Heather Heying- If You Don’t Agree, You Must Be Ignorant
The Fallacy of Equal Knowledge
On some topics, there is only one viable solution. But especially when a simple solution is presented early in discussion of a complex topic, and is presented with certainty and authority—it is quite likely that the simple and absolute solution is not the best one.
Follow the seance. You are getting sleepy.
They should call this The Executive Fallacy.
Look, I get what the purpose of this article is. It’s author, however, is misleading. She presents two problems:
1. Problem: Covid is a real threat to human health and well-being.
2. Problem: Racism is not merely an historical problem, but continues to negatively affect the lives of people of color.
I have an issue with this. They are generalizations. It removes individualism from the equation. For example. Covid is NOT a real threat to the human health and well-being of EVERYONE. Racism does NOT affect the lives of ALL people of color.
Her argument is flawed from the get-go by the very same behavior she is attempting to highlight relative to solutions. And, that’s not even taking into account the minute details of using terms like “people of color.” Guess what…there are no colorless people on the planet. Guess what again…everyone is a minority. Every single person regardless of the melanin content in your skin. There is no single individual anywhere living or dead who is exactly like you.
As a result, the argument is flawed.
I am having a lot of trouble following your logic there. Nowhere does she say COVID is a danger to everyone to the same degree. But COVID does kill people so how is that a generalization? As for the race issue, well the pandemic measures did proportionally affect minorities. Nowhere did she say racism no longer affects people. I think your logic is what is flawed here.
The term “human health and well-being” implies that of the species….or everyone. My point is that if you are going to present a “problem” you need to be detailed in identifying it SPECIFICALLY. For example…the solutions are going vary significantly based on the interpretation of the “problem.” More importantly, the solutions will vary significantly based on whether someone even considers the offered to BE a problem. I don’t consider Covid to be a problem to me personally. I consider the resultant “solutions” manufactured in response to be more problematic.
Relative to race…the very question presented ignores the individual. Again, it’s not specific. Racism is an all encompassing term that reflects a snake eating its own tail in a fashion. The term “people of color” is a generalization in its own right. What does it even mean? Martin Luther King’s reference to color of skin vs. content of character sets the table. Presenting a “problem” that employs the very essence of what he wished to get past is my gripe. The “problem” presented by the author is worded to reflect the very representation of racism. Lumping a group of people into the category of victims based solely on the amount of melanin content in their skin is a generalization…and (drum roll) …racist. And, yet, it is perfectly acceptable in today’s world to say such a thing…it is the snake eating its own tail. IMO
I get what you are saying Orson, but you may have fallen for the Speed Read Fallacy.
First up to address the two ‘problems’ offered.
– Everything is a threat to human health and well being. There is no ‘Safe’. There is only reducing risks So Far As Is Reasonably Practical. Also COVID (in my country at least) isn’t even in the Top 20 causes of death. (Intentional Self Harm is about 10th last time I checked.)
– ‘Pale skinned’ people have historically had it MUCH harder. Evolution made skin paler to help live in countries with lower sunlight. These areas were also areas which had limited growing seasons and harsh deadly winters. Warmer climates lacked these harsh winters and had much longer growing seasons. So HISTORICALLY the blame game existed since ‘humans’ came down from the trees and ganging up on outsiders was how social groups ensured their groups continued to survive. Survive at the expanse of others, sure, but survival can be a brutal and pragmatic topic. There is no simple answer, only degrees of ethics and morals that need to be compared to the base requirement that your number one objective is to protect your immediate people first, even if it is at the expense of others.
Or something.
However what the author of the article is attempting to display is examples of how people can logic twist situations into obtaining very highly controlled conclusions. I do not believe she is agreeing with them, more offering them up as topics for conversation.
What I feel the author is missing is that the flaw is not the conclusion, but the entire logic process. All three points are put forward by the same party. Problem/Solution/Side Effect. The parties involved are not actually discussing a topic in order to reach a proposal based on open discussion, they are presenting their solution and then back filling the restrictions and justification.
To use the examples given
– I wish to sell Spike protein solutions
– I can do this because Covid has provided me with a captive market
– If you disagree you will attempt to stop me, so I will naturally push back against your counter argument.
The objective is to sell Jabs, so everything else is structured to support that objective.
Or… something.
1. NATO orchestrates a coup in Ukraine to install a Western puppet regime.
2. Puppet regime orders its army to bomb the ethnic Russian regions within its own borders for eight long years.
3. Russia gets fed up and moves to protect its own people being slaughtered by Azov Nazis.
4. Western corporate media colludes with leftist totalitarian governments to characterize Russia as a big bad bully.
5. Anyone that makes these logical observations is called a Putin-lover.
Since we’re on the subject, how will our resident blood thirsty Pollack spin this story, particularly because Pollacks are obedient to the Catholic Church:
Pope Francis Blames NATO for the War in Ukraine.
https://www.politico.eu/article/pope-francis-nato-cause-ukraine-invasion-russia/
OOOOPS!
You spelled POLAK incorrectly.
Smarten up.
After our Nuclear war with Russia I hope to live long enough to see Zombies eat Joe Bidden.
No brains, mumbles incoherently, walks around aimlessly. Wait, I thought HE was a zombie!
