Accident (fallacy)
From Psychology Wiki
Community portal · Tasks to do · News · Help
Clinical · Educational · Ind&Org · Other fields · Professional · Transpersonal · World
Assessment |
Biopsychology |
Comparative |
Cognitive |
Developmental |
Language
Personality |
Philosophy |
Research Methods |
Social |
Statistics
Philosophy: Consciousness studies · Epistemology · Ethics · Mind-body problem · Modernism · Philosophy of Language · Phil. Science · Post Postmodernism · Postmodernism
The logical fallacy of accident, also called destroying the exception or a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid, is a deductive fallacy occurring in statistical syllogisms (an argument based on a generalization) when an exception to the generalization is ignored. It is one the thirteen fallacies originally identified by Aristotle. The fallacy occurs when one attempts to apply a general rule to an irrelevant situation.
For instance:
- Cars should never exceed the speed limit
- Police cars are cars
- Therefore, police cars should never exceed the speed limit
As a matter of fact the rule, cars should never exceed the speed limit, is only a general rule and police cars may be a valid exception.
Additionally:
- Cutting people with a knife is a crime.
- Surgeons cut people with knives.
- Surgeons are criminals.
It is easy to construct fallacious arguments by applying general statements to specific incidents that are obviously exceptions.
Generalizations that are weak generally have more exceptions (the number of exceptions to the generalization need not be a minority of cases) and vice versa.
This fallacy may occur when we confuse generalizations ("some") for categorical statements ("always and everywhere"). It may be encouraged when no qualifying words like "some", "many", "rarely" etc. are used to mark the generalization.
For example:
The premise above could be used in an argument concluding that all Germans or current Germans should be held responsible for the crimes of the Nazis. Qualifying the first term:
- Some Germans are Nazis
This premise may make it more obvious it is making an (extremely weak) generalization and not a categorical rule.
Related inductive fallacies include: overwhelming exception, hasty generalization. See faulty generalization.
The opposing kind of dicto simpliciter fallacy is the converse accident.
Contents |
[edit] See also
[edit] References & Bibliography
[edit] Key texts
[edit] Books
[edit] Papers
[edit] Additional material
[edit] Books
[edit] Papers
[edit] External links
| This page uses content from the English-language version of Wikipedia. The original article was at Accident (fallacy). The list of authors can be seen in the page history. As with Psychology Wiki, the text of Wikipedia is available under the GNU Free Documentation License. |
