# Find the fallacy

Continuing the discussion from Trickle-down kids' TV: Sesame Street will air on HBO 9 months before PBS:

If this was a logical argument, I can see at least two logical fallacies. Can anyone beat two? Who can name them?

1 Like

Straw man (who cares, first one)
Appeal to probability (its no different anyway)
Argument from ignorance (who cares, second one)

1 Like

Also, Begging the Question

1 Like

Do you mean my characterization of the first argument is a strawman? I donât think it is, there is definitely a difference between one group and the other, and by arguing that the difference wonât matter, they are effectively saying âwho cares.â

But to be clear, I meant, what mistakes did I make in formulating this post, if my intent was to make a sound argument.

I would say that this is a false dichotomy. People may well not agree upon the measurement of value or resources. And even if they did, does not suggest why people should identify people with their resources - âwealth/povertyâ versus âwealthy/impoverished peopleâ. This could be an ecological fallacy, but I am not sure if I understand how it is typically used.

Pre-emptively implying that the dichotomy is not false could be interpreted as shifting the burden of proof.

Assuming that âdifferentâ implicitly means âworseâ could be a naturalistic fallacy.

Sounds presumptuous, but I donât know what fallacy this would be.

I am being tentative, because (believe it or not) I was never taught these in school, and have only started learning them a bit here and there recently. I have a lot of experience auditing formal reason, but I donât yet share any common vocabulary with people for discussing such things.

Perhaps I got my fallacies wrong, but"who cares about A or B" is a fallacy, right? I often get fallacy names wrong (called formally the Japhroaig Fallacy), but I am generally pretty good at finding logic issues.

1 Like

I guess the fact that I didnât phrase my post as an actual logical argument makes this too awkward a game.

1 Like

Also,and I donât know if this is where you are going with this but 9 months later is a school year. If one devalues the content that is supposed to be educational by a Grade, either the content is suspect or the Grade is suspect. Is that a fallacy or just an observation?

Unwarranted assumption? You could argue that Sesame Street wasnât a vital part of education for rich or poor kids, so offering a premium service earlier in exchange for making up some of what is lacking in public funds might be a good compromise. Also, if everything was completely equal for rich and poor, there wouldnât be a meaningful distinction between rich and poor at all. The idea that you can pay money for education and entertainment options outside of school isnât necessarily a bad thing (especially if this means that more Sesame Street is ultimately available for everyone). Excluded middle perhaps?

Ha! I donât think anyone around here is worried about awkwardness, and I am sure everyone likes to keep their mind sharp

1 Like

Precisely my point. The meaning is subjective, so it cannot be assumed as having universal meaning or validity. Assuming it to be objective or universal could be a referential or existential fallacy, respectively.

Whether or not it qualifies as âa bad thingâ is matter of opinion. But it certainly would be dependent upon people being willing to take your payment, and have a suitable service on offer. Assuming that it would naturally happen in any case could be a fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Blessed is the cheesemaker!

1 Like

So different thing is not necessarily different education. I think I was relying on the idea that Sesame Street formed part of the education of children because data showed that it worked. I certainly think thatâs of the most arguable.

What I was going for was very close to that, which is that Iâm equivocating to import a sneaky idea. Maybe from what other people said I could very literally say that they donât care if poor kids get a different education than rich kids in this very narrow context but I make it sound as though they donât care if the state has an outright bias towards the rich in the provision of public education. I can say Iâm right because of a narrow, technical reading, but I imply a lot more than that reading.

The other one I thought of was just a plain old ad hominem.

Anyway, my post wasnât at all a logical argument, so I think my little game here wasnât pretty problematic. I should have restated it like it was a series of assumptions and a conclusion.

2 Likes

BTW, can I sincerely and without sarcasm say You Are Cool?

6 Likes

Marry, âtis true. Such honest self-examination is rare (online in particular, and god knows I could stand to do it more often to my own arguments), but IMO olâ Humba demonstrated fundamental coolness from the first post I read.

Not that Iâm any arbiter of coolness. I still like bellbottoms.

3 Likes

You and Humba are hoopy froods if I have ever seen. I expect disagreement, but not fizzy drinks afterwards.

3 Likes

Glad to see Iâm not late this time.

Metonymy

Have you played her game?