Question

...
Dr. Beach

Making assumptions about the cognitive capacities of others

There is a class of logical fallacies involving the illegitimate attribution of rational ability, comprehension, or belief to others. I believe this sort of fallacy has a familiar name in the literature, but I've forgotten what it is. It is somewhat similar to the Intensional Fallacy, or the Hooded Man Fallacy, but not quite the same. Here is an example:

Paul knows (or believes) that Trump is guilty of abusing his power as POTUS.
Anyone guilty of abusing his power as POTUS should be impeached.
Therefore, Paul knows (or believes) that Trump should be impeached.



asked on Tuesday, Dec 10, 2019 11:15:45 AM by Dr. Beach

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
This would fall under a bad assumption or faulty premise. The argument itself is valid, Paul could believe what he wants. What were are objecting to is the process by which Paul formed his beliefs, which is more of a deep dive in epistemology rather than something to do with fallacies. We can make assumptions about the cognitive capacities of others; this is not fallacious. Again, it is the process by which we make those assumptions that can be accurate or not accurate, or the reasons we give for our assumptions could be fallacious. For example, "I think Trump is a moron because he plays golf too much." This would be a non-sequitur because his playing golf too much has no reasonable connection to cognitive capacity.

{date-time stamp}Wednesday, Dec 11, 2019 02:34 PM{/date-time stamp}

Read Edward's comment below. I read this too quickly and did not consider what was being argued.
answered on Tuesday, Dec 10, 2019 11:22:42 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Comments