babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
There's a difference between logical fallacies and rhetorical fallacies.
"Americans are loud and obnoxious" simpliciter is a rhetorical fallacy, whether you seek to draw a conclusion from it or not. As an unqualified statement its literal meaning is that 100% of Americans are loud and obnoxious. It could be called an example of the rhetorical fallacy of "sweeping generalization".
Note that whether it is fallacious depends not on the rules of logic, but simply on whether it is true. For example, and by contrast, "Americans are citizens of America" (let's say for the moment) is a true statement, and therefore is not a sweeping generalization.
"Americans are loud and obnoxious. John is an American. Therefore, John is loud and obnoxious" does not contain a logical fallacy. It complies perfectly with the rules of formal logic. If the first two statements are true, the third must be true. The logic is ironclad.
There are two ways to attack a logical conclusion: Either identify a logical flaw in the argument leading to the conclusion, or assert the falsity of one or more of the premises on which it is based. Or you can do both. Either way, the result of a successful attack is to cast doubt on the conclusion (not to disprove it; for example, John may in fact be loud and obnoxious, but you couldn't prove he wasn't, merely by demolishing the above argument.)
Since the argument itself is "ironclad" in logical terms, the only way to mount a successful attack on it is to demonstrate the falsity of one or both premises. Demonstrating that "Americans are loud and obnoxious" is a sweeping generalization (by, for example, producing a single American who isn't) is sufficient to render the first premise (the "antecedent") invalid, and thus the conclusion, though reached with impeccable logic, is "not proven" (but not necessarily "wrong", as I mentioned above, since John may well be loud and obnoxious).
I think quantifiers are the key here: if we start with "All Americans..." or "Some Americans..." the rest kind of snaps into place automatically. Nobody (with any luck) would draw the following inference:
1) Socrates is a man.
2) Some men are mortal.
----------------------------
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
What about this:
1) Some men are mortal.
2) Socrates was some man!
3) Therefore Socrates was mortal.
It's all in the intonation.
I believe my post @ #8 makes use of rhetorical fallacy. In that post I make no allowance for two way dialogue regarding who is to blame for the events of 9/11/01. It's a forgone conclusion according to me.
Anyway this is a wonderful thread. I am not strong when it comes to using the English language and writing in general. And I think it helps me to study what babblers and others write in this interactive way. Some babblers are wordsmiths, and I think we can learn a lot from them.
Your explanation infers that "not-relativism" is absolutism. In the context of my "worst of relativism" comment, your explanation implies that some kind of argument in favour of absolutism is in evidence in what I have stated. Which is, of course, not the case. Hence, the straw man is the absolutist criticising relativism.
Your logical fallacy is...
If there is a third option between absolutism and relativism what would it be called?
It definitely depends.
Mind if I ask a rhetorical question?
I'm not sure you want me to answer that.
On Bullshit Harry G. Frankfurt
I've not read it, but it looks like a good one.
Another example of the Fallacy of Division (which assumes that a characteristic or belief of some of a group applies to the entire group) is seen in a recent thread: "Hockey = anti-human rights"
In this case, the "entire group" is the sport of hockey (generally) and the "some of the group" is the official national anthem singer for the Vancouver Canucks (a singer who espouses odious views).
The thread title didn't just criticize the singer, or just the Vancouver Canucks (who employs the singer), or just NHL hockey (of which the Canucks team is a part). Instead, the thread title criticized the entire sport of hockey.
That is what I found absurd about the thread title. The scope of the "entire group" that is anti-human rights extended far beyond what is legitimately called for. It is certainly legitimate to criticize the singer and probably the Canucks. It's a stretch to apply that to the entire NHL (although let's just stipulate that it is) but it certainly wouldn't apply to "professional hockey" generally (there are all kinds of professional hockey leagues and players around the world which are in no way connected with this singer or the Canucks) and it absolutely wouldn't apply to amateur hockey generally (which is also played around the world).
So, I think this is another example of where people of all political persuasions can be guilty of asserting rhetorical fallacies (it's not just limited to right-wing hacks). And, this was the principal point of my comment above in this thread where I said:
Sven, this thread does not exist for you to make proxied attacks on the feminism forum. I also find your assessment of that thread fallacious, but I will not be discussing with you why I feel that in this thread or the thread you cite. What you should take away from this is: respect the feminists who make arguments about feminist topics on this, a feminist website. And I'm sure you know how offensive it is to call feminist arguments irrational.
If a particular assertion is a rhetorical fallacy, then it is is a rhetorical fallacy regardless of who says it. Saying that "hockey is anti-human rights" is a rhetorical fallacy (it's a good example of what we were specifically discussing in this thread: the Fallacy of Division, because the sport of hockey and those associated with it are simply not all "anti-human rights".
I'm not arguing with you Sven. I think you're wrong, but more importantly, I think you're being offensive. You know why. So stop it. Further attempts to prove yourself "right" will be wasted.
Can we call that title an example of synecdoche?
http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/synecdocheterm.htm
Interesting suggestion, Caissa.
Although, as stated in the page you linked to, a "synecdoche works only if the part really does stand for the whole."
This was an example of the whole standing for a part.
I'm sorry. I'm not following that (maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet). In both the fallacy and in the example, the example is being asserted to represent the whole (not "the whole standing for a part"). The "whole standing for the part" would be: Here's a block of cheese (the whole) and if I cut off a piece of that block of cheese, then that piece (the part) will have the same characteristics as the whole from which it was cut.
It's a literary device. In this case "hockey" can stand for the aspect of hockey being discussed ie. national anthem singer. My point is if it is synecdoche it can't be a rhetorical fallacy.
I don't know synecdoche from rhetorical fallacy, but I do know bullshit.
I agree that if an assertion is a synecdoche, the assertion cannot be a rhetorical fallacy (at least not the Fallacy of Division).
But, as the author in that linked-to piece notes, an assertion can only be a synecdoche "if the part really does stand for the whole."
To jump in briefly, I don't want to get into the question of the sport; because although I am not a fan, I think there is more to it than the NHL. Nevertheless, I think this dude is getting way more mileage from his association with the culture of hockey fans (and even more disgusting, wrapping himself in the anthem of our country, whose laws actually support freedom of choice) than he is from his singing career. He is using that fame to drive his own agenda, and there are plenty of those who like those things willing to go along with it.
Give me a call when he starts singing arias with his hamburger pics and his bible and his penitent sinners.
Yes, part of the culture - both of sport fandom and of those who think they speak for the nation - is what he is exploiting here. If that were not the case he'd have nothing to exploit in the first place.
Is it faulty deduction of division or of composition of the group? I'm thinking we don't know what all hockey enthusiasts think about women's rights, but we have a good idea of what that individual's opinions are. Does he even like hockey?
And what could we do about it? If he is singing at games in Vancouver, then perhaps a boycott of the anthem by fans attending is on order. Everybody remain seated or something. Do like Vancouver musicians, Trooper, and raise holy old hell about it, c'mon!
Genocide? Child rape? Randomly spraying bullets in a shopping mall? Throwing acid into women's faces? Jailing and torturing your political opponents? Kidnapping children, arming them, and forcing them to murder their own siblings? Poisoning journalists with radioactive isotopes?
Moral relativism can be an Achilles heel for thoughtful people seeking to avoid Ayn Rand-esque black-and-white ideology.
They were freedom fighters as recently as the 1980s. And our governments support some of those right wing extremists still and depending on whether they are Karzai's mujahideen/warlord government or the Taliban.
What, then, is the source of absolute rights and wrongs?
babble moderators