Again Doug, you are simply boring, with no redeeming features.
No every topic in the world needs to be turned into a Ukraine-attacking-Russia story.
Get a grip.
Yup, you are indeed mentally ill. Check my response to your flat out lunatic like comment in the next thread.
You obviously didn’t read the story in the link. Also, watch your step. Our esteemed blog owner has figured out your little sock puppet theatre.
There is a house, we must go in to save someone trapped inside,
there is one door and one chimney, no windows.
if someone says the simplest way to go inside the house is trough the chimney,
you know he is a liberal !
but but but… we must destroy the house in order to save it.
So – Take off and nuke the entire site from orbit!!! Only way to be sure.
Right?
Right?
Why are you looking at me like that?
If you only know the arguments for one side of an issue that means that you must be rilly rilly smart.
People that study the arguments on both sides of an issue are racists or something.
Ask the cult members what is the best argument opposing their position.
If they don’t know both arguments how can their determine which one is the stronger of the two?
Is X greater than or less than Y?
If you only know the value of X or Y then you can’t answer that.
Don’t you know?
The best way to solve any problem is to create a highly credentialed committee of highly compensated friends and colleagues to study the problem for years but do nothing to solve it as it gets worse rather than take any action at all.
If you actually fix a growing problem and do not systematically study the problem to death first, then you do not believe that it is a real problem. Especially if you eliminate the problem.
When I was at Armpit College about 30 years ago, the “student as customer” doctrine was inflicted upon us one day. One of its features was the solution of problems (real or imagined) by means of “focus groups”.
The whole idea was to talk something to death, after which it quietly faded away with nothing really solved. That was when I learned that the process is the punishment.
Sound just like our Canadian paramilitary police and the paid off lawyers and judges…
The process is the punishment.
Doesn’t matter if your well within your rights
Your rights now have obligations
Those obligations will soon get very evil…
Carry on sheep
Needle # 33
C’mon now, we can’t hurt people’s feelings.
Reality is tough for many. It reveals hard facts like: you’re fat, ugly and stupid.
How do you piss off a Prog?
Tell them the truth.
Just do minimum wage and watch their heads explode.
I don’t see the fallacy chronicled by Heather Heying as equivalent to the Fallacy of Equal Knowledge described by Dr. Redstone, although there is a similarity. I see Heying’s fallacies as variants on the fallacy of the excluded middle, which is a rhetorical ploy used in cross-examinations. The described fallacy of equal knowledge is a variant of a strong claim that a given set of facts allows only one rational interpretation, such that if the other person is supplied the missing facts that person must come to the same conclusion, or is irrational.
Groupthink leads to European banality … mandatory groupthink leads to Communism and mountains of skulls
Colonialidiot (and his sock puppets) are a-okay with that. So long as it’s the “right” skulls that form the mountain.
“We need to spend huge amounts of money on ineffective environmental programs.”
“What impact will this have on the global climate?”
“Denier!!!!”
The Science leans heavily on depopulation
Oh look…
The federal NDP says free contraceptives should be included in the first phase of a national pharmacare plan. Canada is one of the only countries with universal health care that does not also offer free access to contraception.
Nahhhh
Just a coincidence people
What are you all truthful theorists
Yes we are
https://mobile.twitter.com/ipoliticsca/status/1521961277068824583?cxt=HHwWjsCymfjti58qAAAA
There is also the Fallacy Fallacy, which is when you use the word Fallacy in an argument rather than discussing and defeating/supporting the points.
Not saying that some of these fallacies don’t exist, but saying ‘it’s a fallacy’ is simply naming the problem, not addressing it.
It would be a bit like someone coming up and saying they feel faint, have a dry throat and pale skin and you telling them “Oh, you are dehydrated”. Technically correct, but doesn’t offer up a glass of water.
The fallacy being suggested in the linked article is that “it is quite likely that the simple and absolute solution is not the best one.” (or words to that effect)
A more correct analysis is that if the problem and solution are being offered by the same party (ie – Covid is bad and I have a solution, or Racism is Bad and my BLM friends have a solution) then you want to pass a cynical eye over the topic.
While I am moaning about the topic, I feel the argument being put forward is actually also wrong.
[I]it is quite likely that the simple and absolute solution is not the best one[\I]
The problem here is that the two examples given in the linked article both fail to provide a ‘simple’ solution.
Example one
Problem – Fauci Flu
Solution – vax the entire population every 4 months for the rest of their lives and prevent by law anyone who disagrees from doing ANYTHING.
Example two
Problem – Racism
Solution – Form a massive protest group to do… whatever it is they actually do
I put it to you that in both cases neither of these are ‘simple’ solutions.
Fauci Flu – simple solution: Monitor your own health. Maintain your own health. Self isolate if you are sick (like you would for anything that causes you to cough and sniff). Don’t become a chain smoking land whale. Keep Calm and Carry On.
Racism – simple solution: Stop being a dick to other people based on genetic background and politely remove any from your social circles anyone who does.
Or something.
Simply put the ‘Fallacy’ on offer doesn’t exist, or at least doesn’t exist in this context. These are not ‘simple’ solutions. These are complex solutions and complex solutions being pushed by the same people who are also actively promoting the problem.