The assertion that a procedure cannot be as effective as Dr. Russell claims, because he is a recent graduate from the west coast is false. Indeed, it is demonstrative of the association or guilt by association fallacy. This fallacy is generally classified as a fallacy of division, and more particularly as a red-herring fallacy.
A guilt by association fallacy, as its name indicates, asserts that two or more things have the same properties as one another, because they are related to each other in some way (Greenwell, 2004). Ken McVay illustrates this fallacy by creating an exchange between two fictional people, Will and Kiteena. Kiteena asserts that she believes that the government ought to be put in charge of vital industries. Wills answer is as follows
Well, you know Stalin also endorsed state ownership on industry. At last count he wiped out millions of his own people. Pol Pot of Cambodia was also for state ownership of industry. He also killed millions of his own people. The leadership of China is for state owned industry. They killed their own people in that square. So, are you still for state ownership of industry (McVay, 2009)
This is a fallacy because it does not address the merits or the shortcomings of state ownership. Instead, it claims that because two violent dictators supported state ownership, the idea must be a bad one and anyone who supports it is like Stalin or Pol Pot. Yet Stalin shares traits and experiences with many less violent people. For instance, Stalin once studied to be a priest (Haugen, 2006). Yet, to claim that all men who study to be priests are violent and ruthless is absurd. One has only to look to Pope John Paul II to see that it is false.
The claim that Dr. Russell is biased in favor of a certain medical treatment, simply because he is a recent graduate is also false. Even if the majority of recent graduates support a particular procedure, it is by no means certain that Dr. Russell agrees with them. It might be fair to say that Dr. Russells view could be biased, because he is a recent graduate from the west coast, but it is ludicrous to say that his view cannot be correct because of it.
One fallacious response to the person who claimed Dr. Russells recommendations must be wrong is the following
Everyone in town knows and trusts Dr. Russell therefore, his recommendations must be right.
This is an example of the bandwagon fallacy, which asserts that if something is popular it is, therefore right. Sternberg, Roediger and Halpern describe it as the tendency to believe that the majority opinion is the valid opinion. (Sternberg, Roediger, Halpern, 2007, p. 116) But Sternberg et al. point out that often, people will jump on the bandwagon, not because they believe in a particular idea, but because they do not want to feel left out. Indeed, McVay describes the bandwagon fallacy as one in which, a threat of rejection by ones peers (or peer pressure) is substituted for evidence in an argument. (McVay, 2009, p. 1) For instance, he says, someone in a certain group might say to a prospective member, We know that you believe that 112, but we dont tolerate that in our group. Even though it is clear that 11 does equal two, the majority, in this case, does not tolerate the truth.
It is possible therefore, that the reason everyone in town knows and professes to trust Dr. Russell, is that going to Dr. Russell is the popular thing to do. Perhaps the people of the town prefer to be seen by new graduates, rather than older doctors who they believe are set in their ways. It is also possible that Dr. Russell is legitimately likable. Perhaps he has a warm and charming personality. Likability still does not equal correctness.
Nevertheless, this fallacious argument is an appropriate response to the other attendees claim, because, like the first claim, it focuses not on the effectiveness of the procedure, but, instead, on Dr. Russells qualities. If the attendees problem is with Dr. Russell, rather than the procedure itself, then it makes more sense to defend Dr. Russells personality and qualifications than it does to discuss the merits of the procedure. Nevertheless, it is still a fallacy.
A guilt by association fallacy, as its name indicates, asserts that two or more things have the same properties as one another, because they are related to each other in some way (Greenwell, 2004). Ken McVay illustrates this fallacy by creating an exchange between two fictional people, Will and Kiteena. Kiteena asserts that she believes that the government ought to be put in charge of vital industries. Wills answer is as follows
Well, you know Stalin also endorsed state ownership on industry. At last count he wiped out millions of his own people. Pol Pot of Cambodia was also for state ownership of industry. He also killed millions of his own people. The leadership of China is for state owned industry. They killed their own people in that square. So, are you still for state ownership of industry (McVay, 2009)
This is a fallacy because it does not address the merits or the shortcomings of state ownership. Instead, it claims that because two violent dictators supported state ownership, the idea must be a bad one and anyone who supports it is like Stalin or Pol Pot. Yet Stalin shares traits and experiences with many less violent people. For instance, Stalin once studied to be a priest (Haugen, 2006). Yet, to claim that all men who study to be priests are violent and ruthless is absurd. One has only to look to Pope John Paul II to see that it is false.
The claim that Dr. Russell is biased in favor of a certain medical treatment, simply because he is a recent graduate is also false. Even if the majority of recent graduates support a particular procedure, it is by no means certain that Dr. Russell agrees with them. It might be fair to say that Dr. Russells view could be biased, because he is a recent graduate from the west coast, but it is ludicrous to say that his view cannot be correct because of it.
One fallacious response to the person who claimed Dr. Russells recommendations must be wrong is the following
Everyone in town knows and trusts Dr. Russell therefore, his recommendations must be right.
This is an example of the bandwagon fallacy, which asserts that if something is popular it is, therefore right. Sternberg, Roediger and Halpern describe it as the tendency to believe that the majority opinion is the valid opinion. (Sternberg, Roediger, Halpern, 2007, p. 116) But Sternberg et al. point out that often, people will jump on the bandwagon, not because they believe in a particular idea, but because they do not want to feel left out. Indeed, McVay describes the bandwagon fallacy as one in which, a threat of rejection by ones peers (or peer pressure) is substituted for evidence in an argument. (McVay, 2009, p. 1) For instance, he says, someone in a certain group might say to a prospective member, We know that you believe that 112, but we dont tolerate that in our group. Even though it is clear that 11 does equal two, the majority, in this case, does not tolerate the truth.
It is possible therefore, that the reason everyone in town knows and professes to trust Dr. Russell, is that going to Dr. Russell is the popular thing to do. Perhaps the people of the town prefer to be seen by new graduates, rather than older doctors who they believe are set in their ways. It is also possible that Dr. Russell is legitimately likable. Perhaps he has a warm and charming personality. Likability still does not equal correctness.
Nevertheless, this fallacious argument is an appropriate response to the other attendees claim, because, like the first claim, it focuses not on the effectiveness of the procedure, but, instead, on Dr. Russells qualities. If the attendees problem is with Dr. Russell, rather than the procedure itself, then it makes more sense to defend Dr. Russells personality and qualifications than it does to discuss the merits of the procedure. Nevertheless, it is still a fallacy.
No comments:
Post a Comment