 | This article does not cite any sources .(September 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) |
The fallacy of converse accident (also called reverse accident, destroying the exception, or a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter) is an informal fallacy that can occur in a statistical syllogism (an argument based on a generalization) when a rule that applies only to an exceptional case is wrongly applied to all cases in general.
For example:
The inductive version of this fallacy is called hasty generalization. See faulty generalization.
This fallacy is similar to the slippery slope, where the opposition claims that if a restricted action under debate is allowed, such as allowing people with glaucoma to use medical marijuana, then the action will by stages become acceptable in general, such as eventually everyone being allowed to use marijuana. The two arguments imply there is no difference between the exception and the rule, and in fact fallacious slippery slope arguments often use the converse accident to the contrary as the basis for the argument. However, a key difference between the two is the point and position being argued. The above argument using converse accident is an argument for full legal use of marijuana given that glaucoma patients use it. The argument based on the slippery slope argues against medicinal use of marijuana because it will lead to full use.
The opposing kind of dicto simpliciter is accident.
| Formal |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Informal |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This logic-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
A false dilemma is a type of informal, correlative-based fallacy in which a statement falsely claims or assumes an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional logically valid option. For example, somebody uses false dichotomy when they say, "Stacey spoke out against capitalism, therefore she must be a communist." She may be neither communist nor capitalist, or she may be a capitalist who disagrees with portions of capitalism.
No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their universal generalization from a counterexample in an ad hoc fashion by tautologically excluding the counterexample. Rather than abandoning the universal generalization or providing evidence that would disqualify the counterexample, this fallacy involves offering a modified generalization to definitionally exclude the desired specific case and counterexamples like it by appeal to rhetoric as opposed to an objective criterion. This rhetoric takes the form of emotionally charged but nonsubstantive purity platitudes such as ‘‘true, pure, genuine, authentic, real, etc.’’
A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is an argument in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect. The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in unintended consequences. The strength of such an argument depends on whether the small step really is likely to lead to the effect. This is quantified in terms of what is known as the warrant. This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fearmongering in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience, although, differentiation is necessary, since, in other cases, it might be demonstrable that the small step as likely does lead to an effect.
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves" in the construction of an argument. A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is. Some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance. The soundness of legal arguments depends on the context in which the arguments are made.
Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle. This is the application of a double standard.
In logic and reasoning, a faulty generalization, similar to a proof by example in mathematics, is a conclusion made about all or many instances of a phenomenon, that has been reached on the basis of one or a few instances of that phenomenon. It is an example of jumping to conclusions. For example, one may generalize about all people or all members of a group, based on what they know about just one or a few people:
Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence, but not full assurance, of the truth of the conclusion. It is also described as a method where one's experiences and observations, including what are learned from others, are synthesized to come up with a general truth. Many dictionaries define inductive reasoning as the derivation of general principles from specific observations, although there are many inductive arguments that do not have that form.
A statistical syllogism is a non-deductive syllogism. It argues, using inductive reasoning, from a generalization true for the most part to a particular case.
Secundum quid is a type of informal fallacy that occurs when the arguer fails to recognize the difference between rules of thumb and categorical propositions, rules that hold true universally.
The informal fallacy of accident is a deductively valid but unsound argument occurring in a statistical syllogism when an exception to a rule of thumb is ignored. It is one of the thirteen fallacies originally identified by Aristotle in Sophistical Refutations. The fallacy occurs when one attempts to apply a general rule to an irrelevant situation.
In the United States, the removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, the most tightly restricted category reserved for drugs that have "no currently accepted medical use,” has been proposed repeatedly since 1972.
In United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001), the United States Supreme Court rejected the common-law medical necessity defense to crimes enacted under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, regardless of their legal status under the laws of states such as California that recognize a medical use for marijuana. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative was represented by Gerald Uelmen.
Converse may refer to:
Several authors have put forth arguments concerning the legality of the war on drugs. In his essay The Drug War and the Constitution, libertarian philosopher Paul Hager makes the case that the War on Drugs in the United States is an illegal form of prohibition, which violates the principles of a limited government embodied in the United States Constitution.
Critics of euthanasia sometimes claim that legalizing any form of the practice will lead to a slippery slope effect, resulting eventually in non-voluntary or even involuntary euthanasia. The slippery slope argument has been present in the euthanasia debate since at least the 1930s.
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes.
Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, is a legal case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the right of physicians to recommend medical marijuana. The Court of Appeals affirmed the earlier decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which was filed under the caption Conant v. McCaffrey. Though the case involved chronic patients with untreatable diseases, the decision does not name these conditions as a prerequisite, nor does it limit drugs which may or may not be illegal.
Two main questions arise in the law surrounding driving after having ingested cannabis: (1) whether cannabis actually impairs driving ability, and (2) whether the common practice of testing for THC is a reliable means to measure impairment. On the first question, studies are mixed. Several recent, extensive studies–including one conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and one conducted by the American Automobile Association (AAA)–show that drivers with detectable THC in their blood are no more likely to cause car crashes than drivers with no amount of THC in their blood. Others show that cannabis can impair certain abilities important to safe driving –but no studies have been able to show that this increases the actual risk of crashing, or that drivers with THC in their blood cause a disproportionate number of crashes. On the second question, the studies that have been conducted so far have consistently found that THC blood levels and degree of impairment are not closely related. No known relationship between blood levels of THC and increased relative crash risk, or THC blood levels and level of driving impairment, has been shown by single-crash or classic-control studies. Thus, even though it is possible that cannabis impairs driving ability to some extent, there are currently no reliable means to test or measure whether a driver was actually impaired.
