Fallacy of overspecificity?

sphenisc · 12th March 2012, 04:55 AM

In a statement like

"Black people commit a lot of crime."
or
"Atheists do lots of good works."
a property is ascribed to a specific group with the veiled implication that it is less true of a broader group to which they belong. Is there a formal name for this implied fallacy?

Cheers

Krikkiter · 12th March 2012, 05:25 AM

I'm not sure but you may have used a fallacy just by asking that question. But I emphasise the part about me not being sure.

aggle-rithm · 12th March 2012, 05:30 AM

Originally Posted by sphenisc

In a statement like

"Black people commit a lot of crime."
or
"Atheists do lots of good works."
a property is ascribed to a specific group with the veiled implication that it is less true of a broader group to which they belong. Is there a formal name for this implied fallacy?

Cheers

I don't know if either statement has enough explicit meaning to be a fallacy. But I would say these are statements with hidden agendas. Possibly.

sphenisc · 12th March 2012, 05:49 AM

This is the closest I can find - unfortunately I can't find any other references to "Fallacy of False Implication"

http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons/lesson12.html

azzthom · 12th March 2012, 06:03 AM

I think this may be what you mean:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

sphenisc · 12th March 2012, 06:13 AM

Originally Posted by azzthom

I think this may be what you mean:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

It's almost the exact opposite - hasty generalisation involves making a statement about a set possesses a property based on an insufficiently large subset. I'm talking about implying the larger set doesn't have the property ascribed to the subset. A hasty anti-generalisation.

Lord Emsworth · 12th March 2012, 06:15 AM

I don't think there is a fallacy there. And I am not sure there actually could be, since fallacies can only be made if there is reasoning involved, if there are conclusions to be drawn. But that is not the case here, because what you have shown are statements, which could be true or false though.

The only way for there to be a fallacy would be in a bigger context where the statements made, are used to *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* ... You would have to correctly identify the intention(s) behind the statements made.

azzthom · 12th March 2012, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by sphenisc

It's almost the exact opposite - hasty generalisation involves making a statement about a set possesses a property based on an insufficiently large subset. I'm talking about implying the larger set doesn't have the property ascribed to the subset. A hasty anti-generalisation.

The opposite fallacy is named on the page. It's called 'Slothful induction'.

Brian-M · 12th March 2012, 06:21 AM

Could be a combination of two fallacies.

It starts with the informal fallacy of one-sidedness, because they're presenting one side of the argument (eg, black people commit a lot of crime), while deliberately omitting the obvious counter-argument (eg, white people commit a lot of crime), and leaving it to the audience to use that skewed information to commit the ~~fallacy of hasty generalization~~ Volvo fallacy.

ETA: Volvo fallacy fits better than Hasty Generalization.

sphenisc · 12th March 2012, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by azzthom

The opposite fallacy is named on the page. It's called 'Slothful induction'.

Slothful induction is the failure to draw an appropriate conclusion when there is sufficient evidence. It's a different kind of "opposite".

sphenisc · 12th March 2012, 06:51 AM

Originally Posted by Lord Emsworth

I don't think there is a fallacy there. And I am not sure there actually could be, since fallacies can only be made if there is reasoning involved, if there are conclusions to be drawn. But that is not the case here, because what you have shown are statements, which could be true or false though.

The only way for there to be a fallacy would be in a bigger context where the statements made, are used to *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* ... You would have to correctly identify the intention(s) behind the statements made.

That's what I meant by "veiled implication".

Skeptic Ginger · 12th March 2012, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by sphenisc

In a statement like

"Black people commit a lot of crime."
or
"Atheists do lots of good works."
a property is ascribed to a specific group with the veiled implication that it is less true of a broader group to which they belong. Is there a formal name for this implied fallacy?

Cheers

Your premise depends on context. And while there may be some fallacies involved it is 'framing' that you are talking about. That is, framing a statement to imply some additional unspoken thing or slanting the statement so as to have it heard a specific way.

For example, tax relief implies one needs relief from being over taxed while tax cut does not have that same implication. Teach the controversy (typically applied to evolution theory) implies there is a controversy.

In your examples, "black people commit a lot of crime", has stronger inherent framing, meaning it triggers many previously established beliefs. Atheists doing good works could be a reply to some claim morality comes from religion thus the triggered reaction depends more on context.

azzthom · 12th March 2012, 07:09 AM

Based on all the replies so far, I think the best I can do is to suggest that what was described in the OP was 'hasty generalisation by implication'. Which would obviously still be 'hasty generalisation', since an inference is being drawn about a set based on a flawed assessment of a subset. A conclusion from insufficient evidence.

12th March 2012, 04:55 AM	#1
sphenisc Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 3,749	Fallacy of overspecificity? In a statement like "Black people commit a lot of crime." or "Atheists do lots of good works." a property is ascribed to a specific group with the veiled implication that it is less true of a broader group to which they belong. Is there a formal name for this implied fallacy? Cheers
sphenisc Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 3,749

12th March 2012, 05:30 AM	#3
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,150	Originally Posted by sphenisc In a statement like "Black people commit a lot of crime." or "Atheists do lots of good works." a property is ascribed to a specific group with the veiled implication that it is less true of a broader group to which they belong. Is there a formal name for this implied fallacy? Cheers I don't know if either statement has enough explicit meaning to be a fallacy. But I would say these are statements with hidden agendas. Possibly.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

12th March 2012, 05:49 AM	#4
sphenisc Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 3,749	This is the closest I can find - unfortunately I can't find any other references to "Fallacy of False Implication" http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons/lesson12.html
sphenisc Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 3,749

12th March 2012, 06:03 AM	#5
azzthom Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: United Kindom Posts: 478	I think this may be what you mean:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization
	__________________ "Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity" "To thine own self be true" - Polonius, Hamlet "Beer is proof that God loves me and wants me to be Happy" - Benjamin Franklin "A hypothesis that cannot be falsfied is merely a superstition" - Me. Joseph Tittel is a fraud.

