Hasty generalization, yet another accident

Humorsharing.com

Hasty generalization, yet another accident

Preface

Originally published 20170727. Revised for an entry on academia.edu on 20240824.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

The fallacy of secundum quid is known as the hasty generalization. (182). The fallacy of converse accident.

Hasty generalization, yet another accident

This occurs when a generalization is reached with unreasonable presentations that could also be 'very few' and  'unrepresentative'. (182-183).

Premises and conclusions would be taken from specific cases in attempt to make them generalizations. These will be based on inadequate premises and conclusions.

Based on the author's example on page 183, I provide this from my actual past:

I was in Bristol for an interview in regards to a possible PhD appointment. There were drunk students all over the streets. People must be always be drunk on the streets of Bristol.

'People must be always be drunk on the streets of Bristol', this part is untrue and would be considered the fallacy of hasty generalization. I just happened to see several drunk students out of the very limited amount of people I viewed walking in Bristol, because I was only visiting there for a short time.

As Pirie explains a sample must be 'sufficiently large and sufficiently representative' (183) and when the hasty generalization fallacy is used, the sample is not a sufficient one. 

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Fallacies 

Cited 

'The fallacy of secundum quid comes about from failing to appreciate the distinction between using words absolutely and using them with qualification. Spruce trees, for example, are green with respect to their foliage (they are ‘green’ with qualification); it would be a mistake to infer that they are green absolutely because they have brown trunks and branches. It is because the difference between using words absolutely and with qualification can be minute that this fallacy is possible, thinks Aristotle.'

Noted citations from that website

'Aristotle, Categories, H.P. Cooke (trans.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1938.

–––, On Sophistical Refutations, E. S. Forster (trans.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1955.

–––, Posterior Analytics, H. Tredennick (trans.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960. 

–––, Topics, Books I and VIII, R. Smith (trans.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. 

Hans Hansen, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2020.'

The converse accident fallacy or reverse accident fallacy argues that specific premise (s) leads to a general conclusion. From the qualified (uncertain) to the unqualified (certain).

Converse accident fallacy example:

Y votes for a liberal party

Y is a Christian

Christians vote liberal

Accident fallacy

Accident fallacy has been covered previously on my website and does move from the general premise (s) to the specific conclusion. 

From the unqualified (certain, my add) statement to the statement qualified (uncertain, my add). (7). Blackburn writes that is an (alleged) fallacy. (7). Arguing from the general case to the specific, particular case. (7).

Accident fallacy example:

Christians vote for a conservative party

X is a Christian

X votes conservative

This distinction can be confusing for the reader as I have found via research the converse accident fallacy is considered within accident fallacy. I am not disagreeing with the definitions. The hasty generalization would be within accident fallacy/converse accident fallacy with a specific premise (s) leading to a general conclusion.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. 

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.