Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: grundle
Given that there are so many legitimate incidents to choose from, why have so many high-profile cases ultimately fallen apart?

I need some help with philosophy and logic here.

The author states there are "so many legitimate cases" but can't find any that stand up to scrutiny. Simple deduction would tell you your theory is false - and there ARE NOT so many legitimate cases as you believe.

Its like saying - "there are so many legitimate cases of people who can turn themselves into werewolves, so why can't I find a case that stands up to scrutiny?"

Question - what is the term of for this kind of logical fallacy?

14 posted on 12/01/2015 2:02:39 PM PST by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: PGR88
Question - what is the term of for this kind of logical fallacy?

Affirming the Consequent

25 posted on 12/01/2015 2:21:52 PM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: PGR88
It has two problems, which make an entire hash of the formal approach to its logic.

The first problem is that it precedes from a false premise:

Given that there are so many legitimate incidents to choose from.

There is no reason to believe this premise is true. It is neither intuitively obvious, nor a fact in evidence.

Second: even if we stipulate that we will accept the hypothetical for the sake of advancing the argument, there is a logical fallacy, called confusion of necessity and sufficiency.

Correct reasoning would be: If there are many legitimate incidents, then many high profile cases will hold together.

However, this statement says nothing about why high profile cases could fall apart. There is nothing in the premise that suggests that there are not many cases that fail to hold together, simply that there should be many that do. [Even if many rapes reported are legitimate, there can still be many which aren't. Common sense and correct reasoning.]

Correct reasoning would be the denial of the consequent, NOT the premise, and what that implies:

many high profile cases do NOT hold together.

Therefore, conclude (correctly, and without requiring any fact not in evidence):

there are many incidents which are NOT legitimate.

28 posted on 12/01/2015 2:29:53 PM PST by FredZarguna (Deathblow: "Not because of who you are, but because of different reasons altogether.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: PGR88

“Its like saying - “there are so many legitimate cases of people who can turn themselves into werewolves, so why can’t I find a case that stands up to scrutiny?”

Question - what is the term of for this kind of logical fallacy?”

An existential fallacy, maybe.


29 posted on 12/01/2015 2:30:59 PM PST by rightwingcrazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: PGR88

I believe this is called “begging the question” ... when one assumes as fact that which is the subject of debate.


31 posted on 12/01/2015 2:35:16 PM PST by NorthMountain ("The time has come", the Walrus said, "to talk of many things")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: PGR88
Question - what is the term of for this kind of logical fallacy?

The loaded or complex question.

Answering the question requires you first to implicitly accept its assumed premise, e.g. "Given that there are so many legitimate incidents to chose from..."

42 posted on 12/01/2015 7:07:56 PM PST by RansomOttawa (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson