where governments often side with corporations and have the censorship power to silence tens of thousands of academic (private and public) institutions, competing government agencies, and individuals all over the world. What kind of fallacy is it when you claim that a product that advertises the fact that it doesn't contain something that might be harmful is an example of exploitation? If something *might be harmful* but the evidence for it being harmful is not well established, then this is a case of the companies using fear to sell more product ("exploitation" might be too harsh of a word.) Through confirmation bias, it is not unreasonable to expect that the companies will really believe they are doing the right thing and the HealthyYou company would be correct in pointing it out. Now, if something *certainly is harmful* beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e. a clear and unambiguous scholarly, global consensus) and the companies are warning the public but the HealthyYou company is accusing the companies of dishonest marketing, then this is simply an unethical, dishonest, and shitty (technical term) practice. |
| answered on Monday, Feb 05, 2018 07:59:44 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
If most scientists think HealthyYou is harmful, then advertising your product doesn't contain it isn't exploitation, it's good marketing! Meanwhile, by only citing the corporately funded studies that say it's fine, Corporation X is engaging in Cherry Picking.
The question, I think, is: Corporation X calls the other companies' practices exploitative. Is this a specific fallacy? I don't think it is, but like Bo said, it is shitty. |
| answered on Tuesday, Feb 06, 2018 04:44:02 AM by Jim Cliff |
Comments |
|
| |