Fallacies-Hasty+and+Unqualified+Generalisation

1. Generalizations fallacies - Hasty Generalization & Unqualified Generalization In the note you will see that there are 2 types of generalization: hasty and unqualified You just use hasty, even though they are different. Unqualified is very simple. You will be given a general statement, and because its generalisation theres a specific form all groups have a particular characteristic Stereotypes fall into this category

Unqualified Generalisation why is it a fallacy - why start with a generalisation and come with a conclusion) Muthu is from x secondary and all the x boys are bad at maths. So, Muthu is bad at maths. This is an example of an unqualified generalization at work. Why is this a bad argument? weakness: there are bound to be exceptions  We assume that the first premise (all x boys are bad at maths is true) is true (or false?!)  P1: All boys from x secondary are bad at math. (most likely false.) exceptions may exist) P2: Muthu is from x secondary. C: Muthu is bad at math. You only need one counter-example to prove it wrong. Generalisation is llkely false as there may be exceptions to the statement For example, even something that seems to make sense, like all water is liquid, is that necessarily true? Why not? H20, yes? its cos mr ow could be showing us ice :D Here are some water. It is liquid. Ne? It might be ice...Apparently. The problem lies in the generation itself. Being unqualified, it cannot handle ... Common sense tells us that exceptions exist. Because we assume the generalization to be true, we are actually making a weak argument. WEAK ARGUMENT is assumed to be true when it probably is not. To strengthen your argument that it is a fallacy?, raise your own example

Hasty Generalisation is different cos it moves towards the generalisation (?!) In an unqualified generalization, we assume it to be true. In hasty generalization, we observe a few cases. After observing these few, we assume that it is true for all. We observe a few cases and make a generalisation based them. E.g. We go to x school, and talk to a few boys, and realize that they're hopeless at maths. So we assume that all x boys are hopeless at maths. start from examples you are aware of and generalize In both of these cases, we name them as generalization fallacies and we would be fine (as fine as we can be for a philo paper. Very fine?) just label both of them as generalization fallacies. We only seen a limited number of cases, so the generalisation may be poor or false. Unqualified: Does not exist (?) Hasty:. - biased sample - sample too small (seen too few examples) -could be that x school is a mixed school. We interact with all the boys, but we may be biased when saying that all x students are bad at maths, 'cause the girls may be good at maths you can't say the sample is too small, because there are girls in the school as well?

be very careful when distinguishing fallacies (between false and not-well supported conclusions) In this case, the conclusion is ... False or Not Well Supported? Your conclusion only takes you somewhere, not everywhere? The argument is weak because the premise does not lead to the conclusion. generalisation fallicies: hasty, unqualified.

http://piratepad.net/fallacies311