Clarification Needed on Subverted Support Fallacy Examples

 Hello,

I’m having difficulty understanding the examples provided for the "Subverted Support" fallacy, particularly with how they differentiate from other fallacies I am more familiar with. If this were an exam, I would likely name different fallacies before arriving at "Subverted Support," which still seems unclear to me based on the examples and the exception given.

For instance:

"The reason billions of children starve to death each year is because we live in a world that does not care."

I don’t fully grasp why this is categorized as a "Subverted Support" fallacy. Wouldn't other fallacies also apply here? For example:

Hasty generalization : It assumes the entire world doesn’t care.
False cause : It implies a direct cause-and-effect relationship between apathy and starvation.
Exaggeration: As mentioned, the figure of "billions" is highly inaccurate today.
Additionally, regarding the "firmament" example, even with the exception, it still sounds like a fallacy to me. Could you clarify how the exception avoids the issue?

Thank you for your help!

Best regards,
Miguel

Hello Miguel,

Thank you for your question about the "Subverted Support" fallacy. Let's delve into how it works and why the provided example fits this category, as well as how it differs from other potential fallacies.

### Understanding "Subverted Support" Fallacy

The "Subverted Support" fallacy occurs when the evidence or support presented for an argument actually undermines the conclusion it is supposed to support. In other words, the support provided, instead of strengthening the argument, ends up contradicting or weakening it.

## Example Breakdown: "The reason billions of children starve to death each year is because we live in a world that does not care."

Let's analyze why this is categorized under the "Subverted Support" fallacy:

1. **Claim**: Billions of children starve each year.
2. **Support**: This is because we live in a world that does not care.

The support here ("we live in a world that does not care") is intended to back up the claim that "billions of children starve to death each year." However, this support is problematic for a couple of reasons:

- **Contradiction to Reality**: The support is an overgeneralization and does not take into account the numerous efforts and organizations dedicated to combating hunger worldwide. Thus, it undermines the claim by providing a support point that is easily disputable.

- **Undermines the Conclusion**: If the world truly did not care, then there would not be any initiatives, donations, policies, or organizations working to reduce starvation.

### Why Other Fallacies Seem Applicable but Differ

1. **Hasty Generalization**: This fallacy involves making a broad conclusion based on limited evidence. While "the entire world doesn’t care" is a hasty generalization, it’s the fact that this unsupported generalization is used to support an inaccurate claim that amplifies the "Subverted Support" characterization.

2. **False Cause**: This fallacy involves asserting a cause-and-effect relationship without valid evidence. The phrase implies that apathy directly causes starvation, which lacks a direct causal link. However, the emphasis in the "Subverted Support" falls more on how the given cause (apathy) actually undercuts the argument (billions of starving children).

3. **Exaggeration**: As you rightly mentioned, the figure "billions" is an exaggeration and factually incorrect. Exaggeration is certainly present, but again, it's how this exaggeration is used to form a weak, self-undermining support that leads to its classification under "Subverted Support."

### Addressing the "Firmament" Example

Without specific context, I'll provide a general explanation. If an argument states, "The world is flat because the firmament supports it," but then provides evidence that the "firmament’s" existence is questionable or mythological, it subverts its own support. Even with historical or poetic interpretations providing exceptions, the primary claim about the earth's flatness is weakened by the non-empirical support provided.

### Conclusion

Your observations about other fallacies are indeed valuable and not incorrect. However, what makes the "Subverted Support" fallacy distinct is that the nature of the evidence provided actually weakens, rather than strengthens, the argument. This nuance is key to properly identifying and understanding this particular fallacy.

Best regards,
[Your Name]

"[B]ecause we live in a world that does not care" is the Fallacy of the False Alternative (also known as the false dilemma, false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, and black-or-white fallacy) because it asserts two alternative statements: "does not care" and [implicitly] "there would be no starvation if the world did care are the only possible options, but there are more options.

Suppose, for example, the world cares and can do nothing effective. Suppose to do something effect would require those in power to "loosen" the grip on those over whom they hold power and who can end poverty. These are only two examples of alternative solutions. There are more.