I was listening to NPR on my drive home today, and there was a
story concerning a community that has been attempting to rebuild after
Superstorm Sandy. I don’t remember the
specifics, but that’s beside the point.
During an interview, one community member made the following comment in
regards to why they were helping out:
“If this had happened anywhere else, I wouldn’t be here.”
My initial knee-jerk reaction was to point out that, admirable as
the sentiment is, this is a fallacious comment.
In my mind, I assumed the rest of the “argument” was implied to go as
follows:
1. If this had happened
anywhere else, I wouldn’t be here.
2. It did not happen
anywhere else. (It happened here.)
C: Therefore, I am here.
(DN)
This looks like a clear example of the Fallacy of Denying the
Antecedent. However, upon giving it a
bit more thought, I noticed that it could be understood differently:
1. If this had happened
anywhere else, I wouldn’t be here.
2. I am here. (DN – I’m not not here)
C: Therefore, it must not
have happened anywhere else.
This actually works, although it seems a bit stranger. More than likely the comment was not actually
meant as an argument at all, so much as an explanation. But this is what Logic class will do to you.
More charitably, the speaker seems to be saying that he would not be on a disaster site had it occurred elsewhere -- he's helping out in New Jersey because it's near his home, not Pakistan. Honest it may be, but it's an odd thing to admit.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the statement contains only an implication (a conditional statement), not an inference, so your reconstruction of the (alleged) intended argument relies heavily on premises you supply.
ReplyDeleteHonestly I've been doing this so much because of logic. I keep pulling apart different things that sound like arguments and claims. It's actually really helpful and I guess it means logic is actually making sense. Thanks for sharing!
ReplyDelete