An association fallacy is an inductive formal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.
Form
In notation of First-order logic, this type of fallacy can be expressed as (∃x∈S:φ(x))→ (∀x∈S:φ(x)), meaning "if there exists any x in the set S so that a property φ is true for x, then for all x in S the property φ must be true."
- Premise A is a B
- Premise A is also a C
- Conclusion Therefore, all Bs are Cs
Guilt by association
- See also: Collective guilt for legal and ethical aspects
Examples
Some syllogistic examples of guilt by association are:
Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy
Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.
This form of the argument is as follows:
- A makes claim P.
- Bs also make claim P.
- Therefore, A is a B.
Honor by association
The logical inverse of "guilt by association" is honor by association, where one claims that someone or something must be reputable because of the people or organizations that are related to it or otherwise support it. For example:
Examples
- Alice is a lawyer, and Alice thinks highly of Bob. Therefore, Bob must know the law.
- Aaron will make a good racing car driver, because his friend is a good racing car driver.
- Citizens of Country X have won more nobel prizes/gold medals/literary awards than citizens of Country Y. Therefore, a citizen of Country X is superior to a citizen of Country Y."
See also
External links
|
