Talk:Association fallacy

Formal or informal fallacy?

The introductory paragraph states "An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy"; and yet the first section in the entry shows the logical form of the fallacy. Surely that makes it a FORMAL fallacy, what with having a form and all? I am not familiar enough with the notation to verify the form of the fallacy, but judging by the venn-style diagram representing it, it would seem to be legit? --Ace42 (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a mistake to try and apply a formal structure to an informal fallacy. Here, in particular, one can not say, as is done in the article, that A is a member of B. The fallacy of association is about association and not identity (as here). So to commit the informal fallacy being explained does not explain it accurately. No, rather to describe the fallacy of association accurately, it should be necessary to say that A is falsely associated with B -- false association and not wrong identity is what the fallacy of association commits--wrong identity, on the other hand, omits the trait that identifies it as fallacy of association. Another separate problem with the formal approach here is that, while the the way the fallacy is presented in the example is, to be sure, a fallacy, it is not an accurate description of the informal fallacy of association in question. This is because the error in the formal approach in the example concerns the conclusion of the syllogism, that is, the relation between A and C. However, it doesn't pick up on the error in the relationship between A and B which is the distinguishing characteristic of the fallacy of association. A.M.C.142.126.120.61 (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest looking this up in books on logical fallacies, but my guess would be that while it is a fallacy to say that being associated with something makes them share the same qualities, it is not a fallacy to say that it increases the probability of it. This goes without saying. A person having hung out at a bank robber's house the day before he robs a bank makes one more likely to be involved in the bank robbery, in terms of probability, than if he lived in another country and had never met that person. Being guilty of the fallacy does not automatically make the premise untrue, it only fails to be proof. It might still be useful in an evidentiary argument. -- RM 12:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the example actually an example of the formal fallacy of illicit minor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.173.160 (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

As the OP notes, the fact that the example can be diagrammed indicates a fallacy of form. An informal fallacy, however, is not one of form, but of content. I'm not very good at coming up with examples. However, a rough idea would be "I post on Wikipedia. Therefore, I am a nerd." More formally, "All people who are me are people how post on Wikipedia. All people who post on Wikipedia are people who are nerds. Therefore, all people who are me are people who are nerds." I.e., All A are B, All B are C. Therefore, All A are C. Formally, this is valid. However, arguing that anyone has a quality simply due to association with a group, is an unwarranted generalization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.173.160 (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The Venn diagram does not discribe a fallacy of any kind, formal or informal. It is rather a logically correct deductive form which could, thus, be sound or unsound depending on the nature of the premises and conclusion. Nevertheless, it might serve to help illustrate an informal fallacy provided that it was explained as such and that it was not a direct illustration. 64.231.204.120 (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Needs better example

The problem with the phrase "The Nazis supported eugenics. Therefore eugenics must be evil." is that eugenics movements have been strongly linked in the past to racism, forced steralization of minorities, the poor, the handicaped, and others seen in a bad light. Even ideas of eugenics without those bad ideas, simply voluntary procedures for positive genetic changes are considered to be of an uncertain morality. I feel this article needs a more clear cut example to illusrate the meaning. --rtaycher1987 09:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What you describe, "eugenics is bad because it's racist/inhumane/positive genetic change" is not an association fallacy, but "eugenics is bad because x is associated with it" is.--Nectar 13:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what Rtaycher means is that he/she percieves that example as portraying the idea that eugenics is a good thing. The important thing to remember is that just because one piece of reasoning for something isn't solid doesn't mean the original point is untrue; there's plenty of other evidence. In this case, it's true that Nazis following eugenics isn't solid proof that it's wrong, but that also doesn't mean it's right. -Unknownwarrior33 05:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The other examples also don't mean the inverse. For example, this statement:

• "The Ku Klux Klan supports this initiative. The public must therefore vote against it."

doesn't mean the KKK is not bad.--Nectar 05:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't a better example of an association fallacy be phrased:

John is a trouble maker. John and Todd are brothers. Todd must be a trouble maker.

The other examples are more closly related to the fallacy of assuming traits of a part are also traits of the whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.209.117 (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Link to Racial profiling

I'm deleting this link. Racial profiling is a heuristic technique, and not an argument in any usual sense of the word.--WadeMcR 07:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Vaughan references

Please discuss on this page and reach consensus before adding any reference to Vaughan. — ERcheck (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Communists: poor example

"Most communist states have enforced state atheism. Therefore all atheists are communist." I don't think this is an actual example of the association fallacy. It would be if we were to say "There is an atheist who is a communist, therefore all atheists are communists." This example, however, goes "If someone is a communist, then he is an atheist, therefore if someone is an atheist, he must be a communist." I.e. it's a type (a -> b) -> (b -> a) fallacy.

May-be Guilty by association should be a disambiguation page

Guilty by association currently redirects here, but I think it could as well redirect to collective guilt. Maybe it needs a disambiguation page with links to both these articles.80.235.69.196 11:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Broken links

The links on the bottom to Propagandacritic.com don't work

They should be tagged with {{dead link}}, if the condition appears to be long-term or permanent. If the link appears to be permanently dead, one might be able to find an archived version at the Internet Archive site and substitute a link to the archived version. —Quicksilver^{T @} 17:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is "guilt by association" always a fallacy?

Why can't guilt by association be used to refer to, for example, someone who openly espouses the views of another? Example: Bill was friends with Pol Pot and stated that he agreed with Pol Pot on his views. Bill can be referred to as being "guilty by association". And this would not be a fallacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.153.1.1 (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Guilt by association is neither provable nor disprovable. One can associate with someone and be neither guilty of their crime nor participating in their good deeds. Association in ignorance of the principles or positions does not make you guilty, merely ignorant.

