It depends. Exclusion's likely. But there's a difference between being misinformed or ignorant, which isn't necessarily intrinsically fallacious, and deliberately omitting information that would change the results.
For instance, if I try to predict whether it will rain in Wichita Falls on June 30th, 2015, I will omit most of the relevant information, but that's because I don't have that information. On the other hand, if I say smoking won't kill people because 30 people didn't get cancer in the study, I should really mention the other 120 people in the study.
3 comments:
I believe it falls under "Exclusion Fallacy" on Professor Crandall's list of fallacies
It depends. Exclusion's likely. But there's a difference between being misinformed or ignorant, which isn't necessarily intrinsically fallacious, and deliberately omitting information that would change the results.
For instance, if I try to predict whether it will rain in Wichita Falls on June 30th, 2015, I will omit most of the relevant information, but that's because I don't have that information. On the other hand, if I say smoking won't kill people because 30 people didn't get cancer in the study, I should really mention the other 120 people in the study.
hmmm...thanx. That's kind of a hard one to prove cuz you would really need to have the study available. Well, ok that's something to think about...
Post a Comment