| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"S Bibby" |
| Date: |
27 Jan 2004 06:13:18 PM |
| Object: |
Fallacy question |
There is a form of argument that's often troubled me, but try as I
might, I can't put a name to the nonsense. Someone asserts something,
and then chants the mantra:
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then
it's probably...
Many times they will replace the duck and its properties with whatever
it is they want to "prove". With such a homespun form of arguing, it
seems almost pedantic to point out that really, it doesn't prove
anything.
Whatever it is you're describing or asserting may share properties with
a duck, but it doesn't actually make it one! As far as I can see, the
most you could conclude from such an argument is that such a thing could
be described as 'duck-like', and even then that could be a dubious
claim, depending on the circumstances. It often seems to be used to
stigmatise something, when not "proving" an argument outright.
What is it called? Fallacy of equivocation? Compound non-sequitur
fallacy? Does it remain a mere assertion? The list of fallacies on
Internet Infidels is quite helpful, but putting names to the bollocks I
hear and read day-in, day-out has proved quite difficult. Can anyone
recommend a good book dealing with this sort of thing?
--
Stuart "Incredulous" Bibby
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallacy question |
28 Jan 2004 05:52:27 AM |
|
|
"S Bibby" <Stuart@gaffe.demon.co.uk> wrote
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,
then it's probably...
I've always heard it refered to as, "The duck test."
And, no, it is not my experience that it is used poorly.
Examples would be, say, when politicians re-name a tax
a "Fee," and pretend that they haven't raised taxes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S Bibby" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallacy question |
28 Jan 2004 02:53:31 PM |
|
|
JTEM<gymraven@hotmail.com> Writes:
"S Bibby" <Stuart@gaffe.demon.co.uk> wrote
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,
then it's probably...
I've always heard it refered to as, "The duck test."
And, no, it is not my experience that it is used poorly.
Examples would be, say, when politicians re-name a tax
a "Fee," and pretend that they haven't raised taxes.
Thanks for the responses, I'll just have to go and have a think I
suppose.
--
Stuart "Cheers!" Bibby
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tough Tonto" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallacy question |
27 Jan 2004 06:55:12 PM |
|
|
There is a form of argument that's often troubled me, but try as I
might, I can't put a name to the nonsense. Someone asserts something,
and then chants the mantra:
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then
it's probably...
Many times they will replace the duck and its properties with whatever
it is they want to "prove". With such a homespun form of arguing, it
seems almost pedantic to point out that really, it doesn't prove
anything.
True, a porpoise looks like a fish, yet it's really a small whale.
And the Moon looks like it has a face, monitors look like TV sets,
the Phila. Eagles look like a football team, and, in a suit, George
Bush looks a little bit like a president.
Whatever it is you're describing or asserting may share properties with
a duck, but it doesn't actually make it one! As far as I can see, the
most you could conclude from such an argument is that such a thing could
be described as 'duck-like', and even then that could be a dubious
claim, depending on the circumstances. It often seems to be used to
stigmatise something, when not "proving" an argument outright.
This kind of argument is a lot like changing the subject.
What is it called? Fallacy of equivocation? Compound non-sequitur
fallacy? Does it remain a mere assertion?
If it sounds like an equivocation, and it convinces like an
equivocation...etc etc
The list of fallacies on
Internet Infidels is quite helpful, but putting names to the bollocks I
hear and read day-in, day-out has proved quite difficult. Can anyone
recommend a good book dealing with this sort of thing?
Books on naming bollocks are scarce in these parts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallacy question |
28 Jan 2004 08:00:04 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:55:12 -0500, "Tough Tonto"
<Tonto@scoutmeat.com> posted in alt.atheism:
The list of fallacies on
Internet Infidels is quite helpful, but putting names to the bollocks I
hear and read day-in, day-out has proved quite difficult. Can anyone
recommend a good book dealing with this sort of thing?
Books on naming bollocks are scarce in these parts.
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.php
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
There are dozens of sites with explanatory lists of logical fallacies.
