Association fallacy: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>OAbot m Open access bot: url-access updated in citation with #oabot. |
imported>WikiWarrior9919 At least link to Wikt entry? |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
[[File:Euler diagram.png|thumb|216x216px|An Euler diagram illustrating the association fallacy]] | [[File:Euler diagram.png|thumb|216x216px|An Euler diagram illustrating the association fallacy]] | ||
Using the language of [[set theory]], the formal fallacy can be written as follows: | Using the language of [[set theory]], the formal fallacy can be written as follows: | ||
;Premise: A is in set S1 | |||
;Premise: A is in set S2 | |||
;Premise: B is also in set S2 | |||
;Conclusion: Therefore, B is in set S1. | |||
In the notation of [[first-order logic]], this type of fallacy can be expressed as ([[∃]]''x'' [[∈]] ''S'' : ''φ''(''x'')) ⇒ ([[∀]]''x'' ∈ ''S'' : ''φ''(''x'')). | In the notation of [[first-order logic]], this type of fallacy can be expressed as ([[∃]]''x'' [[∈]] ''S'' : ''φ''(''x'')) ⇒ ([[∀]]''x'' ∈ ''S'' : ''φ''(''x'')). | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
* John is a Con artist. John has black hair. Therefore, people with black hair are necessarily Con artists. | * John is a Con artist. John has black hair. Therefore, people with black hair are necessarily Con artists. | ||
* Lyle is a crooked salesman. Lyle proposes a monorail. Therefore, the proposed monorail is necessarily [[ | * Lyle is a crooked salesman. Lyle proposes a monorail. Therefore, the proposed monorail is necessarily a [[wiktionary:folly|folly]]. | ||
* Country X is a dangerous country. Country X has a national [[postal service]]. Therefore, countries with national postal services are necessarily dangerous. | * Country X is a dangerous country. Country X has a national [[postal service]]. Therefore, countries with national postal services are necessarily dangerous. | ||
* Simon and Karl live in [[Nashville]], and they are both petty criminals. Jill lives in Nashville; therefore, Jill is necessarily a petty criminal. | * Simon and Karl live in [[Nashville]], and they are both petty criminals. Jill lives in Nashville; therefore, Jill is necessarily a petty criminal. | ||
Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ''[[ad hominem]]'', if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.<ref name=Niz>{{cite web |url=http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html |date=12 June 2014 |title=Fallacy: Guilt By Association |last=Labossiere |first=Michael C. |website=The Nizkor Project |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181004015840/http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html |archive-date=4 October 2018 |url-status=dead |access-date=12 June 2014 }}</ref><ref name="Damer2008">{{cite book |last=Damer |first=T. Edward |title=Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments |date=21 February 2008 |publisher=Cengage Learning |isbn=978-1-111-79919-9 |edition=6th |page=112 |chapter=6: Fallacies that Violate the Relevance Criterion |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kAFtCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA112}}</ref> | Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ''[[ad hominem]]'', if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.<ref name=Niz>{{cite web |url=http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html |date=12 June 2014 |title=Fallacy: Guilt By Association |last=Labossiere |first=Michael C. |website=The Nizkor Project |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181004015840/http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html |archive-date=4 October 2018 |url-status=dead |access-date=12 June 2014 }}</ref><ref name="Damer2008">{{cite book |last=Damer |first=T. Edward |title=Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments |date=21 February 2008 |publisher=Cengage Learning |isbn=978-1-111-79919-9 |edition=6th |page=112 |chapter=6: Fallacies that Violate the Relevance Criterion |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kAFtCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA112}}</ref> | ||
== Galileo gambit | == Variations == | ||
A form of the association fallacy often used by those denying a well-established scientific or historical proposition is the so-called '''Galileo gambit''' or '''Galileo fallacy'''.<ref name="Collins2012">{{cite book|last=Collins|first=Loren|title=Bullspotting: Finding Facts in the Age of Misinformation|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8gXvP3MCAqcC&pg=PT27|date=30 October 2012|publisher=Prometheus Books|isbn=978-1-61614-635-1|pages=27–28}}</ref> The argument runs thus: [[Galileo]] was ridiculed in his time for his scientific observations, but was later acknowledged to be right; the proponent argues that since their non-mainstream views are provoking ridicule and rejection from other scientists, they will later be recognized as correct, like Galileo.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.indiana.edu/~c228/Fallacies.pdf | title=Recognizing Microstructural Fallacies | access-date=24 March 2014 | author=Amsden, Brian | pages=22 | archive-date=12 July 2019 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190712055955/http://www.indiana.edu/~c228/Fallacies.pdf | url-status=dead }}</ref> The gambit is flawed in that being ridiculed does not necessarily correlate with being right and that many people who have been ridiculed in history were, in fact, wrong.<ref name="Collins2012"/><ref>{{cite | {{anchor|Galileo gambit}} | ||
