Accident (fallacy)
This article needs additional citations for verification. (September 2011) |
This article is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed. This page was last edited at 01:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC) (0 seconds ago) – this estimate is cached, . Please remove this template if this page hasn't been edited for a significant time. If you are the editor who added this template, please be sure to remove it or replace it with {{Under construction}} between editing sessions. |
The fallacy of accident (also called destroying the exception or a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid) is an informal fallacy and a deductively valid but unsound argument occurring in a statistical syllogism (an argument based on a generalization) when an exception to a rule of thumb[1] is ignored. It is one of the thirteen fallacies originally identified by Aristotle in Sophistical Refutations. The fallacy occurs when one attempts to apply a general rule to an irrelevant situation.
For example:
Cutting people with knives is a crime. →
Surgeons cut people with knives. →
Surgeons are criminals.
This fallacy may occur when limited generalizations ("some; sometimes and somewhere") are mixed with A-type categorical statements ("all; always and everywhere"), often when no quantifiers like "some" or "many" or qualifiers such as "rarely" are used to mark off what is or may be excepted in the generalization.
Related inductive fallacies include overwhelming exceptions and hasty generalizations. See faulty generalization.
The opposing kind of dicto simpliciter fallacy is the converse accident.
Notes[edit]
- ^ "The Fallacy of Accident". The Fallacy Files.
Reference list[edit]
- S. Morris Engel (1999). With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies. Bedford/St. Martin's. ISBN 0312157584. Retrieved 2013-02-17.