# Name the logical fallacy. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 9, 2017, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130 "2017-04-09T21:09:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/1 "2017-04-09T21:09:21Z")
What is the name of the logical fallacy which attempts to disprove a statement by claiming the person making the statement has never personally experienced the situation? Conclusion: “Babies should be vaccinated” Fallacy: “Your argument is invalid because you’re not a parent!” Conclusion: “Motorcycle riders should wear helmets” Fallacy: “You don’t even own a motorcycle, what could you possibly know about the subject!?” Is this simply a type of _ad hominum_, or is it something more specific? ---
**Author:** ![dolphinboy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dolphinboy/32/330_2.png) [@dolphinboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dolphinboy)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/2 "2017-04-09T21:35:26Z")
Perhaps Genetic Fallacy? (Acceptance or rejection of concepts based on source as opposed to merit) ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/3 "2017-04-09T21:57:11Z")
Closest I could find on the Wikipedia list is the [_appeal to accomplishment_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_accomplishment), which is a subset of _ad hominem_. ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/4 "2017-04-10T02:50:06Z")
It’s a [false premise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise), not a fallacy. A statement can be logical but still incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/5 "2017-04-10T04:48:35Z")
> [@Doug\_K](#): > > It’s a [false premise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise), not a fallacy. A statement can be logical but still incorrect. It’s definitely not a false premise. The premise that the speaker is not a parent _is_ correct. However, it’s a fallacy to conclude that the speaker’s argument is invalid simply because he/she is not a parent. ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/6 "2017-04-10T12:17:52Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > It’s definitely not a false premise. The premise that the speaker is not a parent _is_ correct. However, it’s a fallacy to conclude that the speaker’s argument is invalid simply because he/she is not a parent. That’s not the premise, it’s the statement. The premise is that one must be a parent to be knowledgeable. The logic used is: Premise: You must be a parent to be knowledgeable about vaccines. Statement: You are not a parent. Conclusion: Therefore you are not knowledgeable about vaccines. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/7 "2017-04-10T20:25:12Z")
You can convert any fallacious argument into a false premise, though. Some swans are white If some elements of set A have property B, then all elements of A have B Therefore, all swans are white Alice believes the Earth is flat Everything Alice believes is true Therefore, the Earth is flat Bob is an expert on model trains An expert on one subject is an expert on all subjects Therefore, Bob is an expert on climatology It’s kinda silly to just lump them all together as false premises, though. You may as well just call them invalid arguments if you’re going that route. The whole point to naming fallacies is that these invalid steps are usually left unsaid, and classifying the common ones helps identification. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/8 "2017-04-10T20:38:13Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > You can convert any fallacious argument into a false premise, though… Huh? All presidents are protected by the Secret Service. I am the president. Therefore, I am protected by the Secret Service. All presidents are protected by the Secret Service. Donald Trump is the president. Therefore, Donald Trump likes cookies. The premise is correct in both of the above examples, the error lies elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/9 "2017-04-10T20:44:51Z")
p.s. I think **Doug K.**'s analysis is spot on. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/10 "2017-04-10T20:46:06Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/11 "2017-04-10T20:48:35Z")
To be clear, I’m not making the same distinction between “premise” and “statement” that **Doug K** and you apparently are. So your first argument is sound but the second premise “I am the president” is incorrect. The second argument is missing a premise. Not all missing premises mean you have an invalid argument; it would be impossible to make any argument if some premises weren’t left out. When we add in the missing premise to your second argument, we see that it’s false: All presidents are protected by the Secret Service. Donald Trump is the president. Everyone protected by the Secret Service likes cookies Therefore, Donald Trump likes cookies. ---
**Author:** ![igor\_frankensteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/839c29/32.png) [@igor\_frankensteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/igor_frankensteen)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/12 "2017-04-10T20:57:35Z")
Unfortunately, not all errors in reasoning have snappy names that can be flashed, in order to devastate the fools and charlatans of the world. Sometimes you just have to tell them their reasoning is in error. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/13 "2017-04-10T20:58:06Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > To be clear, I’m not making the same distinction between “premise” and “statement” that **Doug K** and you apparently are… Yes, perhaps it would have been better to say, in reference to the OP’s original examples, that the particular error lies in an _unstated_ premise that is false. It’s somewhat similar to the loaded question fallacy > **[Loaded question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question)** > > A loaded question is a form of complex question that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt). > Such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda. The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having beaten their wife at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the ques... where an unstated false assumption is built into the question. “Do you still beat your wife?” ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/14 "2017-04-10T21:05:35Z")
> [@igor\_frankensteen](#): > > Unfortunately, not all errors in reasoning have snappy names that can be flashed, in order to devastate the fools and charlatans of the world. > > Sometimes you just have to tell them their reasoning is in error. The error in your reasoning here is technically known as the _Ego potest cogitare de nomine illius fallacia_ fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/15 "2017-04-10T21:21:36Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Yes, perhaps it would have been better to say, in reference to the OP’s original examples, that the particular error lies in an _unstated_ premise that is false. Right, and the particular form of the false unstated premise so commonly fits in a few categories that they sometimes deserve a name. But **igor** is correct as well; not all faulty reasoning has a snappy name. You don’t want to focus solely on the special cases and ignore general reasoning. I think there’s a balance between the approaches. ---
**Author:** ![igor\_frankensteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/839c29/32.png) [@igor\_frankensteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/igor_frankensteen)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/16 "2017-04-10T21:26:42Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > The error in your reasoning here is technically known as the _Ego potest cogitare de nomine illius fallacia_ fallacy. Absolutely correct. Thanks!🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/17 "2017-04-10T21:28:37Z")
For an argument to be a logical fallacy means that the conclusion doesn’t follow, whether the premise and second statement are true or not. All swans are white This bird is white Therefore this bird is a swan. is fallacious whether the bird is a swan or not, because there is no claim that all white birds are swan. All white birds are swans This bird is white Therefore this bird is a swan Is logical, but the premise is false. Even if the bird is not a swan, the argument is logical. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/18 "2017-04-10T21:50:28Z")
No, that’s validity (conclusion follows from premises). An argument can also be sound or not, which means it’s both valid and its premises are all true. Fallacies encompass both invalid and unsound arguments. As said, you can always identify a missing false premise if you like. All swans are white This bird is white If A is _B_, and all members of **C** are _B_, then A is a **C** Therefore this bird is a swan. Premise 3 is false (or rather, not true in general) but if it were true then the argument would be valid. ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/19 "2017-04-10T22:12:42Z")
I think “genetic fallacy” is the best answer, but I think it’s possible to create an argument that it’s a form of the fallacy of anecdotal evidence. It is essentially arguing that personal experience, a form of anecdotal evidence, trumps anything else, including double-blind studies, or even arguing that one should follow the law to avoid punishment. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130/20 "2017-04-10T22:46:21Z")
I think one of the things we’ve collectively proven in these 20 posts is that naming logical fallacies has rather little use. We’re all over the map on which it is, disagree on what’s a premise or a statement, what constitutes truth or validity or soundness. IOW: \*\*IF \*\*ref the tagline at the bottom of the page, we’re the smartest, hippest people on the planet **AND** we still can’t get this right \*\*THEN \*\*what chance do we have of persuading a few total dipsticks? 😃 [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/name-the-logical-fallacy/784130.md?page=2)