12th March 2012, 06:13 AM	#6
sphenisc Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 3,749	Originally Posted by azzthom I think this may be what you mean:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization It's almost the exact opposite - hasty generalisation involves making a statement about a set possesses a property based on an insufficiently large subset. I'm talking about implying the larger set doesn't have the property ascribed to the subset. A hasty anti-generalisation.
sphenisc Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 3,749

12th March 2012, 05:25 AM	#2
Krikkiter Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,261	I'm not sure but you may have used a fallacy just by asking that question. But I emphasise the part about me not being sure.

12th March 2012, 06:15 AM	#7
Lord Emsworth Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Through the Cables and the Underground ... Posts: 2,827	I don't think there is a fallacy there. And I am not sure there actually could be, since fallacies can only be made if there is reasoning involved, if there are conclusions to be drawn. But that is not the case here, because what you have shown are statements, which could be true or false though. The only way for there to be a fallacy would be in a bigger context where the statements made, are used to wink, wink, nudge, nudge ... You would have to correctly identify the intention(s) behind the statements made.
	Last edited by Lord Emsworth; 12th March 2012 at 06:16 AM.

12th March 2012, 06:20 AM	#8
azzthom Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: United Kindom Posts: 478	Originally Posted by sphenisc It's almost the exact opposite - hasty generalisation involves making a statement about a set possesses a property based on an insufficiently large subset. I'm talking about implying the larger set doesn't have the property ascribed to the subset. A hasty anti-generalisation. The opposite fallacy is named on the page. It's called 'Slothful induction'.
	__________________ "Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity" "To thine own self be true" - Polonius, Hamlet "Beer is proof that God loves me and wants me to be Happy" - Benjamin Franklin "A hypothesis that cannot be falsfied is merely a superstition" - Me. Joseph Tittel is a fraud.

12th March 2012, 06:21 AM	#9
Brian-M Daydreamer Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Downunder Posts: 4,267	Could be a combination of two fallacies. It starts with the informal fallacy of one-sidedness, because they're presenting one side of the argument (eg, black people commit a lot of crime), while deliberately omitting the obvious counter-argument (eg, white people commit a lot of crime), and leaving it to the audience to use that skewed information to commit the ~~fallacy of hasty generalization~~ Volvo fallacy. ETA: Volvo fallacy fits better than Hasty Generalization.
	__________________ "That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim Last edited by Brian-M; 12th March 2012 at 06:30 AM.

12th March 2012, 06:47 AM	#10
sphenisc Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 3,749	Originally Posted by azzthom The opposite fallacy is named on the page. It's called 'Slothful induction'. Slothful induction is the failure to draw an appropriate conclusion when there is sufficient evidence. It's a different kind of "opposite".
sphenisc Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 3,749

12th March 2012, 06:51 AM	#11
sphenisc Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 3,749	Originally Posted by Lord Emsworth I don't think there is a fallacy there. And I am not sure there actually could be, since fallacies can only be made if there is reasoning involved, if there are conclusions to be drawn. But that is not the case here, because what you have shown are statements, which could be true or false though. The only way for there to be a fallacy would be in a bigger context where the statements made, are used to wink, wink, nudge, nudge ... You would have to correctly identify the intention(s) behind the statements made. That's what I meant by "veiled implication".
sphenisc Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 3,749

12th March 2012, 07:01 AM	#12
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,566	Originally Posted by sphenisc In a statement like "Black people commit a lot of crime." or "Atheists do lots of good works." a property is ascribed to a specific group with the veiled implication that it is less true of a broader group to which they belong. Is there a formal name for this implied fallacy? Cheers Your premise depends on context. And while there may be some fallacies involved it is 'framing' that you are talking about. That is, framing a statement to imply some additional unspoken thing or slanting the statement so as to have it heard a specific way. For example, tax relief implies one needs relief from being over taxed while tax cut does not have that same implication. Teach the controversy (typically applied to evolution theory) implies there is a controversy. In your examples, "black people commit a lot of crime", has stronger inherent framing, meaning it triggers many previously established beliefs. Atheists doing good works could be a reply to some claim morality comes from religion thus the triggered reaction depends more on context.
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 12th March 2012 at 07:14 AM.*

12th March 2012, 07:09 AM	#13
azzthom Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: United Kindom Posts: 478	Based on all the replies so far, I think the best I can do is to suggest that what was described in the OP was 'hasty generalisation by implication'. Which would obviously still be 'hasty generalisation', since an inference is being drawn about a set based on a flawed assessment of a subset. A conclusion from insufficient evidence.
	__________________ "Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity" "To thine own self be true" - Polonius, Hamlet "Beer is proof that God loves me and wants me to be Happy" - Benjamin Franklin "A hypothesis that cannot be falsfied is merely a superstition" - Me. Joseph Tittel is a fraud.