Page 103 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, št. 3-4: K paradigmam raziskovanja vzgoje in izobraževanja, ur. Valerija Vendramin
P. 103
igor ž. žagar ■ between fallacies and more fallacies?
Example
Before Class:
Bill: “Boy, that professor is a real jerk. I think he is some sort of euro-
centric fascist.”
Jill: “Yeah.”
During Class:
Prof. Jones: “...and so we see that there was never any ‘Golden Age of
Matriarchy’ in 1895 in America.”
After Class:
Bill: “See what I mean?”
Jill: “Yeah. There must have been a Golden Age of Matriarchy, since
that jerk said there wasn’t.””
First, it is not quite evident that this is a fallacy; fallacy is a fallacious
argument and it is yet to be extracted (if any) from the above dialogue.
Secondly, if we apply a kind of a principle of charity, and concede
there is an argument in the above dialogue, we don’t need to invent any
new fallacy, it could easily be analysed as Ignoratio Elenchi, Secundum
Quid or even Petitio Principii (if we stay with the all-embracing falla-
cies (or “fallacies”)). But it could also be a version of Ad Hominem, Straw
Man, even Ad Populum. So, why create a new fallacy? Maybe because it is
hard to choose between the existing ones, since the criteria are so unclear?
b) Nirvana fallacy
(Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy)
The Nirvana fallacy is the logical error of comparing actual things
with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to
assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem.
Example: “If we go on the Highway 95 at four in the morning we
will get to our destination exactly on time because there will be NO traf-
fic whatsoever.””
First, there is no reason or justification to label this “fallacy” a “logi-
cal error”; there is nothing “logical” about it unless we treat everything we
say as “logical”. Secondly, even if criteria for detecting fallacies are not very
clear, it is clear enough that “Nirvana fallacy” could be analysed as Ad
Consequentiam or/and Ad Ignorantiam (leaving aside at least the ubiqui-
tous Secundum Quid).
101
Example
Before Class:
Bill: “Boy, that professor is a real jerk. I think he is some sort of euro-
centric fascist.”
Jill: “Yeah.”
During Class:
Prof. Jones: “...and so we see that there was never any ‘Golden Age of
Matriarchy’ in 1895 in America.”
After Class:
Bill: “See what I mean?”
Jill: “Yeah. There must have been a Golden Age of Matriarchy, since
that jerk said there wasn’t.””
First, it is not quite evident that this is a fallacy; fallacy is a fallacious
argument and it is yet to be extracted (if any) from the above dialogue.
Secondly, if we apply a kind of a principle of charity, and concede
there is an argument in the above dialogue, we don’t need to invent any
new fallacy, it could easily be analysed as Ignoratio Elenchi, Secundum
Quid or even Petitio Principii (if we stay with the all-embracing falla-
cies (or “fallacies”)). But it could also be a version of Ad Hominem, Straw
Man, even Ad Populum. So, why create a new fallacy? Maybe because it is
hard to choose between the existing ones, since the criteria are so unclear?
b) Nirvana fallacy
(Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy)
The Nirvana fallacy is the logical error of comparing actual things
with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to
assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem.
Example: “If we go on the Highway 95 at four in the morning we
will get to our destination exactly on time because there will be NO traf-
fic whatsoever.””
First, there is no reason or justification to label this “fallacy” a “logi-
cal error”; there is nothing “logical” about it unless we treat everything we
say as “logical”. Secondly, even if criteria for detecting fallacies are not very
clear, it is clear enough that “Nirvana fallacy” could be analysed as Ad
Consequentiam or/and Ad Ignorantiam (leaving aside at least the ubiqui-
tous Secundum Quid).
101
