Question

...
JT Hendrickson

I didn't need it when i was a kid

Person A claims kids need x
Person b says they didn't need it when they were a kid so they don't need it.

I think this is appeal to tradition of argue from ignorance, but I'm not too sure.
asked on Friday, Nov 02, 2018 02:01:16 PM by JT Hendrickson

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."

Master the "Rules of Reason" for Making and Evaluating Claims

Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.

This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book

Take the Online Course

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
0

This could also be a form of the historian's fallacy. However, I think the best match is simply the weak analogy.

answered on Friday, Nov 02, 2018 02:30:21 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
Abdulazeez
0
I think it is mostly a hasty generalization fallacy. The argument states that because I as a kid (one individual) didn't need X, therefore kids (in general) don't need X.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/100/Hasty-Generalization
answered on Saturday, Nov 03, 2018 04:08:35 AM by Abdulazeez

Comments

...
thbosscher
0
excuse my englisch and/or assumptions


if person A makes a generalization,
person B can react to the claim including the generelization. stating that kids dont "need" x

if you take it out of kontext, and look at person B's claim seperetly it could state, : kids "might not" need X

important is that person A isnt stating, witch kids need X, so calling person B on its generelization doesnt bring you to the primary fallacy.

in fact it seems that person B atempts to call person A on its fallacy (something with unprovided information i guess)

without B's information A would generalize.









answered on Saturday, Nov 03, 2018 01:46:39 PM by thbosscher

Comments

...
mchasewalker
0
So, essentially the argument is a rejection of an idea solely based on the age of the claimant?

Chronological Snobbery.
answered on Saturday, Nov 03, 2018 02:24:49 PM by mchasewalker

Comments

...
Philip
0

Sounds like an anecdotal fallacy to me

answered on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2021 12:35:11 PM by Philip

Philip Suggested These Categories

Comments