Many Questions Fallacy: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
m (revise quote template spacing) |
m (cleanup categories) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
* Loaded Question |
* Loaded Question |
||
* Interrogation Fallacy |
* Interrogation Fallacy |
||
* Fallacy of Presupposition |
* Fallacy of Presupposition |
||
* Demanding a Simple Answer to a Complex Question |
* Demanding a Simple Answer to a Complex Question |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
* Many [[Logic Bomb|Logic Bombs]] require such a fallacy; for example, the [[Master Computer]] will be obliged by its programming to give only a yes or no answer to a question like "I always lie, and this is the truth, am I telling the truth?" It's impossible to give a yes or no answer to this question that is correct, but the [[Master Computer]] will not be allowed to either simply point out that the question cannot be answered, or to note it is being obliged to assume a positive answer to "do you always lie?" |
* Many [[Logic Bomb|Logic Bombs]] require such a fallacy; for example, the [[Master Computer]] will be obliged by its programming to give only a yes or no answer to a question like "I always lie, and this is the truth, am I telling the truth?" It's impossible to give a yes or no answer to this question that is correct, but the [[Master Computer]] will not be allowed to either simply point out that the question cannot be answered, or to note it is being obliged to assume a positive answer to "do you always lie?" |
||
** Sadly, that "[[Logic Bomb]]" can be answered easily; no. You don't always lie, but you do sometimes lie. |
** Sadly, that "[[Logic Bomb]]" can be answered easily; no. You don't always lie, but you do sometimes lie. |
||
* In legal matters, these are considered a type of "[http://www.trialtheater.com/articles/leadingquestions.htm leading questions]", where the intent is to persuade someone being questioned towards a certain line of replies. For example, "You saw the defendant with a knife in his hand, right?" is a loaded version of "Was the defendant carrying anything?". Leading questions are for the most part severely discouraged and have led to the collapse of cases where it became clear that witnesses had, for various reasons, allowed themselves to be led into giving completely false testimony. |
* In legal matters, these are considered a type of "[http://www.trialtheater.com/articles/leadingquestions.htm leading questions]", where the intent is to persuade someone being questioned towards a certain line of replies. For example, "You saw the defendant with a knife in his hand, right?" is a loaded version of "Was the defendant carrying anything?". Leading questions are for the most part severely discouraged and have led to the collapse of cases where it became clear that witnesses had, for various reasons, allowed themselves to be led into giving completely false testimony. |
||
** Note that there's a difference between a "loaded" and a "leading" question; they are often confused. A loaded question is one that assumes some fact. For instance, if the witness says that he saw someone leaving the scene, then "Was the defendant carrying anything?" is a loaded question, because it assumes that the person that the witness saw was the defendant. A leading question is one that prompts a particular response. Generally, they're in the form of "Did such-and-such happen?" instead of "What happened?" |
** Note that there's a difference between a "loaded" and a "leading" question; they are often confused. A loaded question is one that assumes some fact. For instance, if the witness says that he saw someone leaving the scene, then "Was the defendant carrying anything?" is a loaded question, because it assumes that the person that the witness saw was the defendant. A leading question is one that prompts a particular response. Generally, they're in the form of "Did such-and-such happen?" instead of "What happened?" |
||
* Similarly, it's a common cross-examination trick to do this, because the attorney conditions the witness to respond "Yes" or "No" to everything and then traps them with a question like this. The delay as the person scrambles to shift from simple "yes" and "no" answers and mentally compose what they want to say can make them look uncertain. If the questioning attorney tries to insist on a simple "yes or no" answer, the opposing attorney will usually make the objection "Assumes a fact not in evidence." |
* Similarly, it's a common cross-examination trick to do this, because the attorney conditions the witness to respond "Yes" or "No" to everything and then traps them with a question like this. The delay as the person scrambles to shift from simple "yes" and "no" answers and mentally compose what they want to say can make them look uncertain. If the questioning attorney tries to insist on a simple "yes or no" answer, the opposing attorney will usually make the objection "Assumes a fact not in evidence." |
||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
{{reflist}} |
{{reflist}} |
||
[[Category:Logic Tropes]] |
|||
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]] |
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]] |
||
[[Category:Many Questions Fallacy]] |
[[Category:Many Questions Fallacy]] |
||