Talk:Fallacies of illicit transference

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fallacies of illicit transference article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Philosophy: Logic Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Untitled section[edit]

A question for you learned editors. Is it also an example of this fallacy to say "My cohort has a 20% chance of suffering a heart attack in the next 10 years, therefore I have a 20% chance?" Callophylla (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the answer is, you can assume the best estimate of your chance is 20%, *IF YOU HAVE NO OTHER INFORMATION*. If, however, you know things, like your family history of heart attacks, your own personal blood pressure, etc., etc., you could (eg., using something like Bayesian updating of your priors) alter that estimate to a more accurate one, tailored for you specifically.

If you choose to ignore extra information to stick with the less informative 20% estimate, then I would say you are making that fallacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.124.254 (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another meaning[edit]

W. Kent Wilson in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy classifies "fallacies of distribution" as those pertaining to the distribution rules in syllogisms: undistributed middle, illicit major, illicit minor. It might be worth noting the ambiguity. —Mrwojo (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A third fallacy[edit]

I wonder if there isn't also a "Fallacy of illicit transference", in that the fallacy of composition and the fallacy of division can be used simultaneously, defining the instance of the class as representative of the class, and the class as definitive (?) of each and every instance. See Drawing Hands for a visual metaphor of the process I'm trying to describe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLastWordSword (talk • contribs) 16:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]