If, for example, I get bitten by a dog, isn't it a good idea to think from then on that all dogs are dangerous? To err on the side of caution, to be on the safe side, would necessitate that I immediately, after the dog bite, treat all dogs as threats, oui? — Agent Smith

If the first person from Myanmar you ever encounter happens to rob you at gunpoint, should you think all Myanmar-ites (?) are dangerous?

It's a hasty generalization for dogs and Myanmar-ites. But you don't have to judge either group to still behave prudently when you encounter another.

In general, your questions are very good. I'll need to think about them some more.

If the first person from Myanmar you ever encounter happens to rob you at gunpoint, should you think all Myanmar-ites (?) are dangerous?

It's a hasty generalization for dogs and Myanmar-ites. But you don't have to judge either group to still behave prudently when you encounter another.

In general, your questions are very good. I'll need to think about them some more. — Relativist

As I said, sweeping generalizations have ugly consequences; I guess the matter boils down to aut neca aut necare logic.

If you have been bitten by a dog on your only encounter with a dog, then of course you are wise to treat all dog encounters with caution in the future. The fallacy in your reasoning is to suppose that your response to a single encounter can have any connection whatever with inductive reasoning.

Question: Can all other fallacies be recommended as a rational course of action based on Algos/Thanatos? — Agent Smith

Schopenhauer thought something like that when he first wrote his Art of Being Right.

If, for example, I get bitten by a dog, isn't it a good idea to think from then on that all dogs are dangerous? To err on the side of caution, to be on the safe side, would necessitate that I immediately, after the dog bite, treat all dogs as threats, oui? — Agent Smith

Of course. But the next step (the one you're missing) is that one would be prudent to learn to distinguish a dangerous dog from one that isn't, and to recognize what leads to getting bitten and what doesn't.

Schopenhauer thought something like that when he first wrote his Art of Being Right. — baker

Agent Smith makes a note of that! Muchas gracias, señor baker.

Of course. But the next step (the one you're missing) is that one would be prudent to learn to distinguish a dangerous dog from one that isn't, and to recognize what leads to getting bitten and what doesn't — baker

Yep, that makes sense alright! Note however, there must be a psychological term for this, negative experiences are more susceptible to hasty generalizations than positive ones: there's racism, there's dumb blonde jokes, racial stereotyping, etc.

Note however, there must be a psychological term for this, negative experiences are more susceptible to hasty generalizations than positive ones — Agent Smith

Yes, it's called a sense of entitlement.

After getting bitten, people don't confuse a rope for a snake. It's that before they got bitten for the first time, they confused a dangerous snake for a harmless rope, acting in the belief that the world should be a safe place for them.

Yes, it's called a sense of entitlement.

After getting bitten, people don't confuse a rope for a snake. It's that before they got bitten for the first time, they confused a dangerous snake for a harmless rope, acting in the belief that the world should be a safe place for them. — baker

Should I be saying "exactly"? :chin:

between dying like a dog and living like a king. — Agent Smith

That's a scriptural generality: "Anyone who is among the living has hope —even a live dog is better off than a dead lion!" Ecclesiastes 9:4

Are "glittering generalities" a) better than b) worse than c) about the same as sweeping generalities?

That's a scriptural generality: "Anyone who is among the living has hope —even a live dog is better off than a dead lion!" Ecclesiastes 9:4

Are "glittering generalities" a) better than b) worse than c) about the same as sweeping generalities? — Bitter Crank

I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about. :sad:

oops, too obscure.

But surely you've heard of "glittering generalities"? "A glittering generality or glowing generality is an emotionally appealing phrase so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that it carries conviction without supporting information or reason."

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

I'd forgotten all about symmetry. Danke.

too obscure. — Bitter Crank

Heraclitus, the obscure! When you wanna talk about stuff no one's ever, you tend to come off as "obscure" which, to my reckoning, is Greeks just being (too) polite; Heraclitus was actually a madman or an idiot or both!

:snicker:

When you make these sweeping generalizations: "If one is a threat, then all similar are a threat", this generalization should be judged on what is your action or response to thinking like this.

So if your first experience in Myanmar was to get robbed, what is your response is the issue that is important here. Not you using a sweeping generalization itself.

If you then stay out of Myanmar and let things be as they are otherwise, I don't think there's any problem for you or for the Myanmarese. For starters, just going outside of your home can be risky. But if you then devote your time to portray to others that Myanmar people are all robbers, that would be questionable. Some could call it racist.

And if you turn into a vigilante and try to prevent the Myanmarese robbing others by attacking and jailing them where you live, I guess you are quite a threat to public security. And likely should seek some mental help.

I did mention that sweeping generalizations are fallacies. However, if one has no choice but to err, hasty generalization is the way to go! It could be the difference between life and death!

That said, legends speak of sages who had mastered the art of statistics to the point of clairvoyance!

That said, legends speak of sages who had mastered the art of statistics to the point of clairvoyance! — Agent Smith

Name 3 examples of such sages.

Name 3 examples of such sages. — baker

Do your own homework! :grin:

Name 3 examples of such sages.
— baker

Do your own homework! — Agent Smith

Really, Smith? This low you go?

Really, Smith? This low you go? — baker

:joke:

You're not serious.

in what sense, circumstance, etc. is it good/safe/sensible to commit this "fallacy"? — Agent Smith

Fallacy ...

From Oxford LEXICO: "A mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments.". More specifically, in Logic: "A failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid."

From Wiki: "The use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or 'wrong moves', in the construction of an argument."

All standard definitions will basically talk about the same thing: "failed or faulty reasoning".

So, why would it be good/safe/sensible to commit (carry out) this --or in fact, any-- fallacy?
What fallacies can do mainly is to destroy arguments, theses, positions, etc. of those who carry them out and the opposite, to give the "opponent" an advantage in a discussion.

The core idea: This fallacy is almost indispensable to stay out of trouble, it can mean the difference between life and death, between dying like a dog and living like a king. — Agent Smith

This is how a lot of animals behave. If they are harmed by something and can remember it, they would normally always avoid it. More intelligent animals, might need more harmful incidents --in fact some training-- in order to avoid something. A classic example Pavlov's experiment with dogs. The bad thing with that man was that he extended his findings to human being and he was in part responsible for such horrible psychiatric despicable techniques, such electroshocks (ECT). Because, indeed, the human mind too disposes of such defensive mechanism. However, the human mind also disposes logic and a reasoning ability that make the being that owns it to differentiate between very, quite, a little or slightly dangerous cases. And it's not fallacies about these cases that must dictate his actions but rather experience, logic and knowledge (including statistics).

Question: Can all other fallacies be recommended as a rational course of action based on Algos/Thanatos? — Agent Smith

My answer: No. There are no good or bad, helpful or harmful, acceptable ior unacceptable, etc. fallacies. They all diminish human reasoning.

A more practical answer: "Try tho think of some case win which you have based some action on some fallacy, which you are willing to always apply as a behavioural rule in your life. I, personally, can't. But who knows, maybe I just can't remember one! :smile:

@Alkis Piskas

Come to think of it, nonhuman animal categories are real categories e.g. poison arrow frogs are near-identical in appearance (brightly colored - aposematism) i.e. if you've seen one, you've seen 'em all (a sample size of one poison arrow frog is sufficient to generalize over all poison arrow frogs).

Contrast that to human categories - Brits, Nigerians, Chinese, Malay, Indians, etc. - which, it seems, are artifical, which means any generalization from handful of samples will be a huge mistake.