More on Hasty Generalization
Friday, 23. June 2006, 12:50:02
One of the reasons there is some controversy over informal fallacy identification is simply that the fallacies are not formal--the mistake in reasoning is based on content rather than structure of the purported proof.
Undoubtedly, there will never be consensus on the specific varieties of informal fallacies. Consider this example from Time magazine's Jeff Chu's interview of Shirin Ebadi, human-rights activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Jeff Chu writes:
She replies:
(Jeff Chu, "10 Questions for Shirin Ebadi," Time 167 No. 20 (May 15, 2006), 6.)
Normally, this fallacy would be cited as an ignoratio elenchi since the resemblance of the individual children to the respective parent is clearly irrelevant, without additional premises, to the lack of parental conflict.
Nevertheless, the main direction of the reasoning seems to be the claim that since she and her husband have nonconflicting interests in their children, it follows that they do not argue about the children. And, since they do not argue about their children, there is nothing "to fight about."
The argument commits the fallacy of hasty generalization primarily because of the presupposition of the truth of the generalization that all there is to fight about for Shirin Ebadi and her husband is their conflicting interests in their children. But, of course, there are many exceptions to this general rule.
Evident also is the reasoning based on the notion of equality. The fallacy here is the opposite of hasty generalization--the fallacy of Accident. Shirin Ebadi's argument runs like this: In world affairs with equality among nations, there is nothing to fight about. Therefore, in married life with equality among husband and wife, there is nothing to fight about.
The fallacy of Accident occurs since there is no reason to suppose a deductive relation between the politics of nations and the politics of family life.
Undoubtedly, there will never be consensus on the specific varieties of informal fallacies. Consider this example from Time magazine's Jeff Chu's interview of Shirin Ebadi, human-rights activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Jeff Chu writes:
You have described yourself as stubborn. Does your husband find it exasperating to argue with you?
She replies:
My husband and I rarely argue. I want to tell you something interesting: I believe so strongly in equality that I have even filled my family life with it. My husband and I have two daughters. The elder looks like her mother but has chosen her father's profession--she is an engineer. My younger daughter looks like her father, but her character is like mine. For this reason, she is becoming a lawyer. So you can see we have divided our world equally. There is nothing to fight about.
(Jeff Chu, "10 Questions for Shirin Ebadi," Time 167 No. 20 (May 15, 2006), 6.)
Normally, this fallacy would be cited as an ignoratio elenchi since the resemblance of the individual children to the respective parent is clearly irrelevant, without additional premises, to the lack of parental conflict.
Nevertheless, the main direction of the reasoning seems to be the claim that since she and her husband have nonconflicting interests in their children, it follows that they do not argue about the children. And, since they do not argue about their children, there is nothing "to fight about."
The argument commits the fallacy of hasty generalization primarily because of the presupposition of the truth of the generalization that all there is to fight about for Shirin Ebadi and her husband is their conflicting interests in their children. But, of course, there are many exceptions to this general rule.
Evident also is the reasoning based on the notion of equality. The fallacy here is the opposite of hasty generalization--the fallacy of Accident. Shirin Ebadi's argument runs like this: In world affairs with equality among nations, there is nothing to fight about. Therefore, in married life with equality among husband and wife, there is nothing to fight about.
The fallacy of Accident occurs since there is no reason to suppose a deductive relation between the politics of nations and the politics of family life.
WIDGETIZE