fallacy of accident
Quick Summary
The fallacy of accident occurs in logic when a general rule is applied to a specific case that has a special circumstance making the rule inapplicable. This fallacy arises from arguing from an accidental characteristic as if it were essential or necessary.12
For example, the statement "men are capable of seeing" is a general rule. Applying this to a blind man would be a fallacy of accident because blindness is a special circumstance that makes the general rule inapplicable. Similarly, arguing that because you buy raw meat, you eat raw meat, is a fallacy of accident because the act of buying does not necessitate the state of consumption. This type of error in reasoning, where a general principle is misapplied due to unique conditions, is a key concept in understanding logical fallacies.21
Ask Britannica AI about this topic
Britannica doesn't have a full article on this topic, so we've curated a list of our relevant coverage.
- fallacyMaterial fallacies
ā¦Aristotleās Sophistic Refutations: (1) The fallacy of accident is committed by an argument that applies a general rule to a particular case in which some special circumstance (āaccidentā) makes the rule inapplicable. The truth that āmen are capable of seeingā is no basis for the conclusion that āblind men areā¦
Read Moreā¦Aristotleās Sophistic Refutations: (1) The fallacy of accident is committed by an argument that applies a general rule to a particular case in which some special circumstance (āaccidentā) makes the rule inapplicable. The truth that āmen are capable of seeingā is no basis for the conclusion that āblind men areā¦
Read More
applied logicNonverbal fallaciesā¦what is known as the fallacy of accident, in the simplest cases, amounts to at least a confusion between different senses of verbs for being. Because Aristotleās handling of these verbs differs from contemporary treatments, his discussion of this fallacy has no direct counterpart in modern logic. One of hisā¦
Read Moreā¦what is known as the fallacy of accident, in the simplest cases, amounts to at least a confusion between different senses of verbs for being. Because Aristotleās handling of these verbs differs from contemporary treatments, his discussion of this fallacy has no direct counterpart in modern logic. One of hisā¦
Read More