I've looked all over "logical fallacy" sites and I can't find an answer to my question, so maybe someone here can help me...

Ok, so the fallacy goes something like this: Person A fails to disagree with a statement, so Person B decides that Person A must agree with the statement, or vice versa (Person A fails to agree with a statement, so Person B decides that Person A must disagree with the statement).

Example (and it is only an example):
Person B: I think stem cell research should be publically funded because it will save so many innocent lives!
Person A: Publically funding stem cell research will further expand our huge national deficit. (or Person A could remain silent, and still render the following response)
Person B: OMG YOU'RE AGAINST SAVING INNOCENT LIVES!!!!!11

Just because Person A does not specifically say that they are in favor of saving innocent lives, does not mean that Person A is AGAINST saving innocent lives.

It reminds me of the movie "Head of State" when the attack ads pointed out that one of the candidates hadn't attended an anti-cancer rally, so that candidate was painted as "Pro-Cancer."

I mean, I would call this just being retarded, but it seems that there must be a name for the fallacy.

Any help? Especially from soap boxers?

7/19/2006 10:11:38 PM

At first I thought you were talking about the one where "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense," but after actually reading the post I want to say that this is pretty similar to the leap in logic fallacy. I could be wrong, though, but I say leap in logic because Person A assumes that Person B must agree just because they do not explicitly say that they disagree.

I will do more research to be sure.

[Edited on July 19, 2006 at 10:22 PM. Reason : blah]

7/19/2006 10:22:05 PM

There are a few problems.
First off I don't there is an actual argument in there. Person B is talking about stem cell research saving lives, person A is talking about stem cell research causing further debt.

Also, the two statements you offer for person A are slightly different. The mistakes are somewhat different.

(if there were an argument) I'm pretty sure the the first ex. you gave is a Non sequitur fallacy.

[Edited on July 19, 2006 at 10:49 PM. Reason : .]

7/19/2006 10:22:58 PM

I was thinking false dilemma on the part of Person B:

-Public funds go to either (1) stem cell research or (2) reducing the budget.
-Person A wants the funds used to reduce the budget => he must be against stem cell research.

Obviously, there are more that two choices for where money goes. And, as ^ said, there's not much arguing going on there.

7/19/2006 10:52:20 PM

it was just an example to help explain... I guess it didn't help some people much...

Maybe we can just go with the first part of the post until I can think up a less complicated example (although the cancer one is similar).

[Edited on July 19, 2006 at 11:00 PM. Reason : I really dfon't care about stem cell research, it was just an example.]

7/19/2006 10:59:19 PM

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

7/19/2006 11:06:10 PM

I don't like your stem cell example, but using your movie example...
A=not attending an anti-cancer rally
B=being Pro-Cancer

if A then B, B so then A

so in this case it would indeed be affirming the consequent

7/19/2006 11:10:05 PM

I recant, that's the right fallacy using the movie example.

But does the movie example really represent

Quote :

"Person A fails to disagree with a statement, so Person B decides that Person A must agree with the statement, or vice versa (Person A fails to agree with a statement, so Person B decides that Person A must disagree with the statement)."

.

[Edited on July 19, 2006 at 11:28 PM. Reason : but]

7/19/2006 11:12:53 PM

^^ thank you. After looking it up, that sounds right.

Yay!

^_^

btw: I didn't like the stem cell example either, but I was having trouble thinking of an example aside from the complex one that led me to my question I tried to delete it, but i couldn't edit the post anymore.

[Edited on July 19, 2006 at 11:19 PM. Reason : moo]

7/19/2006 11:17:33 PM

either or fallacy?

either you agree with funding stemcell research, or you don't want to save innocent lives when you can obviously disagree with both statements

7/19/2006 11:18:26 PM

1. stem cell reserach will save lives
2. if you do not wish to save lives through stem cell reserach, you are against saving lives through stem cell research

its not invalid. there is no fallacy. its valid. you must challenge the truth of one of the premises, not its logic.

