Accused of a fallacy? Suspect a fallacy? Ask Dr. Bo and the community!

Quickly register to comment, ask and respond to questions, and get FREE access to our passive online course on cognitive biases!
Register!

one moment please...


Welcome! This is the place to ask the community of experts and other fallacyophites (I made up that word) if someone has a committed a fallacy or not. This is a great way to settle a dispute! This is also the home of the "Mastering Logical Fallacies" student support.


Dr. Bo's Criteria for Logical Fallacies:

  1. It must be an error in reasoning not a factual error.
  2. It must be commonly applied to an argument either in the form of the argument or in the interpretation of the argument.
  3. It must be deceptive in that it often fools the average adult.

Therefore, we will define a logical fallacy as a concept within argumentation that commonly leads to an error in reasoning due to the deceptive nature of its presentation. Logical fallacies can comprise fallacious arguments that contain one or more non-factual errors in their form or deceptive arguments that often lead to fallacious reasoning in their evaluation.

Contact Form



Send me a copy of this message
Send Message sending message...

Q&A Home Question

0

votes

image loading...
JT Hendrickson

Eager Newbie

image loading...

JT Hendrickson


Eager Newbie

About JT Hendrickson

Sorry, this user has not created a bio yet.
Fri, Nov 02, 2018 - 02:01 PM

I didn't need it when i was a kid

Person A claims kids need x
Person b says they didn't need it when they were a kid so they don't need it.

I think this is appeal to tradition of argue from ignorance, but I'm not too sure.



Quick Comment On This Question (no login required):
Your comment below will be anonymously sent to the question owner, it will not be posted, and you will not get a response.

Send Comment sending comment...

4 Answers

0

votes

image loading...
Michael Chase Walker
Screenwriter, producer, mythoclast

Seasoned Vet

image loading...

Michael Chase Walker

Screenwriter, producer, mythoclast

Seasoned Vet

About Michael Chase Walker

Michael Chase Walker is an actor, author, screenwriter, producer, and a former adjunct lecturer for the College of Santa Fe Moving Images Department, and Dreamworks Animation. His first motion picture was the animated classic, The Last Unicorn.
Michael was an in-house television writer for the hit television series: He-Man, She-Ra, Voltron, and V, the Series. In 1985, he was appointed Director of Children's programs for CBS Entertainment where he conceived, shaped and supervised the entire 1985 Saturday Morning line-up: Wildfire, Pee Wee's Playhouse, Galaxy High School, Teen Wolf, and over 10
Print Sat, Nov 03, 2018 - 02:24 PM
So, essentially the argument is a rejection of an idea solely based on the age of the claimant?

Chronological Snobbery.


Quick Comment On This Answer (no login required):
Your comment below will be anonymously sent to the answer owner, it will not be posted, and you will not get a response.

Send Comment sending comment...

1

votes

image loading...
Bo Bennett, PhD
Author of Logically Fallacious

Moderator

image loading...

Bo Bennett, PhD

Author of Logically Fallacious

Moderator

About Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo's personal motto is "Expose an irrational belief, keep a person rational for a day. Expose irrational thinking, keep a person rational for a lifetime."  Much of his charitable work is in the area of education—not teaching people what to think, but how to think.  His projects include his book, The Concept: A Critical and Honest Look at God and Religion, and Logically Fallacious, the most comprehensive collection of logical fallacies.  Bo's personal blog is called Relationship With Reason, where he writes about several topics related to critical thinking.  His secular (humanistic) philosophy is detailed at PositiveHumanism.com.
Bo is currently the producer and host of The Humanist Hour, the official broadcast of the American Humanist Association, where he can be heard weekly discussing a variety of humanistic issued, mostly related to science, psychology, philosophy, and critical thinking.

Full bio can be found at http://www.bobennett.com
Print Fri, Nov 02, 2018 - 02:30 PM
This could also be a form of the historian's fallacy - https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/103/Historian-s-Fallacy. However, I think the best match is simply the weak analogy - https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/181/Weak-Analogy.
Bo Bennett, PhD
Social Scientist, Business Consultant
Coaching / Consulting > https://tinyurl.com/coachingbybo
About My Businesses > http://www.archieboy.com
About Me > http://www.bobennett.com
Books I’ve Written > https://tinyurl.com/bosbooks
Courses I Teach > https://tinyurl.com/boscourses
Podcasts I Host > https://tinyurl.com/bospodcasts


Quick Comment On This Answer (no login required):
Your comment below will be anonymously sent to the answer owner, it will not be posted, and you will not get a response.

Send Comment sending comment...

0

votes

image loading...
Abdulazeez Alabbasi

Seasoned Vet

image loading...

Abdulazeez Alabbasi


Seasoned Vet

About Abdulazeez Alabbasi

Sorry, this user has not created a bio yet.
Print Sat, Nov 03, 2018 - 04:08 AM
I think it is mostly a hasty generalization fallacy. The argument states that because I as a kid (one individual) didn't need X, therefore kids (in general) don't need X.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/100/Hasty-Generalization


Quick Comment On This Answer (no login required):
Your comment below will be anonymously sent to the answer owner, it will not be posted, and you will not get a response.

Send Comment sending comment...

0

votes

image loading...
th.bosscher

Eager Newbie

image loading...

th.bosscher


Eager Newbie

About th.bosscher

Sorry, this user has not created a bio yet.
Print Sat, Nov 03, 2018 - 01:46 PM
excuse my englisch and/or assumptions


if person A makes a generalization,
person B can react to the claim including the generelization. stating that kids dont "need" x

if you take it out of kontext, and look at person B's claim seperetly it could state, : kids "might not" need X

important is that person A isnt stating, witch kids need X, so calling person B on its generelization doesnt bring you to the primary fallacy.

in fact it seems that person B atempts to call person A on its fallacy (something with unprovided information i guess)

without B's information A would generalize.










Quick Comment On This Answer (no login required):
Your comment below will be anonymously sent to the answer owner, it will not be posted, and you will not get a response.

Send Comment sending comment...

Registered User Comments



About Archieboy Holdings, LLC. Privacy Policy Other Books Written by Bo
 Website Software Copyright 2018, Archieboy Holdings, LLC.