A man owns two male pit bulls that have not been neutered. He tells a friend that he intends on leaving them unattended in his fenced in back yard while he is at work. His friend says "Wouldn't you think the dogs would fight to the death because of male aggression and because they are pit bulls?" The man says that he has been keeping them in the back yard together for years while he goes to work and they are both still alive and he has never seen any injuries on them. His friend says that's simply because the fence is protecting them from wild animals and asks him again, "Wouldn't you think the dogs would kill each other because of male aggression and because they are pit bulls?"

  • There is no logical fallacy here in your example. The dog owner is using inductive reasoning. The same reasoning is used to predict why we think the Sun will rise. ". . . Because this has happened before without an issue without something out of the ordinary affecting the Sun then there is no reason to think the Sun won't rise. The dog owner claims the dogs have been left alone for years without fighting or receiving injuries amongs themselves. That historic pattern is the justification for his answer. Inductive reasoning is NOT CERTAIN or guaranteed. It is not absolute as you desire.
    – Logikal
    Mar 14 '20 at 13:58
  • I am asking if the person claiming that the dogs can not be left together in the back yard safely while the owner is at work is committing a logical fallacy. I agree that the owner of the dogs is justified in his reasoning. Mar 15 '20 at 0:43
  • Yes the argument coming from the other person could be percieved as a logical fallacy if argument is that person's intention. The argument from ignorance & non sequitur fallacies. There could be others as well but those two seem for sure. Now if the person is NOT arguing legitimately there is no fallacy; he is just irrational. So how do you know the difference? If he is just saying things in passing that is not a formal argument. A formal argument has premises and a conclusion pattern. He can present the conclusion first & then give the premises. Is he formally doing that? Or is it talk.
    – Logikal
    Mar 15 '20 at 23:11
  • I say it is fallacious because the initial claim was that the dogs would kill each other. When that was proven to be false on account of the fact that the dogs were still alive, an attempt was made to rescue the claim by changing the subject to the fence protecting the dogs from things that had nothing to do with them killing each other. If the original argument had merit to it, there wouldn't be two dogs for the fence to protect in the first place. I say it is an ad hoc rescue. Mar 22 '20 at 20:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.