19 replies to this topic

[Anarchy_Balsac]

Now don't get me wrong, I get the idea behind this.  If you have 10 examples of experts who back your point and I have one, it makes sense, I'm not talking about cases like that.

 

I'm talking about cases where someone is being emotional and ignorant, I come up with examples of experts or eyewitnesses who have good reason to say otherwise, and then they'll say, "Yeah, well that's just 5 people, what about the other 3 million?"

 

So here's the thing, I can't interview 100,000, much less 3 million, or 140 million.  Even 1000 is a lot of work and would take a while, and still be a minority in many cases.  The thing is, if I have 5 people, and the opposition has nothing other than biased media reports and emotion, I really don't think shutting me down with this argument is valid, and it certainly doesn't convince me of anything. 

 

Does anyone else have personal experience with this and are tired of hearing it?  Again, I'm not talking about a case where they have 10 people and you have one, that's perfectly valid.

[SkyLizardGirl]

Are you talking about whether you think 'something etc' of one of the medias 'Factoid Checks' is true or not?

 

I hear lots people say for example - Sharks dont attack humans, they don't bite people at the beach ever or rarely

and there is constant doubt that Sharks won't attack wild humans swimming at the beach, yet over where i live it has happened so many damn times, it is ridiculous to say sharks attacking humans rarely happens when i hear a report of a shark attack every other week where i live.

 

They need to recheck their facts because we have been getting alot of shark attacks yet the commercial media with their factoid lies keeps denying them.

[Anarchy_Balsac]

Are you talking about whether you think 'something etc' of one of the medias 'Factoid Checks' is true or not?

 

I hear lots people say for example - Sharks dont attack humans, they don't bite people at the beach ever or rarely

and there is constant doubt that Sharks won't attack wild humans swimming at the beach, yet over where i live it has happened so many damn times, it is ridiculous to say sharks attacking humans rarely happens when i hear a report of a shark attack every other week where i live.

 

They need to recheck their facts because we have been getting alot of shark attacks yet the commercial media with their factoid lies keeps denying them.

 

I'm talking in general, there WAS a specific RL argument I had that prompted this, but it wasn't the first time I put up with this annoyance and didn't want the thread derailed with such discussions.  I'm talking about the fallacy itself and how I'm sick of people shutting me down that way when they have little to no evidence themselves, or their evidence is extremely questionable, such as using 1980's diplomatic relations to talk about how things work in the modern world.

Edited by Anarchy_Balsac, 31 December 2015 - 10:10 PM.

[SkyLizardGirl]

I'm talking in general, there WAS a specific RL argument I had that prompted this, but it wasn't the first time I put up with this annoyance and didn't want the thread derailed with such discussions.  I'm talking about the fallacy itself and how I'm sick of people shutting me down that way when they have little to no evidence themselves, or their evidence is extremely questionable, such as using 1980's diplomatic relations to talk about how things work in the modern world.

 

I understand now.  I don't know what happened exactly in your argument.  I have had people put me down alots when i am trying to explain something and there is 'actual facts and proof on the internet' yet they don't believe me even when i tell them to see for themselves.

 

The Biggest victim i know of of this is of course - Alex Jones:  Ridiculed by both people and the mainstream media who control the narrative of things 24/7. 

Just because big brother's government says its true - We are safer because of the war in Iraq for example -mowing down people, isn't always the truth with things, when alot of things are still happening today and are a result of our assaults for example, people there want revenge for what the US military industrial complex did to their families.

Edited by SkyLizardGirl, 04 January 2016 - 04:09 PM.

[Mani Kanina]

I don't have any clue what you're even talking about @ OP. Maybe you should explain the 'fallacy' you're talking about.

[Gleeok]

I'm not really sure what it's about either but I'd be down for a "two girls/ one guy" fallacy.

[Logos]

I'm sorry OP, but I don't know what you mean. I agree with Lunaria. Perhaps clarify your post?

Edited by Zéo, 03 January 2016 - 02:53 PM.

[Deedee]

I get what he means. He means when you try to back something up with expert proof, only for someone to say "Yeah, but that's only 3 out of billions of people in the world. What do they know?".

[Koh]

If that's the case Dimentio, then that still wouldn't be a fallacy, actually.  It's actually the correct counter to the Hasty Generalization fallacy.

 

In a nutshell, one cannot look at a really small sample, and attempt to make a blanket statement about the entire group, otherwise you commit the Hasty Generalization fallacy.  The sample has to be reasonably large, and even then, the conclusion can only say something about the probability, and not with 100% certainty, as the resulting data from the sample should have a relatively normal distribution.

 

We talked about this in Statistics actually, and I believe the sample size has to be at least 30 or higher, in which the distribution would be close enough to a normal curve, that it could be approximated as a normal curve.

Edited by Koh, 03 January 2016 - 04:58 PM.

