Question

...
Daniel

Jellyfish vs. Shark fallacy?

Is there a term for this sort of reasoning:

Someone states that box jellyfish stings are almost always fatal. The only statement they make to support the claim is: “More people have died throughout history from box jellyfish stings than from shark attacks.”

That last statement is true: approx. 10 people/year die from shark bites while approx. 100/year die from box jellyfish stings. But thousands of people — perhaps tens- or hundreds of thousands — are stung every year, so it has little or no bearing on the initial claim.

Thanks!

asked on Monday, Jan 02, 2023 05:26:19 PM by Daniel

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."

Uncomfortable Ideas: Facts don't care about feelings. Science isn't concerned about sensibilities. And reality couldn't care less about rage.

This is a book about uncomfortable ideas—the reasons we avoid them, the reasons we shouldn’t, and discussion of dozens of examples that might infuriate you, offend you, or at least make you uncomfortable.

Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.

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

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
3

Let's start by making this a clear argument with premises and a conclusion:

P1. More people have died throughout history from box jellyfish stings than from shark attacks.

C. Therefore, box jellyfish stings are almost always fatal. 

This is a clear non sequitur as we are missing information to make that conclusion. Perhaps we can also say that what the argument is suggesting is that:

P1. Shark attacks are almost always fatal (missing information - implied)
P2. Box jellyfish stings are more common then shark attacks.
C. Therefore, Box jellyfish stings are almost always fatal.

The form of this would be:
A's are B.
C's are D.
Therefore, C's are B.

This is a form of the fallacy of four terms . There is no logical connection between the terms because we introduced four of them into the syllogism (shark bite, jellyfish sting, fatal, common).

answered on Tuesday, Jan 03, 2023 07:34:10 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
TrappedPrior (RotE)
3

I'm racking my brains - there should be a term for this - but I can't think of one.

I will say that:

P) More people throughout history have died from box jellyfish stings than shark attacks

C) Box jellyfish stings are almost always fatal

is a non sequitur. 

If one wishes to defend the claim that X is "almost always" (i.e. 90% of the time, or more frequently than that) the case, they need to do more than show that X is more frequent than Y. In fact, they ought not to compare X and Y at all. They need to look at the total set of cases, and then compare cases of X to those of not-X. In this example, one would need to look at all the times people were stung by box jellyfish, then look at the percentage of those people that died.

So the claim is fallacious; I just lack the appropriate term.

answered on Monday, Jan 02, 2023 07:09:31 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE)

TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories

Comments