A form of the association fallacy often used by those denying a well-established scientific or historical proposition is the so-called '''Galileo gambit''' or '''Galileo fallacy'''.<ref name="Collins2012">{{cite book|last=Collins|first=Loren|title=Bullspotting: Finding Facts in the Age of Misinformation|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8gXvP3MCAqcC&pg=PT27|date=30 October 2012|publisher=Prometheus Books|isbn=978-1-61614-635-1|pages=27–28}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |last=Johnson |first=David Kyle |title=Galileo Gambit |date=2018-05-09 |work=Bad Arguments |pages=152–156 |editor-last=Arp |editor-first=Robert |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119165811.ch27 |access-date=2024-02-03 |edition=1 |publisher=Wiley |language=en |doi=10.1002/9781119165811.ch27 |isbn=978-1-119-16578-1 |editor2-last=Barbone |editor2-first=Steven |editor3-last=Bruce |editor3-first=Michael|url-access=subscription }}</ref> The argument runs thus: [[Galileo]] was ridiculed in his time for his scientific observations, but was later acknowledged to be right; the proponent argues that since their non-mainstream views are provoking ridicule and rejection from other scientists, they will later be recognized as correct, like Galileo.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.indiana.edu/~c228/Fallacies.pdf |title=Recognizing Microstructural Fallacies |access-date=24 March 2014 |author=Amsden, Brian |pages=22 |archive-date=12 July 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190712055955/http://www.indiana.edu/~c228/Fallacies.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> The gambit is flawed in that being ridiculed does not necessarily correlate with being right and that many people who have been ridiculed in history were, in fact, wrong.<ref name="Collins2012"/><ref>{{cite web |url=http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/03/galileo-gambit.html |date=28 March 2005 |title=The Galileo Gambit |last=Gorski |first=David |author-link=David Gorski |website=Respectful Insolence |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180228113627/http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/03/galileo-gambit.html |archive-date=28 February 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref> Similarly, [[Carl Sagan]] noted that people laughed at such geniuses as [[Christopher Columbus]]{{Efn|The idea that Columbus proved that the Earth is spherical to his contemporaries is a historical misconception;<ref>{{Cite encyclopedia |title=Columbus, Christopher |date=2007-01-01 |encyclopedia=The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea |editor-first=I. C. B. |editor-last=Dear |url=https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199205684.001.0001/acref-9780199205684-e-633 |access-date=2024-11-17 |publisher=Oxford University Press |language=en |doi=10.1093/acref/9780199205684.001.0001/acref-9780199205684-e-633 |isbn=978-0-19-920568-4 |editor2-last=Kemp |editor2-first=Peter}}</ref> see [[Myth of the flat Earth]].}} and the [[Wright brothers]], but "they also laughed at [[Bozo the Clown]]".<ref>{{cite book |title=The Yale Book of Quotations |publisher=Yale University Press |last=Shapiro |first=Fred R. |year=2006 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780300107982/page/660 660] |isbn=9780300107982 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780300107982/page/660 }}</ref><ref name="Sagan1979">{{cite book|last=Sagan|first=Carl|title=Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science|url=https://archive.org/details/brocasbrainrefle00sagarich|url-access=registration|year=1979|publisher=Random House|page=[https://archive.org/details/brocasbrainrefle00sagarich/page/64 64]|isbn=9780394501697 }}</ref> | |||
== See also == | == See also == | ||
{{ | * {{annotated link|Common purpose}} | ||
* | * {{annotated link|Discrimination}} | ||
* [[ | * {{annotated link|Genetic fallacy}} | ||
* | * [[wikt:Goomba fallacy|Goomba fallacy]] - Related fallacy in which conflicting opinions of separate members of communities are taken for opinions a single member could conceivably harbor, even if doing so would not make sense at all | ||
* | * {{annotated link|Jumping to conclusions}} | ||
* | * {{annotated link|Motte-and-bailey fallacy}} | ||
* | * {{annotated link|Nine familial exterminations}} | ||
* | * {{annotated link|Prejudice}} | ||
* | * {{annotated link|Presumption of guilt}} | ||
* '' | * {{annotated link|Propaganda techniques}} | ||
* | * ''{{annotated link|Reductio ad Hitlerum}}'' | ||
* | * {{annotated link|Scapegoating}} | ||
* | * {{annotated link|Sippenhaft}} | ||
* | * {{annotated link|Social stigma}} | ||
}} | * {{annotated link|Stereotype}} | ||
== Footnotes == | == Footnotes == | ||
Latest revision as of 16:21, 9 December 2025
Template:Short description Script error: No such module "redirect hatnote".Script error: No such module "redirect hatnote".Script error: No such module "For". The association fallacy is a formal fallacy that asserts that properties of one thing must also be properties of another thing if both things belong to the same group. For example, a fallacious arguer may claim that "bears are animals, and bears are dangerous; therefore your dog, which is also an animal, must be dangerous."
