What kind of fallacy is there in saying that it is improbable that people will do radical actions, (like becoming religious) if there isn't a bit of truth to it.
Could there be fallacies that were not discoverd yet?
9
-
1Falalcy "is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument". To assert a false statement is simply an error or a lie.– Mauro ALLEGRANZAJul 3 at 13:15
-
@MauroALLEGRANZA The argument is people do radical things, therefore there must be some truth to their actions. Is this concidered a false statement and not an argument with a faulty reasoning? If so then why?– E_1Jul 3 at 13:25
-
I’m voting to close this question because it is so poorly phrased.– Marco OcramAug 2 at 20:24
-
@MarcoOcram Im truely sorry that my non native english is not good enough for you to allow me to learn and ask questions.– E_1Aug 2 at 23:51
-
1@E_1 A thousand apologies- I should have guessed you might not be a native speaker of English. I will cancel my vote.– Marco OcramAug 3 at 5:05
|
Show 4 more comments
2 Answers
Fallacies are a specific logical error in formal reasoning, namely a "non sequitur" (=does not follow). Which means that arguments are supposed to follow a logical form where the conclusion directly arises from the premises. So that when the premises are true, so is the conclusion. The argument is thus called: valid. If that is not the case it's invalid.
There's a whole bunch of ways how you can form invalid arguments through bad form (formal fallacies) or arguments that seem to have the correct form but don't actually do so upon closer inspection (informal fallacies).
So with regards to your example, well if you only talk about something being "improbable" rather than true or false, you've already left the realm of deductive reasoning so fallacies likely don't apply to begin with...
Though in terms of where you're argument of:
Premise: Genuinely wronged people become radical. Premise: Those people are radical Conclusion: These people were genuinely wronged
goes wrong. Well it's circular reasoning plain and simple. Also the premise that wronged people become radical isn't true, there's a multitude of options for that situation, not to mention the difference that it makes whether they are aware of it in the first place. But even if it were true, it would not follow that the opposite is also true. Just because A -> B doesn't mean that there is a whole different set of conditions that also leads to B so that B does not necessitate A.
Another point where the reasoning might go wrong here is that it equates truth and the presumption of truth. So if people are radical it hints at them feeling existentially threatened by something. Though that's primarily a feeling and that feeling can stem from real existing sources or it could be entirely made up. So it doesn't so much conclude that the situation is serious as much as it concludes that these people think the situation is serious. Either way you should probably take that serious, but the best courses of action that follow from that might be massively different. Like in either case you might listen to their ramblings, but in terms of a real problem you could work towards a real solution in terms of a made up problem and unethical propositions for a solution that's probably not an option.
-
"Premise: Genuinely wronged people become radical. Premise: Those people are radical Conclusion: These people were genuinely wronged" This syllogism is also fallacious for its failure to distribute its middle term (radical). Aug 2 at 19:04
What kind of fallacy is in that situation?
Here is my reconfiguration of your hypothetical argument:
If there is not a bit of truth to a belief, then some people will not become radical based on it.
There is not a bit of truth to this belief.
Therefore: some people will not become radical based on it.
This syllogism is valid; it is AAA in the first figure. If I have misstated your argument, please let me know in the comments.
