Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Grow Intellectually by Taking Dr. Bo's Online Courses
Dr. Bo is creating online courses in the area of critical thinking, reason, science, psychology, philosophy, and well-being. These courses are self-paced and presented in small, easy-to-digest nuggets of information. Use the code FALLACYFRIENDS to get 25% off any or all of Dr. Bo's courses.
Not a fallacy. There is no requirement of consciousness / volition to be a cause. Lightning can cause a tree to catch on fire... Zeus not needed :)
answered on Sunday, Mar 17, 2019 07:47:25 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD
Comments
Bill
0
I agree w/ Dr. Bennett. Inanimate objects and social forces can be causes. Many of these statements are truncated and might be more clearly expressed, i.e., "High poverty rates cause high crime rates."
But you are asking a metaphysical question, not a logical question.
answered on Monday, Mar 18, 2019 08:52:21 AM by Bill
Comments
mchasewalker
0
I'm struggling with the selected definiens for Poverty, Drugs, Wealth, Fatty food, and Money as "entities", and even though you aptly describe them as objects, conditions or concepts without volition and consciousness, I'm wondering if they still qualify as entities?
According to Merriam- Webster the definition for Entity is: 1a: BEING, EXISTENCE especially: independent, separate, or self-contained existence b: the existence of a thing as contrasted with its attributes 2: something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality
However conceptual or abstract, are any of these conditions self-contained, separate or independent of a myriad of other contributing social factors? Doesn't the use of the word 'entity' therefore itself suggest agency or at least some sort of Oversimplified Cause Fallacy?
Here's Dr. Bo's description:
Oversimplified Cause Fallacy Description: When a contributing factor is assumed to be the cause, or when a complex array of causal factors is reduced to a single cause. It is a form of simplistic thinking that implies something is either a cause, or it is not. It overlooks the important fact that, especially when referring to human behavior, causes are very complex and multi-dimensional.
Logical Form:
X is a contributing factor to Y. X and Y are present. Therefore, to remove Y, remove X.
Example #1:
P1. Lead poisoning can contribute to violent behavior.
P2. Many inner-city children have dangerous levels of lead in their blood. C. Therefore, violent crime in the inner city can be solved by curing the lead problem.
Explanation: We already established that lead poisoning can contribute to violent behavior (note the probabilistic language). This means that there is some unspecified chance. We are taking an unreasonable leap in suggesting that violent crime can be solved (binary language) by curing the lead problem. And, in case you missed it, there is question begging here in assuming that violent behavior leads to violent crime.
answered on Tuesday, Mar 19, 2019 12:12:32 PM by mchasewalker
Comments
warning Help is Here!
warning Whoops!
You have one or more errors in this form. After you close this notice, please scroll through this form and correct the specific errors.