Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
If someone says they have never taken an action, and never had any issues, therefore that action is problematic, and they are now an expert what logical fallacy(s) is that?
For example:
"Driving your car in the left lane leads to accidents. I've never driven my car in the left lane and never been in an accident, so I think I know what I'm talking about."
I don't disagree with JD's answer, but given the OP's reply to my comment, it may be that what they have in mind is more of a false cause type of fallacy. The argument might be represented as:
However, it may be that the speaker has never had an accident for entirely different reasons. They drive infrequently, or they mostly drive on deserted country roads, or they are just a particularly careful driver. So their claimed explanation of their lack of accidents may not be the correct one, hence a false cause, or a questionable cause.
I mentioned an extreme example of this in a comment above: I wear a talisman to ward off zombies; I've never been attacked by a zombie; so that shows that my talisman works. Or: taking contraceptive pills prevents people from getting pregnant; I (a man) take contraceptive pills every day and I've never got pregnant, so that proves they work. In both cases there are much more plausible explanations of the data.
In general, distinguishing false causes from correct ones is not easy, and often involves a number of factors. People driving in the wrong lane probably does contribute to some accidents. A more tricky example might be:
Yes, those things are good for your health, so it is not a false cause, but in practice we would want to see more data. Also, there are other causes of good health, and there are other causes of serious illness, so it is not as simple as the argument suggests.
When one claims that one's argument is correct because soley of one's driving achievements, then one is appealing to one's accomplishment. This is a type of genetic fallacy.
Let's rewrite your question as a syllogism:
P1. Driving the car in a particular manner causes accidents.
P2. I have driven in such a way I have never been in an accident.
C. Therefore, I'm an expert on driving and avoiding accidents.
The conclusion is what the argument purports to be about. In this case, the claimant is making an argument to prove they are an expert in driving.
One potential fallacy at play would be the genetic fallacy:
The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue)1 is a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context.
The question is 'does this sole premise to the claimant's driving history serve as an adequate basis for determining the driver's current expertise?' Obviously not. Let's us imagine that a famous racecar driver in the 1930's was alive, and talks about how he won races and was an excellent driver, but now he is in his 90's suffers from legal blindness, and hasn't driven in 20 years. Does his history allow us to conclude with certainty that he is currently an expert? Absolutely not. But we can get more specific. In this argument, the claimant appeals to his accomplishments to validate his claim to expertise.
Another avenue of attack on this argument is that P2 purports to be an accomplishment, and certainly if this same driver had not only a racing pedigree, but also a flawless domestic record in driving, that would be quite the accomplishment; however, is this driver still an expert on driving given his circumstances? Not necessarily, so here we see that the appeal is to accomplishment which is a type of genetic fallacy. From the WP article:
Description: When the argument being made is sheltered from criticism based on the level of accomplishment of the one making the argument. A form of this fallacy also occurs when arguments are evaluated on the accomplishments, or success, of the person making the argument, rather than on the merits of the argument itself.
Remember, a general notion of expertise in driving would require not only current knowledge-that but knowledge-how. The question of a driver's expertise isn't a question of prior, irrelevant accomplishments, but rather the current state of the driver's ability. So, while invoking accomplishments in a larger framework of argument certainly strengthens an argument, relying on it in the absence of other factors would be specious.
Please note that though the conclusion that the argument arrives at, that the driver is an expert, is false, this is NOT an an appeal to false authority as some have suggested. From the article:
A similar fallacy is the appeal to false authority. This fallacy is used when a person uses a false authority as evidence for their claim.
Such an argument relies on a premise invoking authority and not in the conclusion. The question at hand is 'Is the conclusion of authority invalid?', not 'Is the claim based on invalid authority?'.
Therefore, the best fit for this fallacious reasoning would be the appeal to accomplishment.
