Idk where else to ask so sorry if I am wrong to ask here...But this place seems fitting.
A Fallacy, both formal and informal is/are error in the reasoning to reach a conclusion for an argument/point/belief. Yet, if you assume that conclusion is wrong because it have fallacy, that in itself is wrong and fallacious, specifically "Fallacy Fallacy".
But what if it's the other way around? What if people assume that since the conclusion of an argument or a point or a logic is wrong, there must be a fallacy?
For example take this
- Cyanide is a poison
- This drink have Cyanide in it
- This drink is poisonous.
Now this is sound and valid. However you can make it sounds like it is fallacious. For example; assume that there is a drink with Cyanide on it but also brewed in a way that makes it non-poisonous. That would imply this conclusion of this set is wrong. But is it fallacious? what if the person who made this set just didn't know that non-poisoned-Cyanide-drink exist? Assuming such drink did exist that is.
- This hot chocolate is made of vegetable; chocolate
- Vegans only drink vegetarian beverage
- This hot chocolate can be drunk by Vegans
This is actually true in some cases, and not true in some cases. Some hot chocolate may have milk which is not vegetarian. If a vegan is given a hot chocolate with milk, and that person didn't know there is milk, nor ask, that vegan is wrong but is it fallacious? However it is also possible that the vegan is given a hot chocolate without milk.
In both cases, there is a lack of information that may make their logical conclusion to be false. And sometimes it's actually quite rare for the exception to that logic to exist, such as the Cyanide example. While you can say that their fault is due to their lack of information, I don't think it is fair to immediately blame someone for lack of information for something that can be taken at face value, such as those that involves "Rule of Thumb". It is quite unrealistic to demand someone to know everything about anything about beverages to make simple judgement such as drinking a drink. That doesn't change that they can be wrong though.
Yet another example, when you order a juice at a restaurant, and then you are given the juice you ordered. You "assume" that the juice is safe, turns out the juice is poisoned. That means the conclusion is wrong, yet does that means there is fallacy in your judgement? It's quite unrealistic and overreaction to doubt every drink given to you just because there is a small chance it can be poisonous. So I don't think there is any fallacy here despite the premises here are all logically true and valid.
I don't think simply having the wrong conclusion means there is an error in the reasoning for it to be fallacious, yet I don't see anyone talk nor there is article about it. So I am curious what other's think.
What do you guys think? Can something have true premise(s), but wrong conclusion and yet no fallacy? Is it fallacious to assume that because the conclusion of point/belief/argument is wrong, there must be a fallacy? If so...What is the fallacy called?