[Edited on July 19, 2006 at 11:22 PM. Reason : werwe]

7/19/2006 11:22:07 PM

GOD FUCKING DAMNIT I SAID THAT IT WAS A BAD EXAMPLE AND TO IGNORE IT MULTIPLE TIMES IN THIS THREAD. PLEASE STOP COMMENTING ON THE EXAMPLE ITSELF- I TRIED OT EDIT IT OUT BUT WAS TOO LATE. PLEASE JUST STICK WITH THE FOLLOWING IF YOU WANT TO CHIME IN:

Person A fails to disagree with a statement, so Person B decides that Person A must agree with the statement, or vice versa (Person A fails to agree with a statement, so Person B decides that Person A must disagree with the statement).

7/19/2006 11:30:56 PM

thats what happens....

7/19/2006 11:37:29 PM

I wanna say "Victory by Definition" or "Shift of Meaning"




academic games what what

7/19/2006 11:44:33 PM

Actually disregard what mytwocents said, and I seconded, about the movie example. It doesn't even say what was said in the movie.

The movie example does apply to your question though.
The problem is that assumptions are being made, here is what the argument should look like (i think):

1.[("you're pro cancer" v "you're anti-cancer") & ~("you're pro cancer" & "you're anti-cancer")]
2.IF ~"you go to an anti-cancer ralley" THEN "you are pro cancer"
3."Person A did not go to an anti-cancer ralley"

THUS
Person A is Pro-cancer.

"1." is saying that there are only 2 options and it can't be both.
This is where the problem is, Person B in you "problem" is making an unstated assumption. In logic this should be stated. I saw a fallacy for this as i was going through a list, as soon as i find it i'll post it.

Quote :

"Audiatur et altera pars Often, people will argue from assumptions which they don't bother to state. The principle of Audiatur et Altera Pars is that all of the premises of an argument should be stated explicitly. It's not strictly a fallacy to fail to state all of your assumptions; however, it's often viewed with suspicion"

With this cancer example it's very easy to disprove #2, so the argument wouldn't hold up with or with out #1. However, since that's not exactly what you're asking I think this may work better.

[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 12:08 AM. Reason : .]

7/19/2006 11:59:34 PM

what the hell? Given the example I'm right.....you're saying that because someone doesn't go to a anti-anything rally, then they must be pro-that anything.

Well I didn't go to the local anti-molestation rally, so obviously I must be PRO molestation. Does this make sense? No....which is why I was 100% right.

Conversely, if I DO go to an anti-molestation rally, then I AM anti-molestation...

7/20/2006 12:04:39 AM

I'm not saying that at all, PERSON B is saying that. And you're right, it makes no sense.

Quote :

"I don't like your stem cell example, but using your movie example... A=not attending an anti-cancer rally B=being Pro-Cancer if A then B, B so then A"

what the bottom line says is "IF (x)doesn't attend an anti-cancer ralley THEN (x)is pro cancer"
then you're saying that PERSON B is falsely assuming that "IF (x)is pro-cancer THEN (x)did not attend an anti-cancer ralley" - this false assumption is, as you said, is the affirming the consequent fallacy.

but

that statement is not the same as what he is asking. Nor was it the mistake made by the character in the movie example.

[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 12:16 AM. Reason : .]

7/20/2006 12:09:29 AM

either or fallacy

7/20/2006 12:12:04 AM

^ I think you're right.

Thanks

7/20/2006 12:18:58 AM

eithor or is right. This is what PERSON B is saying.

[("x went to an anti-cancer ralley" v "x is pro-cancer) & ~("x went to an anti-cancer ralley" & "x is pro-cancer)]
~"x went to an anti-cancer ralley"

THUS
X is pro-cancer

QUESTION: is this for general interest or for Homework?

[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 12:35 AM. Reason : ?]

7/20/2006 12:24:14 AM

Yeah, my best guess here would be non sequitur.

7/20/2006 12:41:28 AM

Quote :

"Any help? Especially from soap boxers?"

hahaha


OMG STRAWMAN

OR AD HOMINEM

DEFINITELY ONE OF THE TWO





[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 3:16 AM. Reason : it's either or / false dilemma]

7/20/2006 3:14:06 AM

Quote :

"QUESTION: is this for general interest or for Homework?"

