 |
| Scotland From The Roadside: Edinburgh Castle |
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
I have been pondering on, as in examples, Accident Fallacy.
This is definitely challenging philosophical material with plenty of revision, but when thought out, it once again demonstrates how philosophy (philosophy of religion, theology) has practical aspects.
I recently wrote 'Accident Fallacy' on this site and have further thoughts.
'a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter' Blackburn (7).
From the qualified statement (limited statement my add) to the unqualified (unlimited statement, my add). (7).
The fallacy of taking out a needed qualification. (7).
Also known as 'converse fallacy of the accident'. (7).
'If it is always permissible to kill in war (qualified and limited statement), then it is always permissible to kill' (unqualified and unlimited statement). (7).
However, for the example listed, it is not always permissible to kill because warfare operates with a different set of legal and ethical rules than does non-warfare.
A controversial example and topic (not a primary agenda for this post, it was just the best one that came to mind) I have blogged on would be for Accident Fallacy:
If some women prefer large age gaps in marriage (qualified and limited statement), then it is always permissible for there to be large age gaps in marriage (unqualified and unlimited statement).
A major needed qualification is for example:
Most women do not prefer large age gaps in marriage.
This would alter a conclusion to qualified and limited.
Blackburn writes that the accident fallacy is
'a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid ' (7).
From the unqualified statement to the statement qualified. (7).
Blackburn writes that is an (alleged) fallacy. (7).
Arguing from the general case to the specific, particular case. (7).
He lists as example: 'If some snakes are harmless (unqualified and unlimited statement) then some snakes in this bag are harmless.' (qualified and limited statement) (7).
I take it that philosophically, one should be careful in the diagnosis of accident fallacy, as it may not always be so.
Pirie explains that this fallacy assumes the 'freak features of an exceptional case are enough to accept rejection of the general rule'. (33).
Almost every generalization could be rejected because of a possible accidental case it does not cover.
But to always maintain this is the fallacy of accident. (33).
The author states that it is a fallacy that appeals to anarchists because it appears to overturn general rules. (33). General rules with a few exceptions.
However..
Women do not prefer large age gaps in marriage (unqualified and unlimited statement), therefore some women should not prefer large age gaps in marriage (qualified and limited statement).
Is also accident fallacy (alleged as Blackburn notes).
The exception should not be the general rule.
The rule should not rule out the exception.
Accident Continued
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
I have been pondering on, as in examples, Accident Fallacy.
This is definitely challenging philosophical material with plenty of revision, but when thought out, it once again demonstrates how philosophy (philosophy of religion, theology) has practical aspects.
I recently wrote 'Accident Fallacy' on this site and have further thoughts.
'a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter' Blackburn (7).
From the qualified statement (limited statement my add) to the unqualified (unlimited statement, my add). (7).
The fallacy of taking out a needed qualification. (7).
Also known as 'converse fallacy of the accident'. (7).
'If it is always permissible to kill in war (qualified and limited statement), then it is always permissible to kill' (unqualified and unlimited statement). (7).
However, for the example listed, it is not always permissible to kill because warfare operates with a different set of legal and ethical rules than does non-warfare.
A controversial example and topic (not a primary agenda for this post, it was just the best one that came to mind) I have blogged on would be for Accident Fallacy:
If some women prefer large age gaps in marriage (qualified and limited statement), then it is always permissible for there to be large age gaps in marriage (unqualified and unlimited statement).
A major needed qualification is for example:
Most women do not prefer large age gaps in marriage.
This would alter a conclusion to qualified and limited.
Blackburn writes that the accident fallacy is
'a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid ' (7).
From the unqualified statement to the statement qualified. (7).
Blackburn writes that is an (alleged) fallacy. (7).
Arguing from the general case to the specific, particular case. (7).
He lists as example: 'If some snakes are harmless (unqualified and unlimited statement) then some snakes in this bag are harmless.' (qualified and limited statement) (7).
I take it that philosophically, one should be careful in the diagnosis of accident fallacy, as it may not always be so.
Pirie explains that this fallacy assumes the 'freak features of an exceptional case are enough to accept rejection of the general rule'. (33).
Almost every generalization could be rejected because of a possible accidental case it does not cover.
But to always maintain this is the fallacy of accident. (33).
The author states that it is a fallacy that appeals to anarchists because it appears to overturn general rules. (33). General rules with a few exceptions.
However..
Women do not prefer large age gaps in marriage (unqualified and unlimited statement), therefore some women should not prefer large age gaps in marriage (qualified and limited statement).
Is also accident fallacy (alleged as Blackburn notes).
The exception should not be the general rule.
The rule should not rule out the exception.
Accident Continued
 |
| Reality Pod: Reminds me of Pink Panther films. |
