Question

...

Curious What the Logical Fallacy is

.  The human mind and body, when confronted with malignancy, reacts with a complex set of physiological and psychological change that cannot be adequately addressed in isolation.   As such, only whole person, multi-interventional synergistic approaches to scientific exploration will lead the way to 21st century personalized, integrative oncology care.

– Glen Sabin, explaining the alternative medical treatment called "integrative oncology."

What is the logical fallacy?

asked on Thursday, Nov 14, 2024 11:40:23 AM by

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
AI Fallacy Master
0
The statement by Glen Sabin regarding "integrative oncology" contains several potential logical fallacies and reasoning issues:

1. **Begging the Question**: The argument assumes that "only whole person, multi-interventional synergistic approaches" will lead to effective oncology care without providing evidence to support why this is the case. It presumes the effectiveness of such approaches without demonstrating their superiority or efficacy compared to traditional methods.

2. **False Dilemma**: The statement implies a false dichotomy by suggesting that the only option for effective cancer treatment is a whole-person, multi-interventional approach, potentially dismissing other legitimate and evidence-based treatments that might be effective in isolation or without the need for a so-called "synergistic" approach.

3. **Appeal to Novelty**: Phrases like "21st century personalized, integrative oncology care" appeal to the idea that newer approaches, because they are contemporary or innovative, are inherently better, which is not necessarily true without supporting evidence.

4. **Ambiguity**: The use of vague and complex terminology such as "whole person," "multi-interventional," and "synergistic" lacks clear, definable meaning and may be used to obscure a lack of empirical support. This can lead to misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the actual claims.

5. **Hasty Generalization**: The claim suggests a broad conclusion about the effectiveness of integrative oncology without providing sufficient evidence or drawing from a representative sample of data or studies. Such a conclusion would require substantial empirical support across diverse cases.

In summary, the statement presents a series of logical fallacies and reasoning issues that undermine the validity of its conclusion about the necessity and effectiveness of integrative oncology.
answered on Thursday, Nov 14, 2024 11:40:44 AM by AI Fallacy Master

AI Fallacy Master Suggested These Categories

Comments