Ha ha, I've graduated, baby.

No, this was something that heppened to me in a retarded online debate. The debate was not about cancer or stem cells, though.

I knew this other chick was committing some logical fallacy, but I looked all over the web trying to figure out which one... then I came here and my question was answered

This chick is a stupid git, though.

7/20/2006 10:26:12 PM

So, you're going to prove you're smarter by sandwiching someone elses arguement classification?

Rethink this

7/20/2006 10:32:05 PM

[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 10:47 PM. Reason : dur]

7/20/2006 10:47:03 PM

Quote :

"So, you're going to prove you're smarter by sandwiching someone elses arguement classification? Rethink this"

I don't follow you.

7/20/2006 11:20:17 PM

You are seeking a singular answer, and the fallacy you gave is known as

Affirming the Inverse

Although you gave it in dialogue form, it could be stated in an "if, then" statement. This could be overturned if altered to an "if and only if, then" statement.

Good luck.

[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 11:39 PM. Reason : Clarity]

7/20/2006 11:38:10 PM

Illustration

Quote :

" Person B: I think stem cell research should be publically funded because it will save so many innocent lives! Person A: Publically funding stem cell research will further expand our huge national deficit. (or Person A could remain silent, and still render the following response) Person B: OMG YOU'RE AGAINST SAVING INNOCENT LIVES!!!!!11"

If stem cell research is publicly funded, then innocent lives will be saved.

In this statement, being against public funding of stem cell research would not mean you necessarily were against saving innocent lives. The inverse is not valid.


If and only if stem cell research is publicly funded, then innocent lives will be saved.

However, in this statement the only possible way to save lives is through public funding of stem cell research, so the inverse is also valid.

[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 11:51 PM. Reason : Clarity]

7/20/2006 11:44:21 PM

ATTENTION:


THIS QUESTION HAS BEEN ANSWERED ABOUT 5 TIMES NOW, YOUR ANSWER IS NOT NEEDED K??

7/21/2006 12:03:34 AM

It is true that you answered either or dilemma roughly five times, but five times of an answer doesn't equate correctness. Either or dilemma deals with the degree to which something is restricted in options. Meanwhile the example given in this post deals with affirming the inverse because the argument is not centered on two options or varying degrees thereof. It is focused on the essence of syllogism which is pervasive beyond the semantics of ultimatums.

7/21/2006 12:22:57 AM

You said fallacy

7/21/2006 12:24:35 AM

So... have you quit beating your wife, yet?

7/21/2006 12:31:58 AM

^^^same thing, it amounts to either you agree with funding stem cell research or you don't care about saving lives. it is a false alternative.

7/21/2006 1:31:36 AM

Alright, dude, I'll compromise with you since neither of us has a degree in philosophy, I think.

7/21/2006 1:41:29 AM

philosophy sucks

7/21/2006 2:31:06 AM

I was thinking about this today and I think everyone (including myself) has been wrong so far.

stategrad100, can you post the definition of an "affirming the inverse" fallacy for me please? The only one I could find for it had to do with an IF and ONLY IF statement, which isn't made at any point. Also your IF THEN statements are wrong.

Person B: I think stem cell research should be publically funded because it will save so many innocent lives!
=/=
If stem cell research is publicly funded, then innocent lives will be saved.

The only way I could see this mistake is if somehow you read it as: "I think stem cell research should be publically funded because I think [publically funding it] will save lives"

what was actually meant was that "stem cell research will save lives"

and

"IF [stemcell research] will save lives THEN [stemcell research] should be publically funded"

Disregarding the examples and only considering this:

Quote :

"Person A fails to disagree with a statement, so Person B decides that Person A must agree with the statement, or vice versa (Person A fails to agree with a statement, so Person B decides that Person A must disagree with the statement)."