[Anarchy_Balsac]

I get what he means. He means when you try to back something up with expert proof, only for someone to say "Yeah, but that's only 3 out of billions of people in the world. What do they know?".

 

Yes exactly, and citing specific examples would turn this into a debate about politics/science/whatever, derailing the thread.

 

 

 

If that's the case Dimentio, then that still wouldn't be a fallacy, actually.  It's actually the correct counter to the Hasty Generalization fallacy.

In a nutshell, one cannot look at a really small sample, and attempt to make a blanket statement about the entire group, otherwise you commit the Hasty Generalization fallacy.  The sample has to be reasonably large, and even then, the conclusion can only say something about the probability, and not with 100% certainty, as the resulting data from the sample should have a relatively normal distribution.

We talked about this in Statistics actually, and I believe the sample size has to be at least 30 or higher, in which the distribution would be close enough to a normal curve, that it could be approximated as a normal curve.

 

Laconic edit: You know why almost no one brings up the "Logical fallacies" anymore?  Because people have seen the bull.  Rigidly applying fallacies without context does nothing but, ironically, create a fallacious argument.  You have to consider the context of the argument, not whether it or parts of it resemble some list you saw on the internet.

 

My point?  Unless you got a lot of resources, plenty of people working for you, and tons of time, it will ALWAYS be a hasty generalization on most subjects, but you can't just dismiss it.

Edited by Anarchy_Balsac, 04 January 2016 - 08:43 AM.

[Koh]

it will ALWAYS be a hasty generalization on most subjects

But that's exactly why they are dismissed.  As I've said in my post, they can only be made if the sample size is reasonably large, and again, cannot be said with certainty, but with a probability.  Like, for example, doing a study on 50 smokers, and determining how many of them had lung problems or something.  If 70% or so of the group had lung problems, your conclusion cannot be "If you continuously smoke, you WILL contract lung problems."  Instead, it has to be "If you continuously smoke, you're VERY LIKELY to contract lung problems."  If the sample size was too small, like 10 smokers and doing the same study, then it's committing the Hasty Generalization fallacy, because 10 smokers is not enough to be approximated as a normal curve, and instead, is a small discrete distribution, which says nothing about a large population.

Edited by Koh, 04 January 2016 - 12:33 PM.

[strike]

Since when are people not allowed to use logic in a conversation? >->

-Strike

[Anarchy_Balsac]

But that's exactly why they are dismissed.  As I've said in my post, they can only be made if the sample size is reasonably large, and again, cannot be said with certainty, but with a probability.  Like, for example, doing a study on 50 smokers, and determining how many of them had lung problems or something.  If 70% or so of the group had lung problems, your conclusion cannot be "If you continuously smoke, you WILL contract lung problems."  Instead, it has to be "If you continuously smoke, you're VERY LIKELY to contract lung problems."  If the sample size was too small, like 10 smokers and doing the same study, then it's committing the Hasty Generalization fallacy, because 10 smokers is not enough to be approximated as a normal curve, and instead, is a small discrete distribution, which says nothing about a large population.

But someone who is reasonable enough to see it that way is also reasonable enough to see the problems with citing feelings, hype, and old date over limited, but more reliable evidence.

[Koh]

I don't see the first two much when it comes to defending something logically, or mathematically/scientifically. When it comes to dated studies or such that are still cited, it's usually because the findings are still valid, and can still be replicated if the tests were reperformed.  Like physics related things, for example.  Physics formulas have been around for the longest time, because to this day, they still give you either an exact, or close approximate answer that we've already proven them to be valid.

 

The only time old data becomes invalid is when it is either proven invalid years later, under the same rules as the original data and with a reasonable sample size, or if circumstances surrounding its conclusion have changed.  Like if some conclusions were made about technological capabilities, and years later, someone invents a thing that was thought impossible otherwise, then that old data becomes invalid.

Edited by Koh, 04 January 2016 - 03:15 PM.

[Anarchy_Balsac]

I don't see the first two much when it comes to defending something logically, or mathematically/scientifically. When it comes to dated studies or such that are still cited, it's usually because the findings are still valid, and can still be replicated if the tests were reperformed.  Like physics related things, for example.  Physics formulas have been around for the longest time, because to this day, they still give you either an exact, or close approximate answer that we've already proven them to be valid.

 

The only time old data becomes invalid is when it is either proven invalid years later, under the same rules as the original data and with a reasonable sample size, or if circumstances surrounding its conclusion have changed.  Like if some conclusions were made about technological capabilities, and years later, someone invents a thing that was thought impossible otherwise, then that old data becomes invalid.

 

That's my point, it's NOT logical, mathematical, or scientific.  It's people not wanting to be wrong.

 

And yeah, when old data is still valid, it's fine.  But using something like 1980's culture, to talk about current trends is shaky at best.