Both Prof. Silliman and my uncle Paul (Also a philosophy teacher) hace pony tails. Both have glasses. Both have a good selection of sweaters.
All philosophy teachers have pony tails, glasses, and good sweaters.
Tell me everything wrong with this argument.
Well, I am not sure if I can tell you everything that is wrong with the argument, but I will try. One thing I am sure of is there are fallacies. It is clear to me that it is an assumption based on a small sample. I might call it a hasty generalization. Just because two philosophy teachers have pony tails, glasses, and sweaters does not mean they all do.
ReplyDeleteThe word "good" is also ambiguous
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sam that it is a hasty generalization. It could also be non causa pro causa, saying that being philosophy professors causes them to have those attributes.
ReplyDeleteWill, I think you are correct also. Hasty generalization can usually cover more than one fallacy and in this case it seems to cover non causa pro causa. Good catch Will.
ReplyDeleteYou...used the spanish verb 'to have' in an otherwise english post?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I wish this came with a thumbs up button, like facebook. Because I would click it if there was one.
ReplyDelete