It is not necessarily the false dilemma fallacy (aka either or). I say this because the either or fallacy comes about when it is assumed/suggested that there are only two viable options when in fact there are more than 2. In this example there could very well only be 2 options. We really don't know whether or not that is the case because there is not an actual statement. Some statements can only be agreed or disagreed with (there is no inbetween). However, for some statements a person may partially agree, in which case there would be more than 2 options and thus it would be the false dilemma fallacy.

here are some examples which come from the quote i just put in. let me know if you don't think these represent what she said. Specifically jlphipps. I think your cancer example was close to what you wanted but maybe a little complex, thus confusing. So these may look very similar to that origianal example, just maybe a little more simplified.

Person B: "Conan has the best latenight show"
Person A: (says nothing, thus neither agreeing nor diagreeing)
Person B: "I can't believe you don't agree with me"

This is just stupid; a statment is not made and should not be inferred

or

Person B: "Conan has the best latenight show"
Person A: "I don't like the masturbating bear" (note that this is neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the previous statement)
Person B: "I can't believe you don't agree with me"

A statement is made but Person B is still, and possibly falsely, inferring something from Person A's statement. If there is a fallacy for this I don't know what it's called and don't feel like looking it up right now. Maybe later.

[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 4:23 AM. Reason : .]

7/21/2006 3:56:47 AM

being. conservative.

7/21/2006 4:18:20 AM

protecting unfertilized embryos that are routinely destroyed ANYWAY seems pretty illogical to me

in fact, it seems to be based more on blind ideology rather than pragmatism

7/21/2006 6:47:02 AM

Despite what you may have read here, the answer you seek, jlphipps, is the appeal to ignorance. This logical fallacy "assumes that an argument is valid simply because it has not been shown to be false or that something is not false simply because it has not been shown to be true [for example, 'Since no one has proved that depression does not cause cancer, we can assume that it does']. The absence of opposing evidence proves nothing."

Always bet on hooksaw, young one. If you need further assistance, you may call on me. I am a graduate student pursuing a concentration in English and postsecondary education, and I eat these types of trinkets for breakfast--or more likely brunch.

By the way, TWW-ers, "either or fallacy" (sic) should be hyphenated, because it modifies fallacy (thus either-or fallacy). In this context, one might also say that said words are coequal elements, but that is a bit academic.


[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 11:46 AM. Reason : Quotation marks]

7/21/2006 11:44:47 AM

^ That sounds more accurate than the others, for sure. Thanks for the help

7/21/2006 6:36:16 PM

English teachers, especially postsecondary ones, can barely afford breakfast with their meager wages.

What kind of logical fallacy is that? Anybody? Soapboxers?

7/22/2006 8:40:17 PM

there are a lot of different fallacies one could apply to that. The very basic fallacy, which I said before:

if A then B, B so then A
so in this case it would indeed be affirming the consequent

and I DO have a degree in Communication and studied fallacies at length. Yes, of course you can make assumptions about the people and say that it could be appeal to ignorance, or whatever you else you can pull out of it, but at the most basic level, it is affirming the consequent.

Now we've all agreed we don't like the stem cell example, so how about someone post a new statement and we can then try and find which fallacy best represents it.

7/23/2006 4:03:43 PM

^^STFU BITCH

7/23/2006 4:17:23 PM

Quote :

"and I DO have a degree in Communication and studied fallacies at length"

Ohh I know, either poisioning the well or ad verecundiam?

7/23/2006 5:37:46 PM

^^ that's only correct for the cancer example which isn't good. I did post a new set of statements. And I agree that there are possibly several fallacies.

Quote :

"Person A fails to disagree with a statement, so Person B decides that Person A must agree with the statement, or vice versa (Person A fails to agree with a statement, so Person B decides that Person A must disagree with the statement)."

Here's an example, from that stament, for which there are only two options so the either-or fallacy doesn't come into play. It could be written in a way that it does, depending on the specific statements.

