M
MarcoPolo
Guest
What fallacy involves a subtle switch based on the original premise? For example:
Simon loves cars.
Therefore, Simon loves to drive cars.
Simon loves cars.
Therefore, Simon loves to drive cars.
- Status
P
Porknpie
Guest
Simon loves cars.
Therefore, Simon loves to drive cars.
Guess only…appeal to probability.
Fyi, was in Naperville last night…
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
Close, but this fallacy does not quite fit, at least not in the classical sense. The premise (Simon loves cars) does not state anything probable (ie, something which could be true by degrees). We infer the probability in our mind, but it is not stated in the premise, so it is not part of the fallacy (regardless of how natural our own inference might seem).
But I think it’s the best answer we’re gonna get. I got nuthin.
T
thenobes
Guest
Sounds like a categorical error where loving cars is assumed to be equivalent to loving cars and anything associated with them.
peace
steve
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
What do you all think of this:
Fallacy of Division:
The object O has the property P.
Therefore, all of the parts of O have the property P.
(Where the property P is one which does not distribute from a whole to its parts.)
It’s not quite a perfect fit, but it’s more like Simon loves cars is the premise, where driving cars would be a sub-division of cars as a whole.
Fallacy of Division:
The object O has the property P.
Therefore, all of the parts of O have the property P.
(Where the property P is one which does not distribute from a whole to its parts.)
It’s not quite a perfect fit, but it’s more like Simon loves cars is the premise, where driving cars would be a sub-division of cars as a whole.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Conflation?
M
MichaelHowling
Guest
hasty generalization… the idea that everyone who loves cars loves to drive them ?
C
Cricket123
Guest
Looks like a species of non sequitur to me. The conclusion just doesn’t follow from the premise.
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
Oh, duh - of course! The conclusion is related to the premise, but is not established by it.
Classic.
B
Byrnwiga
Guest
The class of fallacies would related to immediate inferences
F
Fr_of_Jazz
Guest
Well, it’s not a syllogism since a syllogism must have three and only three terms and three and only three propositions. So one cannot claim the conclusion was arrived at by formal inference.
As it is phrased, it is also not any fallacy in the language.
So that leaves us with material fallacies.
How about the fallacy of jumping to a conclusion: arguing from premises that are insufficient as evidence to prove the conclusion.
Non sequitur would seem to make sense except for the fact that all fallacies are non sequiturs.
R
raikou
Guest
My guess is also non sequitur.
But then again, the statement must be true. If you loved cars, you would love to drive them. If you didn’t love to drive a car, then you really haven’t loved a car, just an aspect of it.
Now I’m just trying to mess things up.
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
I’m not a big fan of cars in general, but I love the Batmobile (from the original Adam West TV series). I’m currently building a scale model of the Batmobile (which I requested from my family as a birthday gift).
But I have no hope of actually driving it. I can love something that I cannot operate.
In this case, the more-specific logical construct goes like this:
David loves the Batmobile (true).
Therefore, David loves driving the Batmobile (I wish).
Nope, doesn’t work.
(I also love WW2 battleships, and have been building (for years) a 1/350 scale *USS Missouri *(BB-63, Iowa Class). I have stood on her teak deck (the second such deck that was installed), but I have never operated the Missouri (which is probably a good thing, because she would probably just be grounded again)).
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
It is an incomplete argument. And thus, not a logical argument. The argument goes like this:
A is true
Therefore B is true.
The conclusion is not logical since we have not drawn any relationship between A and B.
I think the underlying assumption is a form of the non sequitur fallacy specifically called ‘appeal to probability’ where it takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).
You can see the fallacy in the underlying assumptions of the argument if I change the argument as follows
Premise 2 and 3 can both be substantiated directly through observation. Premise 1 is a general statement that is probably true for most people who love cars. However, it is not necessarily true for all persons since all you need is one person who loves cars but doesn’t love to drive them to prove it is false. It is possible that a person could love cars but not love to drive them. For instance, someone who is a really bad driver could love cars but be too scared to actually drive one. Thus, we have thought of a scenario that disproves statement 1 as being true in every case. So the fallacy here is a hasty generalization with incomplete statistics. So we can change our argument to as follows.
A is true
Therefore B is true.
The conclusion is not logical since we have not drawn any relationship between A and B.
I think the underlying assumption is a form of the non sequitur fallacy specifically called ‘appeal to probability’ where it takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).
You can see the fallacy in the underlying assumptions of the argument if I change the argument as follows
- All persons who love cars also love to drive them.
- Simon loves cars.
- Simon is a person.
- Therefore, Simon loves to drive cars.
Premise 2 and 3 can both be substantiated directly through observation. Premise 1 is a general statement that is probably true for most people who love cars. However, it is not necessarily true for all persons since all you need is one person who loves cars but doesn’t love to drive them to prove it is false. It is possible that a person could love cars but not love to drive them. For instance, someone who is a really bad driver could love cars but be too scared to actually drive one. Thus, we have thought of a scenario that disproves statement 1 as being true in every case. So the fallacy here is a hasty generalization with incomplete statistics. So we can change our argument to as follows.
- It is probable that a person who loves cars also loves to drive them.
- Simon loves cars.
- Simon is a person.
- Therefore, it is probable that Simon loves to drive cars.
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
I would say that is not exactly the case here. Fallacy of division is assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts. Simon is not a part of something that is true that we are equating with here. The fallacy here is in generalizing that all car lovers love to drive. So it is really the opposite. We are generalizing from one or a few instances to the whole. Whereas the fallacy of division is starting from something that is true for the whole and then going to the specific case and saying then it must therefore be true for each part or parts of of the whole.
An example of the fallacy of division is “The ball is blue, therefore the atoms that make it up are also blue.”
A
Aloysium
Guest
The fallacy is in the statement that Simon Loves cars.
He has not had to deal with a certain car that is in my possession and keeps gobbling down money.
It’s a classic and it therefore has classic problems.
I have loved this car and now I hate it.
I believe that Simon would hate it too, once he got to know it.
I don’t know who it was that determined that Simon loves cars, but if he thinks that Simon would love this car, he would be mistaken.
BTW, the car is not working at the moment; even if Simon were delirious and did love this car, he would not love pushing it.
grumble, grumble, grumble . . .
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
All good feedback. Let me get more specific and tell you the parallel argument that drove me to ask this.
We hear people who are pro-gay “marriage” argue that “God loves everyone.” And they say this because they are suggesting that therefore we must condone everyone’s behavior. You see the switch from “everyone” to “everyone’s behavior.”
We hear people who are pro-gay “marriage” argue that “God loves everyone.” And they say this because they are suggesting that therefore we must condone everyone’s behavior. You see the switch from “everyone” to “everyone’s behavior.”
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
I would say that is equivocation. That is equating loving everyone with loving everyone’s behavior.
Another thing that comes to mind is that in our culture it is generally accepted that homosexuals are born that way and there is nothing they can do to change. Thus, if God is a loving God they would reason, then he would accept them as they are. And that means accepting their behavior they reason. However, Scripture and Tradition affirms that Homosexual acts are gravely disordered and sin. Therefore, it can’t be true that Homosexuals have no choice but to act on their urges. Otherwise, God would be unfair in judging them.
What they are doing is called rationalization. We all do it to justify our favorite sins.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I think this may be the closest. As someone suggested above there is some overlap in arguments. Thanks for feedback.
- Status