|
|
Hypothesis Contrary to Fact |
| Description: | ||
|
||
| From a statement of fact, the argument draws a counterfactual claim (i.e. a claim about what would have been true if the stated fact were not true). The argument falsely assumes that any state of affairs can have only one possible cause. | ||
|
|
||
| Examples: | ||
| "I taught you logic. So, if I hadn't taught you logic, you never would have learned logic at all." | ||
|
--paraphrased from Max Schulman's "Love is a Fallacy" |
||
| "In this country citizens are permitted to own guns. Therefore, if guns were outlawed, citizens would be unable to protect themselves and there would be an uncontrollable crime wave." | ||
|
|
||
| Discussion: | ||
| We know that actions have consequences. We are able to
speculate about the consequences of our actions because there is a real
causal connection between how we act and how things turn out. We avoid
certain actions because we are able to understand those causal connections.
Wise choices require an awareness of consequences and an ability to reason
hypothetically about them. It is perfectly good reasoning to say, "I didn't
turn left because, if I had turned left I would have gotten lost."
This means, of course, that we can speculate on how matters might have
turned out differently if we had acted differently - for good or ill. A
teacher is entitled to say, "You got an F because you didn't turn in your
assignments. If you had turned in your assignments you wouldn't have gotten
an F." The fallacy of Hypothesis Contrary to Fact follows the same general pattern of reasoning. However, it does so in a context in which the consequences of an action are not actually clear. In a complex situation other factors are likely to intervene. The boundary between clear situations and complex situations is, of course, broad and fuzzy, and the fuzziness of the boundary allows fallacious reasoning to masquerade as good practical speculation. The connection between failing to turn in assignments and failing to pass the class is simple and obvious. It is easy to understand how things would have turned out differently if the assignments had been turned in. The connection between gun ownership and levels of crime in a community is complex and indirect. In that context we can't easily project how things would be different if circumstances were changed. Nevertheless our usual success with speculative reasoning (in simpler contexts) may embolden us into thinking that we can speculate successfully even here. |
||
|
|
||
| Classification: A False Cause Fallacy (a retroductive fallacy of soundness with a falsehood in the major premiss). | ||
|
||
| Source: I first became aware of this fallacy from Max Schulman's marvelous short story, "Love is a Fallacy," published in The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis (1951). Although this is undoubtedly not the earliest reference to the fallacy, I have not so far been able to identify an earlier source. Please contact me if you can point me to a potentially useful clue regarding the original source of this fallacy. | ||
|
||
Go to: WELCOME EXPLANATION of PRINCIPLES TABLE of FALLACIES EXERCISES INDEX