When it is an attempt to win favor by exploiting the audience's preexisting spite or disdain for something else, it is called guilt by association or an appeal to spite (Template:Langx).[1] Guilt by association can be a component of ad hominem arguments which attack the speaker rather than addressing the claims, but they are a distinct class of fallacious argument, and both are able to exist independently of the other.
Formal version
Using the language of set theory, the formal fallacy can be written as follows:
- Premise
- A is in set S1
- Premise
- A is in set S2
- Premise
- B is also in set S2
- Conclusion
- Therefore, B is in set S1.
In the notation of first-order logic, this type of fallacy can be expressed as (∃x ∈ S : φ(x)) ⇒ (∀x ∈ S : φ(x)).
The fallacy in the argument can be illustrated through the use of an Euler diagram: A satisfies the requirement that it is part of both sets S1 and S2, but representing this as an Euler diagram makes it clear that B could be in S2 but not S1.
Guilt by association
Script error: No such module "labelled list hatnote".This form of the argument is as follows:
- Group A makes a particular claim.
- Group B, which is currently viewed negatively by some, makes the same claim as Group A.
- Therefore, Group A is viewed as associated with Group B, and is now also viewed negatively.
An example of this fallacy would be "My opponent for office just received an endorsement from the Puppy Haters Association. Is that the sort of person you would want to vote for?"
Examples
Some syllogistic examples of guilt by association:
- John is a Con artist. John has black hair. Therefore, people with black hair are necessarily Con artists.
- Lyle is a crooked salesman. Lyle proposes a monorail. Therefore, the proposed monorail is necessarily a folly.
- Country X is a dangerous country. Country X has a national postal service. Therefore, countries with national postal services are necessarily dangerous.
- Simon and Karl live in Nashville, and they are both petty criminals. Jill lives in Nashville; therefore, Jill is necessarily a petty criminal.
Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem, if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.[2][3]
Variations
Script error: No such module "anchor". A form of the association fallacy often used by those denying a well-established scientific or historical proposition is the so-called Galileo gambit or Galileo fallacy.[4][5] The argument runs thus: Galileo was ridiculed in his time for his scientific observations, but was later acknowledged to be right; the proponent argues that since their non-mainstream views are provoking ridicule and rejection from other scientists, they will later be recognized as correct, like Galileo.[6] The gambit is flawed in that being ridiculed does not necessarily correlate with being right and that many people who have been ridiculed in history were, in fact, wrong.[4][7] Similarly, Carl Sagan noted that people laughed at such geniuses as Christopher ColumbusTemplate:Efn and the Wright brothers, but "they also laughed at Bozo the Clown".[8][9]
See also
- Template:Annotated link
- Template:Annotated link
- Template:Annotated link
- Goomba fallacy - Related fallacy in which conflicting opinions of separate members of communities are taken for opinions a single member could conceivably harbor, even if doing so would not make sense at all
- Template:Annotated link
- Template:Annotated link
- Template:Annotated link
- Template:Annotated link
- Template:Annotated link
- Template:Annotated link
- Template:Annotated link
- Template:Annotated link
- Template:Annotated link
- Template:Annotated link
- Template:Annotated link
Footnotes
References
<templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" />
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ a b Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".
Further reading
- Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- Bibliography on Fallacies
External links
- The Fallacy Files at Guilt by Association
- "Transfer technique" at Propagandacritic.com
- "Testimonial" at Propagandacritic.com
Script error: No such module "Navbox".