Accident fallacy
(Difference between revisions)
(New page - redirects to similar topic, though maybe the other page should be moved here instead. - jt) |
(started real page - I wish I could think of some apologetics-related examples, but after 2 days of racking my brain, I can't come up with any. I'm not that it really comes up ever. I'll think some mor) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | # | + | The '''Accident fallacy''', or '''a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid''', is when generalizations are applied to circumstances when they are otherwise flukes or exceptions. The broader the generalization, the weaker it tends to be, and is more prone to this type of fallacy. |
| + | |||
| + | ==Examples== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Example 1 | ||
| + | :# Cutting people is criminal | ||
| + | :# Surgeons cut people | ||
| + | :# Surgeons are criminals | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Arguments]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Logical fallacies]] | ||
Revision as of 21:58, 24 February 2011
The Accident fallacy, or a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid, is when generalizations are applied to circumstances when they are otherwise flukes or exceptions. The broader the generalization, the weaker it tends to be, and is more prone to this type of fallacy.
Examples
- Example 1
- Cutting people is criminal
- Surgeons cut people
- Surgeons are criminals
