Association Fallacy: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Jason taylor (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Jason taylor (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 76:
=== Looks like this fallacy but is not ===
* When the example is being used to show that there is overlap in the members of two groups, but not to state or imply that the overlap is total. For instance, saying "many (or even most) vegetarians are good, moral people" is not this. On the other hand, saying it might be misleading: One hopes that ''most'' people are good, moral people.
* Shame by association might or might not be considered different from guilt by association. It is a phenomenon found in groupings that place a high value on [[Family Honor|corporate reputation]]. In any case whether it is a variation of association fallacy or not, shame by association is an innate ideological feature, whereas guilt by association is impossible as guilt must be individual. "The Campbells conducted a massacre at Glencoe, I am a Campbell, therefore I am ashamed" is shame(which is an emotion and in some cases a political calculation). It does not follow that,"The Campbells conducted a massacre at Glencoe, I am a Campbell, therefore I should be hanged for murder."
* What is definitely not association fallacy is when some association is placed in a position which can legitimately be assumed to cause predictable effects. The Nazis controlling the government of the state called Germany can reasonably lead one to conclude that said state will follow nazi policies as a state is a corporate machine composed of individuals who by and large [[Just Following Orders|do what they are told.]] It cannot be assumed that [[All Germans Are Nazis|everyone of Teutonic ancestry]] including not only internal dissidents but citizens of states with different policies will behave in the same way; and assuming anything of that kind is association fallacy.
everyone of Teutonic ancestry
{{reflist}}
| |||