Ok try and figure out which type of fallacy this is!
Dinosaurs were mortal beings. Dinosaurs no longer exist on this planet
Humans are mortal beings, Therfore we will soon no longer exist on this planet.
Thats a pretty good one in its brevity - I think thats a hasty generalization. Do the conditions which one selection of mortal beings (i.e - subject to death?) leave the planet create a universal standard by which all mortal being can be held? By my definition plankton is an even older mortal being also who have not yet left this mortal coil permanently. thanks for the early morning exercise - good luck on the paper!
This one did stump me! I think it could be hasty generalization, but could it be a Straw Man Argument seeing how it is producing an argument about a weaker representation of the truth and attacking it. I feel like this could possibly work?
I think this would have been a hasty generalization, if the conclusion had been "Therefore humans no longer exist on this planet."
As it is, the passage contains numerous ambiguities. What does "we" include? All humans now, in the past and in the future? Or just those humans alive today? And what does "soon" mean? In relation to how long dinosaurs lived on this planet, we have not been here very long and "soon" could then be anything from a few days to thousands of years.
Because of these ambiguities in the conclusion, the argument, to me, seems strong and inductive. All humans alive today are most likely going to die in the next one or two centuries. Humankind, as we know it, will most likely also go extinct at some point in the future of the universe.
Also, the phrase "on this planet" leaves one room for interpretation. Humankind may one day leave the planet and settle somewhere else in space. That is, of course, if we do not go extinct before we can find a way to do that.
The problem is mainly with the word "soon." Dinosaurs lived for more than 60 million years (actually some of them are still around, having evolved into modern birds), whereas humans have been here for at most 3.2 million. Unless we wreak our habitat (which we seem hell-bent on doing just now) there's no reason we couldn't hang around for quite awhile. On the other hand, it's probable that we'll die off or leave eventually.
Thats a pretty good one in its brevity - I think thats a hasty generalization. Do the conditions which one selection of mortal beings (i.e - subject to death?) leave the planet create a universal standard by which all mortal being can be held? By my definition plankton is an even older mortal being also who have not yet left this mortal coil permanently. thanks for the early morning exercise - good luck on the paper!
ReplyDeleteThis one did stump me! I think it could be hasty generalization, but could it be a Straw Man Argument seeing how it is producing an argument about a weaker representation of the truth and attacking it. I feel like this could possibly work?
ReplyDeleteI think this would have been a hasty generalization, if the conclusion had been "Therefore humans no longer exist on this planet."
ReplyDeleteAs it is, the passage contains numerous ambiguities. What does "we" include? All humans now, in the past and in the future? Or just those humans alive today? And what does "soon" mean? In relation to how long dinosaurs lived on this planet, we have not been here very long and "soon" could then be anything from a few days to thousands of years.
Because of these ambiguities in the conclusion, the argument, to me, seems strong and inductive. All humans alive today are most likely going to die in the next one or two centuries. Humankind, as we know it, will most likely also go extinct at some point in the future of the universe.
Also, the phrase "on this planet" leaves one room for interpretation. Humankind may one day leave the planet and settle somewhere else in space. That is, of course, if we do not go extinct before we can find a way to do that.
The problem is mainly with the word "soon." Dinosaurs lived for more than 60 million years (actually some of them are still around, having evolved into modern birds), whereas humans have been here for at most 3.2 million. Unless we wreak our habitat (which we seem hell-bent on doing just now) there's no reason we couldn't hang around for quite awhile. On the other hand, it's probable that we'll die off or leave eventually.
ReplyDelete