Man up, child. If you can’t hang with people who know what they are talking about, then don’t get involved.

Can you email me your CV so I can tell if you’re someone worth communicating with, or if you’re copying sentences out of a logic text?

You’ve misunderstood me, and perhaps I’ve misunderstood you. Would love to clear that up, but if you’re a 3rd year undergrad with just enough logic under your belt to think you understand it, I’ll pass.

If it turns out you have advanced degrees, then in all likelihood we’re just talking past each other, and I’d love to get some clarification on where you’re coming from and likely learn a bit along the way.

Best,

Jay

jaymichaelkelly AT gmail DOT com

‘The fallacy of examples’ doesn’t do this. I dunno about you, but I’m left wondering what the ‘fallacy of examples’ is by the title alone, and secondly, when it is defined as an invalid argument it should be a deductively based fallacy, it isn’t. It’s based on the hasty generalisation, a form of inductive argument. So the whole re-wording of ‘the fallacy of examples’ and then adding a stipulative definition makes the whole thing muddled headed.

I think you don’t understand the concept of validity in logical argument. Your examples make no sense at all and shows you are seriously confused about logical argument.

The examples you gave are if-then conditionals based on on Modus Ponens (a type of deductive argument), which the structure is as follows:

(1) If A, Then B.
(2) A.
(3) Therefore B

Your example of an invalid inductive argument is also completely wrong and bordering on a red herring.

Being a mortician has nothing to do with the ampliative conclusion that someone lied. If it were an inductive argument that premise can be ignored, as it neither strengthens the conclusion, nor makes the argument defeasible.

Given that the mortician premise is irrelevant to your example, then that leaves us with the if-then conditional. The If-then conditional is asserting a causal relationship between being a politician and probably lying. If-then conditionals by themselves aren’t arguments, they are part of premises and demand further support.

Saying the following:

(1) If you’re a politician (A), you probably lie well (B).
(2) Therefore you probably lie well.

begs the question, as you need further reasons to support (B) i.e. further observations for the probabilities. So, really it isn’t an argument at all. It’s an assertion.

Your comparison to arguments from authority to my problem with the use of the word ‘examples’ is irrelevant. Arguments from authority are fallacies of relevance. The fallacy of examples has nothing to do with relevance, if it did the original post would be about how ‘the fallacy of examples’ is completely irrelevant (rather it is a fallacy because it relates to an inductive fallacy insofar as it doesn’t give us enough information).

Example of Valid Inductive Argument:

1. If you’re a politician, you probably lie well.
2. You’re a politician.
Therefore, you probably lie well.

Example of Invalid Inductive Argument:

1. If you’re a politician, you probably lie well.
2. You’re a mortician.
Therefore, you probably lie well.

The conclusion in the second may very well be true, but it doesn’t follow from the premises. The logical form is invalid, and it’s an inductive (probabilistic) argument.

What you may be thinking of is formal vs. informal reasoning instead of deductive vs. inductive. Deductive and inductive reasoning are both formal reasoning processes. Informal reasoning is more often associated with logical fallacies.

Also, Yo, you said ‘to name it ‘fallacy of examples’ seems to deny ‘examples’ their power in specific cases of argument.’

Um, at best that’s quibbling. At worst, that’s wrong. An appeal to authority is an informal fallacy, but we don’t think that calling it that makes genuine authorities any less authoritative.

It’s called that because we sometimes inappropriately say, ‘You should believe X because Bill believes X , and he’s an expert’ instead of ‘You should believe X for these reasons, all of which are detailed by Bill, who’s an expert in the subject.’

Calling this ‘The Fallacy of Examples’ doesn’t entail or even necessarily imply that the use of examples is always bad. The post says quite the opposite.

And for what it’s worth, I vote for this being an extremely well done post.