Person B: "Do you [agree(s) that Conan has the overall best latenight show]" [C]
Person A: [says nothing] (thus neither agreeing nor diagreeing) [N]
Person B: "I can't believe you don't agree that Conan has the overall best latenight show"

Person B could also be saying, without actually stating, that IF "person A says nothing" THEN "person A doesn't agree that Conan has the overall best latenight show"

IF N THEN ~C
N

THUS ~C

The logic is valid. The problem is that the premise IF N THEN ~C isn't always true. If the premises themselves are not true then the conclusion isn't true.

A false premise is not technically a fallacy.

If it's not the case that person B is using the "IF THEN" statement then hooksaw is correct in this situation. It is the informal fallacy, Appeal to Ignorance.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/scireas/ignorance.html

7/23/2006 5:43:59 PM

Quote :

"in fact, it seems to be based more on blind ideology rather than pragmatism"

Pragmatism is blind ideology.

7/23/2006 7:03:26 PM

Quote :

"Ohh I know, either poisioning the well or ad verecundiam?"

Well, stategrad100 implied a degree in the area would make you an authority

7/23/2006 7:49:06 PM

To jlphipps: You're welcome.

To mytwocents: I have no idea what you're talking about in the following statement: "Yes, of course you can make assumptions about the people and say that it could be appeal to ignorance, or whatever you [sic] else you can pull out of it, but at the most basic level, it is affirming the consequent." As to making assumptions, I've done nothing of the sort.

Concerning the example in question, mytwocents, the appeal-to-ignorance fallacy of logic is the correct one. The quotation that I selected was excerpted from the "Recognizing and Avoiding Logical Fallacies" section of the _Simon & Schuster Handbook for Writers_, which is a text that you SHOULD be familiar with having attended State. The following is the point: "The absence of opposing evidence proves nothing." If you'll read the original example posed by jlphipps again, you'll see why it's the point.

Concerning your assertion, mytwocents, that you "DO have a degree in Communication [sic] and studied fallacies at length," I'm skeptical. First, if you did study fallacies at length, you apparently have not retained that knowledge. Second, you'll pardon me if I don't jump up and down about your communication degree, no offense.

To Fortiori: Yes, unfortunately, the humanities are underfunded.

7/25/2006 12:43:55 PM

hooksaw: I'm not sure why you added the [sic] after I stated having a degree in Communication. If you are implying that it should be CommunicationS, then you are wrong because Communication and CommunicationS are different. I have the former. Perhaps I could clear things up by stating that I DID NOT attend state, I attended the University of Arizona where the Communication program involves among other things, the study of Communication theories...

My point about making assumptions is that there can easily be more than one fallacy that can apply to a statement, but, and jlphipps originally agreed, that the: "if A then B, B so then A" was the most simple and true, breakdown of her question. I wasn't talking about the stem cell example, I was putting the cancer example in as basic of terms as possible. And doing this, the fallacy is what I said it was.

As for jumping up and down at my Communication degree, no offense taken, it's an undergrad degree...much like every other one. I have minor (almost double major) in business, would you jump up and down at that one? And you can be skeptical all you want, I did indeed study fallacies at length and have retained a large portion of what I learned because I enjoyed it. Same goes for persuasion and persuasion theory. Actually, I loved studying all the theories be it non-verbal comm, crisis comm, persuasion, argumentation, interpersonal etc... Feel free to 'test' me as I enjoy discussing the subject

7/25/2006 1:47:56 PM

I placed "[sic]" in your quotation because communication should not have been capitalized in the context in question. One would not write, "I DO have a degree in Math."

Concerning your incessant references to if-then statements, you have not presented a convincing argument in support of your position. If you have such an argument--and I do not think that you do--let us hear it. I, on the other hand, have clear support of my position, and jlphipps, who originated this thread, has offered the following: "That sounds more accurate than the others, for sure." I think she is satisfied, do you not agree?

Concerning my questioning your alleged lengthy studies of logical fallacies, I am simply examining what you have posted on the subject in question. I must tell you, again, no offense, your postings strike me as a bunch of gobbledygook.

Concerning my mistake in listing your undergraduate alma mater, I regret the error. I certainly would not want to short the Wildcats one alumna.

7/26/2006 6:53:47 PM