Hasty Generalization or Converse Accident
Thursday, 22. June 2006, 21:30:46
I've wondered for a while why some English, speech, and philosophy teachers cite bare unqualified general statements or unsupported assertions as the fallacy of hasty generalization. Hasty generalization only makes sense as a fallacy when a theory of induction is possible.
Consider these examples from the Wikipedia:
Neither of these examples are specifically hasty generalization.
The first example is an argument from the premise that a particular song on an album has the quality of being loved by the writer to the conclusion that the album as a whole has the quality of being loved by the writer. When one argues that since a part of something has a property, therefore the whole must have that property as well, the fallacy of composition occurs.
The second example illustrates two fallacies: (1) converse accident and (2) accident. Briefly, the argument progresses like this: Since the Web site looks OK on my computer, the Web site would look good on almost any computer. If the Web site looks good on almost any computer, it will look good on yours.
For some typical examples, try these.
See Accident Converse Accident
Consider these examples from the Wikipedia:
"Hasty generalization," Wikipedia (June 12, 2006) URL=<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization>Examples include:
* "I loved the hit song, therefore I'll love the album it's on": Fallacious because the album might have one good song and lots of filler.
* "This Web site looks OK to me on my computer; therefore, it will look OK on your computer, too": Fallacious because many computers present content differently.
Neither of these examples are specifically hasty generalization.
The first example is an argument from the premise that a particular song on an album has the quality of being loved by the writer to the conclusion that the album as a whole has the quality of being loved by the writer. When one argues that since a part of something has a property, therefore the whole must have that property as well, the fallacy of composition occurs.
The second example illustrates two fallacies: (1) converse accident and (2) accident. Briefly, the argument progresses like this: Since the Web site looks OK on my computer, the Web site would look good on almost any computer. If the Web site looks good on almost any computer, it will look good on yours.
For some typical examples, try these.
See Accident Converse Accident
WIDGETIZE