 |
| Sydney: Google+ |
Preface
A short but tricky article from 20151107, where I continued to review the Pirie text on fallacies. Slight revisions and additions for an entry on academia.edu 20240817.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
Cited
Pirie explains that this fallacy assumes the 'freak features of an exceptional case are enough to accept rejection of the general rule'. (33). The features in question may be accidental and may be considered an unusual, allowable exception. (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).
It is fallacious to treat a general, qualified statement as if it is unqualified. (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.
It is fallacious to treat a general, qualified statement as if it is unqualified. (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.
Clarification
In philosophy:
An unqualified statement is considered certain.
Unqualified = Certain
A qualified statement has levels of uncertainty.
Qualified = Uncertain
Accident Fallacy
Blackburn writes that the accident fallacy is from the unqualified (certain my add) statement to the statement qualified (uncertain, my add). (7). Pirie explains that this fallacy assumes the 'freak features of an exceptional case are enough to accept rejection of the general rule'.
'a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid ' (7).
Blackburn writes that is an (alleged) fallacy. (7). Arguing from the general case to the specific, particular case, without recognizing some qualifying factors. (7).
He lists as example: 'If some snakes are harmless then some snakes in this bag are harmless.' (7).
I take it that philosophically, one should be careful in the diagnosis of accident fallacy, as it may not always be so.
'a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid ' (7).
Blackburn writes that is an (alleged) fallacy. (7). Arguing from the general case to the specific, particular case, without recognizing some qualifying factors. (7).
He lists as example: 'If some snakes are harmless then some snakes in this bag are harmless.' (7).
I take it that philosophically, one should be careful in the diagnosis of accident fallacy, as it may not always be so.
My example:
Florida won the 2024 Stanley Cup.
Florida will therefore will the next three Stanley Cups.
Technically possible, but highly unlikely. There are 32 teams competing and the odds are Florida will not win the next three Stanley Cups. In a sense, it is an exception that any one particular team is that year's winner. It is always more likely that one of the other 31 teams will win the Stanley Cup, at least mathematically. Even a favoured team before the season would not likely even receive even odds to be champions from the odds makers.
We can see here why Blackburn calls it an alleged fallacy. My example could theoretically occur. A team can win four Stanley Cups in a row, but it has only be done by the Montreal Canadiens (2x) and New York Islanders (1x).
Converse Accident Fallacy
From the qualified (uncertain, my add) statement to the unqualified (certain, my add). (7).
'a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter' Blackburn (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, then it is always permissible to kill'. (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, then it is always permissible to kill'. (7).
My example:
I would question even the qualified (uncertain) statement in the example.
It is permissible to kill willing opposing combatants.
It is not permissible to kill unwilling opposing combatants (surrendered or injured).
It is not permissible to kill civilians.
Therefore, it is not always permissible to kill in war.
However, for the example listed, it is not always permissible to kill (answering the unqualified, certain premise) because warfare operates with a different set of legal and ethical rules than does non-warfare.
---
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
Cited
'Converse Accident: (hasty generalization) the fallacy of considering two few cases or certain exceptional cases and generalizing to a rule that fits them alone. (Note that the fallacy of converse accident is the opposite of the fallacy of accident.)'
'Converse accident fallacies arise since many different logical generalizations are consistent with a finite amount of data. But not all of those generalizations are consistent with each other.'
webmaster@philosophy.lander.edu
