What are the fallacies involved in racism?

My point was, racially biased and prejudiced opinions are conclusions too.  And how did they go wrong?

I think, I understand your point.  Specific racist conclusions would vary widely, and each would have its own fallacies. 

However, I was thinking if there could be some fallacies involved in the generally wrong conclusion of racism.  There could be General Common features in all sorts of racist thinking.  In that case there could be common fallacies regarding racism. Say for example:

  1. The Blue race people do not do (or do) these. [Possibly right observations]
  2. These are signs of lower human beings.  [Possibly a wrong generalization]
  3. Therefore, Blue race people are lower human beings.

In the above argument, it seems, statement 2 begs question as how the arguer knows those are signs of lower human beings?  Thus can we say that all sorts of racist views suffers from Question Begging fallacy?

Thanks

What you should be looking at is cognitive biases rather than fallacies. You will find that these are errors in thinking that don't require arguments and there are groups that are common with racism. In your argument above, it is valid (with a little clean up), just unlikely to be sound . The problem is premise #2 and there are likely common biases that reflect this, as well as personality traits, and other psychological patterns. As for fallacies, the "general common features" are in the arguments, not to content. Take politics:

  1. The Blue party supporters do not do (or do) these. [Possibly right observations]
  2. These are signs of lower human beings.  [Possibly a wrong generalization]
  3. Therefore, Blue party supporters are lower human beings. 

Fallacies are about the form rather than the content.

Are you telling that starting argument from a doubtful/unproven PREMISE could not be a fallacy?  And/or cognitive biases cannot involve fallacies? If you think so then please give some references.

That is not at all what I am saying. It seems you are looking for a common group of fallacies applied to racism. The fallacy depends on the argument. Racism is not an argument. I am sure there are many common arguments people make regarding racism and these arguments are fallacious, so in that respect, you can find a common group of fallacies. My point is, the common fallacies revolve around the arguments, not the content (racism).

Hope that is more clear.

By "common" I meant a "common denominator" in all racist argument; not "most of the time" or "commonly".  Please note in the form of the argument that I gave, #2 is such a common form of statement that is got to be used by all racists to defend their racist view. Putting ‘party’ instead of ‘race’ (as you did) just push the topic away from racism.

If you agree that “starting an argument from a doubtful/unproven PREMISE could be a fallacy”, then my statement #2 is such a premise.  And it makes the conclusion unsound.

BTW, I noticed that in the FAQs it is stated that ‘Factual errors are not fallacies.’  I agree, when a factual statement stands alone.  But when it is used in arguments like, “Plane crashes kill more people than automobile accidents. Therefore, it is safer to drive in a car than fly in a plane.”  Then the argument becomes a fallacious (Unsound) argument, due to using a wrong fact.  The answer in the FAQ is very much wrong.  I wonder how such a grave confusion made way into this site of “Logically Fallacious.”

 Then the argument becomes a fallacious (Unsound) argument, due to using a wrong fact.

Then you are using a different definition of fallacious that I am. The definition I use is the one in logic: "a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid." This site focuses on reasoning. The plane crash example is good reasoning; the problem is with the facts. I understand that people use "fallacy" differently; in fact it has become synonymous with just being wrong about anything in everyday use. That is not how we use it here.

Please note in the form of the argument that I gave, #2 is such a common form of statement that is got to be used by all racists to defend their racist view.

Let's look at that more closely. You wrote "These are signs of lower human beings... begs question as how the arguer knows those are signs of lower human beings?" Now you have lowered the bar so any claim is "fallacious." Consider:

• Drinking bleach kills COVID (how do they know?)
• Atheists are stupid (how do they know?)
• Mars is made of cow poop (how do they know?)

Review the form of begging the question . Simply saying wrong things doesn't qualify.

I admit that the line between fallacious reasoning and simply being wrong isn't crystal clear. But we have to have that line, otherwise we can't focus on the errors in reasoning, which is what this site is all about.

[To Dr. Bo]

I find two points of objection in using a different definition of fallacy as is being used in this website:

1. The textbooks usually classifies fallacious arguments as INVALID and UNSOUND.  This is sensible and practically useful, as wrong conclusions may arise from faults in reasoning (INVALID) and also from faulty premises (UNSOUND).  There was no need to redefine fallacy.

2. If this site still likes to redefine fallacy as invalid arguments (emphasizing the reasoning only) then this site should have been named "LOGICALLY INVALID," (instead of "Logically Fallacious") as the meaning term valid/invalid is well accepted.

Thanks

The textbooks usually classifies fallacious arguments as INVALID and UNSOUND.

But that is not the same as classifying invalid and unsound arguments as fallacious, which is what you are suggesting we do (this is a fallacy, ironically).

Again, we are simply not using "fallacious" as a synonym to being "wrong." We don't need to change the name of the site because we are using one of the several definitions—the one that you don't prefer.

I appreciate your feedback, but honestly, after almost a decade of running the site this was the first "complaint" regarding this.

I think we have expressed ourselves enough to understand each other.  I would like to conclude my part by suggesting that the name of this site be changed to "Logically invalid,"  since it is focusing on the validity/invalidity of an argument.  That would avoid confusion despite the `differences' in the definition of a fallacy.

Yes, it is an opinion, and an opinion could be wrong due to fallacious reasons.  There was my question.

Actually, the question was not why racism is wrong, but what is/are the fallacy/or fallacies involved in such a wrong conclusion. 

[NB. Above statement of mine is a reply, not a comment.  But I did not find any reply link.]