Guilt by continued, informed association, however, is a clear if unspoken endorsement and therefore does make one "guilty".

You meet a man at work and become friends. You are unaware that he is a rapist. Are you "guilty by association"? No.

A friend at church confides in you that he has murdered someone. You do nothing and continue the association. Are you "guilty by association"? Yes.

To knowingly continue an association with someone whose views or actions are illegal, unethical or morally objectionable is to give tacit approval of those views or actions and do indeed make you guilty by association. 24.241.61.115 (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Jon M24.241.61.115 (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is always a fallacy when used as logical proof. However, it is not a fallacy when used as evidence to build a case for something. It can be easily shown that association increases the likelihood of causation. This is one reason that in criminal cases there are different standards of evidence/proof. And as you pointed out, being guilty of the fallacy does not prove or disprove the premise itself.

Invalid example

"Barack Obama will not wear a United States flag lapel pin. A lapel pin represents patriotism. Therefore, Barack Obama is not patriotic."

This seems closer to an example of denying the antecedent than an example of the association fallacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.235.162 (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This statement is obviously an attempt to transform a subjective political observation into a fact. A reference to contemporary politics is not appropriate in an article about logic. Wikipedia demands a neutral point of view, and though I may personally agree with the example, others may not, and this is not the appropriate forum for spreading political ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregvs3 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think examples should really be independent of references to political views, and to persons. For example, it's quite possible that a reader in rural India does not know Obama, or that a reader in North Korea does not understand the examples referring to Communism in the intended way. Volker Siegel (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Poor graphic

The original graphic intended to illustrate association fallacy was inappropriate. While it illustrates the fallacious statement, it does not illuminate why the statement is fallacious. Therefore, I've supplemented it with a Venn diagram, with overlapping circles of various sizes representing A, B and C. —Quicksilver^{T @} 17:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Venn Diagram Association Fallacy.svg

Fig. 2

This is not a Venn diagram, but rather an Euler one. I have taken the liberty of fixing this. 108.56.186.81 (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Cut the crap. I wasn't born yesterday. I know what it is, and I have taken the liberty of reverting your ill-informed edits. —Quicksilver^{T @} 10:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Semiprotection review

• 04:24, 22 January 2008 RoyBoy protected Association fallacy ‎ (Persistent vandalism with controversial examples [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

The use of controversial examples led to a furious edit war, and hopefully the semiprotection has ended that period. Perhaps it's okay to unprotect now.

As well as welcoming opinions from regular editors, I've contacted RoyBoy, who protected it. --TS 05:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tony, long time no encounter. Articles like this are special in that whenever something of mild importance hits "association fallacy" gets brought up in forums / blogs. Consequently those new or rusty on this concept come here and simply can't resist in the heat of the moment to add their 2 cents using their hot topic. I'd be curious to see how long it takes for current examples to be added. I'm guessing a few days given health care reform in the US. - RoyBoy 03:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Some people may add unsuitable examples in good faith. But is that a reason to semiprotect, preventing all edits by unregistered users? Why can't useless content additions just be reverted, as we do on all other Wikipedia articles? --TS 05:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral: You didn't take my point completely. I'm not inferring "some", I'm confident a higher proportion than the average article will do just that. I'm not against unprotecting, I'm neutral, moreover are there significant gaps in the article that require beefing up by anon contributions? - RoyBoy 03:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Cat / dog example

This example seems to fall into the chair/furniture fallacy in terms of the subsets, i.e. "A chair is furniture. A table is furniture. Therefore, a table is a chair."

As I understand it, an association fallacy in this case would be: "A cat has four legs. A cat meows. A dog has four legs. Therefore, a dog meows." 76.22.25.102 (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Overcomplication

"Example I: Social justice is a philosophy shared by Nazis and Communists, therefore churches that teach social justice are equivalent to Marxists and Fascists."

Not all Marxists are Communists and not all Fascists are Nazis. This adds another association fallacy (Nazis believe in social justice, Nazis are fascists therefore all Fascists believe in social justice) to the example and overcomplicates it. I'm editing it to reflect an Alice, Bob and Carol example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.140.28 (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Another variant

• Premise A is a type of B
• Premise B is type of C
• Conclusion Therefore, all As are Cs
• Example: A is a football player who on one occasion made a stupid mistake, causing a loss in the match. Therefore A is a bad player who generally makes stupid mistakes.

That example doesn't fit your variant. Your example is basically, "In one instance, A was B, so A is always B," which isn't an association fallacy at all. I would propose this example to fit your variant:

• John played right field in Little League.
• In Little League, the worst player on the team is generally sent to play right field (because relatively few balls are hit there).
• Therefore, John must not have been a good player. Milhisfan (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

galileo gambit - undo edit

I'm undoing this edit unsupported by sources [1] - Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Swastika?

Would a swastika be a good example of this?; the symbol was often perceived as representative of success and favorability, but when adopted by the Nazi Party is was considered hateful and racist simply by association. The swastika therefore receives hate and disgust even when used in its original intent. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 15:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

This article doesn't describe what people normally consider to be "guilt by association"

Normally, when people normally use this term, the "association" is not an an association of similar ideas; it is an association between people. E.g., a photo of someone associating with Jeffrey Epstein might be used to imply that this person is a pedophile, or a father's being a terrorist might be used to imply that the son is also a terrorist. This entire article is strangely built around treating "guilt by association" like some kind of informal logical fallacy (which it is), but it's generally just an attempt at defamation. See:[2][3] Bueller 007 (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)