More info than in any one book.
--
"Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical
faculties to prove the statement 'dogshit is not peanut butter' if we
gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers" - John Hattan to Tichy
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adrian" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallacy question |
27 Jan 2004 11:33:02 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 00:13:18 +0000, S Bibby <Stuart@gaffe.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
There is a form of argument that's often troubled me, but try as I
might, I can't put a name to the nonsense. Someone asserts something,
and then chants the mantra:
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then
it's probably...
Many times they will replace the duck and its properties with whatever
it is they want to "prove". With such a homespun form of arguing, it
seems almost pedantic to point out that really, it doesn't prove
anything.
Whatever it is you're describing or asserting may share properties with
a duck, but it doesn't actually make it one! As far as I can see, the
most you could conclude from such an argument is that such a thing could
be described as 'duck-like', and even then that could be a dubious
claim, depending on the circumstances. It often seems to be used to
stigmatise something, when not "proving" an argument outright.
What is it called? Fallacy of equivocation? Compound non-sequitur
fallacy? Does it remain a mere assertion? The list of fallacies on
Internet Infidels is quite helpful, but putting names to the bollocks I
hear and read day-in, day-out has proved quite difficult. Can anyone
recommend a good book dealing with this sort of thing?
Well, first of all you have to really understand what they must be
saying with such an expression. You certainly cannot take it
literally and claim it is a fallacy. The argument is that when
something exhibits all of the properties of an X, then all other
things being equal you must, as a matter of logic, conclude that it is
an X. This statement is really basically true. I think the reason
you might find it frustrating and fallacious is because it is used
improperly.
For instance, you might say that some charity event was a genuine
effort on the part of Bill Gates to support higher education. You
explain that you know Mr. Gates personally and know that he has always
wanted to do something for higher education and so on. But, then,
someone replies with the mantra above insisting that it must be a
publicity stunt. Strictly speaking this response is just ignoring a
lot of the information that is ostensibly present in the matter. It
is either manifestly false that "it walks like a duck, quaks like a
duck, etc," since you have presented all the testimony of Gates' love
of higher education. Or, your respondent is simply ignoring (perhaps
as if to claim you are lying, misrepresenting or are otherwise "full
of *****" which just might be where the real issue lies) everything you
are saying or otherwise heavily discounting it without explaining why.
The argument is "If all the evidence points to it being a publicity
stunt, then it must be one." Strictly speaking the premise that "all
the evidence points to it being a publicity stunt," is (perhaps
clearly) false. (Note that it is not necessary for strict adherence
to the premise for the comment to still be relevant. You could alter
it to be "Almost all of the evidence...," or "most of the
evidence....") So, I do not think that it is actually a fallacy.
Perhaps the most relevant fallacy is "slothful induction" since they
are not drawing the obvious conclusions from the evidence that they
ostensibly accept. (They are practically saying this about you since
you are not concluding that it is "a duck" when it "quacks like a
duck, waddles like a....")
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DJ Nozem" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallacy question |
28 Jan 2004 04:19:58 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 00:13:18 +0000, S Bibby <Stuart@gaffe.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
There is a form of argument that's often troubled me, but try as I
might, I can't put a name to the nonsense. Someone asserts something,
and then chants the mantra:
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then
it's probably...
It's not a fallacy, just an inductive argument. I say x can be
qualified as y, you disagree, I provide some characteristics of y
which x has and conclude by saying that this makes a good case for my
claim that x can be qualified as y.
It can be uncompelling or even demonstrably wrong in certain cases but
the only way it could become a fallacy is when it is argued
deductively, i.e., when it claims to prove that x is y in the formal
sense of proving. But that isn't the case here.
Some good responses to this duck argument could be:
"What do you mean x looks like y, x doesn't look like y _at all_."
"X has the looks of y, but looks won't do here, because..."
"X may _look_ like y but because of z, x can't be considered to be y"
--
We give meaning to each other
DJ Nozem aa#1465
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
