Some sports fans use this sort of logic:* “If we win this game, it’s a good thing, because victory is good. If we lose this game, it’s a good thing, because it improves our draft position for next year. Therefore we are in a win-win situation.”*
The obvious counter to this argument is that the negatives all apply, too - if you win, your draft position worsens; if you lose, then you just lost a game. So by that same logic, you are in a lose-lose, too, just as much as you are in a win-win.
A different, but related, version on this argument would be this: *“If the government does **not **deny the existence of a secret military program, it must mean that the program exists. If the government **does **deny the existence of a secret military program, it must mean that the program exists. Therefore, the program exists either way.”
*
Is this a logical fallacy? If so, is there a particular name for it? The “True-if-yes-and-true-if-no” fallacy?
This reasoning is not necessarily fallacious. It is very possible to face a decision or an event in which either path through will be positive to you, and you need to choose the better of the two. Like Archie’s decision about Betty or Veronica, its not like one is a **bad **thing.
On the other hand, we could call this *sour grapes *thinking, from the Aesop about the fox and the grapes.
My husband calls that the “half-full” fallacy, but it’s just something he made up. It’s when people insist on being optimistic to the point of denying reality. He calls it the “half-full” fallacy, because of that stupid “optimists say the glass is half full” thing, and he points out that you wouldn’t want a half full glass of Hemlock tea, or Gatorade spiked with antifreeze.
It’s not a logical fallacy, though. It can be faulty thinking, but not all faulty thinking is a logical fallacy.
What is your debate? “Resolved: it doesn’t matter whether or not we win this game”? That’s not a real debate topic.
Fallacies are for formal logic. The scenarios the OP describes are far too sloppy for formal logic to apply directly. In no sense do the scenarios qualify as syllogisms.
Both of the other posters have identified how the scenario is informal and how the thinking remains wrong within its informal setting.
Well, for an NFL or NBA fan, it’s desirable to have either a great team, like the San Antonio Spurs, or a horrible team, like the Philadelphia 76ers.
If you root for a great team, you know you have a strong chance of winning the championship. If you root for an awful team, you have a good chance of drafting a superstar at the end of the season. The one thing you DON’T want is for your team to be mediocre. A slightly below .500 team will neither make the playoffs NOR get a high draft pick. Great teams win; lousy teams get young superstars; mediocre teams tend to STAY mediocre a long, long time.
A long-suffering fan of a sub-par team can relate to this line from the Book of Revelation: “How I wish that thou were either hot or cold! But because thou art lukewarm, I shall vomit thee from my mouth!”
Very mild disagreement: fallacies can also apply to looser arguments than purely formal ones. There are “social” fallacies, such as the appeal to authority, etc.
You’re mostly right: fallacies apply where there are actual rules. If the argument is “chocolate or vanilla,” having a strong preference for one over the other isn’t a fallacy at all.
I’ve heard the OP’s example called “Appeal to tautology.” And, in fact, it really does work for some varieties of formal logical or mathematical proofs.
A > B
~A > B
Therefore: B.
(I’m all but certain this mode has a name… Speaking of which, can anyone point me to a full list of the “nicknames” for modes? The “Barbara and Bocardo” names? I’ve only ever been able to find allusions to the practice of giving such names, but never a complete list of them.)
I don’t see a fallacy here, it’s just looking on the bright side. I guess the speaker is arguably equivocating on the meaning of the word “win”, but it’s not like any sports fan is going to be confused about whether the actual game was won or lost.
ETA: Morton’s fork may be a better description of this one: “a specious piece of reasoning in which contradictory arguments lead to the same (unpleasant) conclusion.”