What is the difference between a Hasty Generalization and Fallacy of Division/Composition?
Hasty Generalization - basing a broad conclusion on a small sample. (Usually deal with studies, polls, or surveys) Example: A study showed that based on 100 worldwide participants, 57 chose Pepsi over Coke. Therefore it was concluded that the world prefers Pepsi over Coke. Fallacy of Division - assuming that something true of a whole must also be true of all or some of its parts. (Division think broken up into parts) Example: My car goes 0-60 on its own propulsion, My Steering Wheel is part of my car, therefore my Steering Wheel goes 0-60 on its own propulsion. Fallacy of Composition- assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole (Composition think added as a whole) Example: My arm can survive a gun shot wound, my arm is part of my body, therefore my whole body can survive a gun shot wound.
Logical Fallacy Question: What is the difference between A Sweeping Generalization and a Hasty Generalization?
Hasty: "This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. It has the following form: 1. Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P. 2. Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies... "A sweeping generalisation applies a general statement too broadly. If one takes a general rule, and applies it to a case to which, due to the specific features of the case, the rule does not apply, then one commits the sweeping generalisation fallacy. This fallacy is the reverse of a hasty generalisation, which infers a general rule from a specific case. Example (1) Children should be seen and not heard. (2) Little Wolfgang Amadeus is a child. Therefore: (3) Little Wolfgang Amadeus shouldn’t be heard." http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presump...
Is there a difference between the fallacy of hasty generalization and the fallacy of converse accident?
Fallacy is a word having precise meaning with the fields of logic and philosophy. The word makes no room for thoughtlessness. It deals with deliberate but invalid arguments.
What are some real life examples of accident fallacy?
What are some real life examples of accident fallacy?This is an informal fallacy that falls under the fallacy of presumption. It's a case where a general rule is a applied to an exception of that rule. Some real world examples are-Cutting people is bad.Surgery involves cutting people.Therefore surgery is bad.You can see that this is a logically valid argument but it isn't a sound one. Yes each premise follows, but quite often surgery involves cutting into someone in order to attain a “good” outcome. It's not a sound argument.Another one-Women make less money than men.Oprah Winfrey is a woman.Therefore, O Winfrey makes less money than Maury Povich.Again, the conclusion logically follows from the premises, but it's not a sound argument. OW obviously makes more money than Maury Povich (the man in this example)
What is the difference between the fallacy of division and the fallacy of accident?
Division is confusing parts of a thing with the whole of a thing. It goes from the whole referred to in the premise(s) to infer something about the parts in the conclusion. For example: “The government is inefficient. Bob works for the government. Therefore Bob is inefficient.” Every employee in the government may be efficient at doing their job, but there might be too many unnecessary procedures making the government as a whole inefficient.Accident is trying to apply a general rule to all cases, including odd, unusual, or obvious exceptions to that rule. For instance: “The speed limit is 55 mph, so I can go 55 mph even when there is ice on the road.” Clearly there are exceptions when the rule does not apply, no matter how good the rule is.There is a parallel between these two fallacies but they can be distinguished. Some arguments do commit more than one fallacy at the same time. It is always possible to have a bad argument for more than one reason. When it comes down to it, fallacy names are used to identify and elucidate what is wrong with a bad argument. So it is useful to be as specific as possible when evaluating any argument.
If I read 40 pages per day for the next 4 months will I see an improvement in my vocabulary?
You sure will! But if you really want to improve your vocabulary, read so-called English Literature some of the time. This, in the broad sense, includes American Literature at the very least. I don’t want to run through a list of all the English-speaking countries (including India, which has a genuine literature in English), but they would all be on it. The reason I suggest this is because of a basic principle in foreign-language teaching which applies to us native speakers too: the most improvement comes from giving a student what he or she already knows plus alpha (alpha being what the student doesn’t know; it should be a fraction of the book read). When I read my first 19th-century novel on my own, as (in public school terms) a first-year high school student, my vocabulary shot up. It was “Jane Eyre,” and though I was a guy, I came to just love it. But I needed to use a dictionary at first. By the end of the novel, I didn’t need the dictionary. So all reading of decent writing is good for your vocabulary, but something fine and a little challenging (with the plus-alpha factor) is best.
Is there such a thing as closet racism where someone may be racist on the inside but you would never know it because they don’t show it on the outside?
That's very common, and it's obviously the smart thing to do. Most racists people are not just some cartoon stereotype. They might troll on the internet or only show it with their close relations who are similar and who they trust. Everyone thinks of bad things, but most people don't bother making most of them happen.Some people are also always pleasant and nice and they don't lose their temper or get in fights. Instead they constantly add people to a mental list they want to get revenge on, and then they just wait a several months or years after they added the person, and then after all that time they do something horrible but extremely discreet, such as carefully tampering with the person's car parked on the street several years in the hopes of causing an accident so that it can never be traced back to them no one except for the “paranoid” people will suspect it was them.This is far less common, but it is still more common than most people might imagine. It's just that most people are not good at controlling their emotions and delaying 'gratification', so they imagine other people are like them and they can't conceptualize such a thing.