A Freeper's Introduction to Rhetoric (Part 8, Accident and Converse Accident)

Introduction to Logic | Irving M. Copi & Carl Cohen

[general_re]

Previous installments:

Part 1 - Introduction and the Argument From Ignorance
Part 2 - the Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
Part 3 - the Argument Ad Hominem
Part 4 - the Appeal to Force and the Appeal to Emotion
Part 5 - the Irrelevant Conclusion
Part 6 - Fallacies of Presumption and the Complex Question
Part 7 - False Cause and Begging the Question

[general_re]

Part 8. The fallacy of converse accident is also occasionally known as the "hasty generalization".

This closes the discussion of fallacies of presumption. Part 9 will begin the discussion of fallacies of ambiguity with an examination of the fallacy of equivocation.

[PatrickHenry]

PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]

[PatrickHenry]

It may be that the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is related to this "Accident" fallacy. The mistaken one declares (committing the fallacy of accident): "No Scotsman puts syrup on his haggis." When presented with the example of Angus MacPherson, who always puts syrup on his haggis, the mistaken one should simply recognize that he was wrong. But if he won't, then he compounds his original fallacy, and claims: "[Harrumph!] No true Scotsman puts syrup on his haggis."

[longshadow]

It may be that the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is related to this "Accident" fallacy. The mistaken one declares (committing the fallacy of accident): "No Scotsman puts syrup on his haggis."

Well, to be an example of the "Accident" Fallacy, there would have to be a preceding line of reasoning (which isn't there): "Andrew, Robert, and Charles are Scotsman; Andrew, Robert, and Charles don't put syrup on their haggis. Therefore, No Scotsman puts syrup on his haggis.....

But in the "No True Scotsman," the assertion is originally made gratuitously, hence it isn't the "Accident Fallacy".

I still believe it's a combination of equivocation ("Scotsman" is quickly redefined as "true Scotsman" to avoid refutation, which is clearly an example of equivocation) and petitio principii (one assumes that no real Scotsman wouls put syrup on his haggis in order to justify the equivocation of who is, or is not, a "Scotsman."

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[PatrickHenry]

Well, to be an example of the "Accident" Fallacy, there would have to be a preceding line of reasoning (which isn't there): "Andrew, Robert, and Charles are Scotsman; Andrew, Robert, and Charles don't put syrup on their haggis. Therefore, No Scotsman puts syrup on his haggis.....

Yeah. In my (admittedly sketchy) example I omitted the phrase which is usually understood in all blowhard declarations: "In my experience ..." which would have salvaged the situation; but still, your formulation is more rigorous.

But in the "No True Scotsman," the assertion is originally made gratuitously, hence it isn't the "Accident Fallacy".

No. I think "no true Scotsman" usually asserted as a hasty retreat from the original, all-inclusive claim ("no Scotsman"), once the original claim has been rebutted with a counter-example. Sort of a moving of the goalposts.

I still believe it's a combination of equivocation ("Scotsman" is quickly redefined as "true Scotsman" to avoid refutation, which is clearly an example of equivocation) and petitio principii (one assumes that no real Scotsman woul[d] put syrup on his haggis in order to justify the equivocation of who is, or is not, a "Scotsman."

Continue to contemplate, grasshopper.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[PatrickHenry]

Please consider posting the next installment (and all subseqent threads in this series) in the main forum, and when you do so, click on the "philosophy" topic category. I'm afraid that no one is noticing this stuff here in "Chat." This series is too good to be missed. And I promise not to nag you any more about this.

[longshadow]

****But in the "No True Scotsman," the assertion is originally made gratuitously, hence it isn't the "Accident Fallacy".****

No. I think "no true Scotsman" usually asserted as a hasty retreat from the original, all-inclusive claim ("no Scotsman"), once the original claim has been rebutted with a counter-example. Sort of a moving of the goalposts.

Allow me to rephrase mu original statement, thusly: "But in the "No True Scotsman," the original assertion [meaning "No scotsman would..."] is originally made gratuitously, hence it isn't the "Accident Fallacy," as it is not asserted as having followed from some general principle.

We are in agreement on the balance of your analysis: it IS "goal post moving" -- which I call a form of equivocation in this instance, one which is rationalized by begging the question of just what a "true Scotsman" would or would not do. Please accept my apologies for the lack of clarity in my previous reply.

[PatrickHenry]

Please accept my apologies for the lack of clarity in my previous reply.

No true participant in the evolution threads would ever apologize for anything. Nor, in this case, is an apology required anyway. We're in agreement, and that's what counts.

[Doctor Stochastic]

A mathematician examines all numbers up to 99 and clams all numbers are less than 100.

Physicist divides 60 by 1,2,3,4,5,6 and concludes 60 is divisible by all numbers. Then because of shortage of funding, a check of 10,12,15,20,30 is made for confirmation.

An engineer checks, 1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is prime, 11 is prime, 13 is prime and concludes that all numbers are prime (9 must be an experimental error.)

A computer scientist concludes 7 is prime, 7 is prime, 7 is prime, 7 is prime....

[sauropod]

read later.

[longshadow]

No true participant in the evolution threads would ever apologize for anything.

Okay; you're a poopy-head!

;-)

[PatrickHenry]

Okay; you're a poopy-head!

I can't deny it.

[LisaMalia]

I think I'll just hang out here awhile and try to absorb all the big words!

[PatrickHenry]

No guarantee that they're being used correctly.

[LisaMalia]

Oh, I'm sure they are.

[LisaMalia]

I just ready your profile. Do I need to sign something to be here...?......:)

[LisaMalia]

*read*....so much for the preview option!