Hey what’s up Thinkers! Kathy Gibbens here…
Let’s start off with a review that a listener left on Apple podcast, this one is from “Answers Inverse”: Hi Kathy! I feel like I know you after binge-listening to the first 56 podcasts so far! A friend shared your podcast on Facebook and it has been something I didn’t know I needed! My plan is to go through them all again with my 12 & 9 year olds next. I bought the Fallacy Detective and The Thinking Toolbox and I’m exploring using those in combination with your podcast to teach a logic class in our co-op next year! My common sense hackles have been going up for years but your concise podcasts have helped me greatly in putting into words what my mind has been alerting me to so I can better communicate it to others, especially my kids…thank you so much! PS. I’m sharing it with all my homeschooling friends and anyone else who will listen!!
Whew! Thank you so much for leaving that review and for sharing the podcast with your friends! I so SO appreciate you for listening and I”m so glad to hear that it’s helping you put your thoughts into concise words! You’re not the only one whose hackles have been up the past few years. We HAVE to be able to think clearly and well about the things going on in the world and critical thinking is a great foundation for doing just that.
Are you needing a new math program in your homeschool? CTC Math is an online math curriculum that uses Adaptive Questions that change in difficulty depending on the student's ability. They use a smart algorithm that tracks the student’s progress and delivers questions based on the areas each student needs to work on. The student doesn’t even know this is happening, but it’s helping them to build confidence and master new concepts. Visit C-T-C-math.com today to start your free trial, that's C-T-C-math.com.
So, the new fallacy we’re talking about today is the Accident Fallacy. The Accident Fallacy happens when someone applies a general rule, or what we call a ‘rule of thumb’ to all examples, while ignoring valid exceptions.
Interestingly, this fallacy is attributed to Aristotle, so it’s been around a long time, and the use of the word ‘accident’ in this fallacy doesn’t mean what we typically think of as an accident, like tripping on the curb or dropping a pencil. As it’s used in this fallacy, it has more to do with ‘non-essential’. This fallacy is also sometimes called a Fallacy of Accident, Destroying the Exception and Sweeping Generalization.
Here’s a super simple example: “Nuts are super healthy, so everyone should be eating them.” Ok, really? What about people who have severe peanut or other nut allergies? Should they be eating nuts just b/c they’re ‘healthy’? In this example, it’s obvious that the exception to the general rule is a pretty important one and can have severe consequences if it’s ignored.
Or how about this one: “It’s always wrong to cut people with knives…it hurts people. Therefore, surgeons are wrong because they are hurting people when they cut them open with knives.” Ok, so the general rule of “don’t cut people with knives” clearly doesn’t apply to surgeons when, yes, they’re cutting people with knives, but they’re doing so for a very specific reason - to help them!
The reason this fallacy happens is because our brains like to keep things simple, and simple rules are easy to understand and remember. However, we can’t just assume that simple rules or generalizations always apply to every situation. Some may, like “thou shalt not murder” but not all of them.
The problem with this fallacy is that the person committing it is misapplying the general rule to the case at hand without thinking through it enough to realize that the case at hand is an exception! Not every general rule can be applied to every person, every circumstance, every single time. There are going to be exceptions. That’s why we learn how to think so that we can reason and figure out what those exceptions are and when they make sense.
Now, for a real-life example, we all know that we shouldn’t kill people, in fact the Bible says, “thou shalt not kill”. But, what about soldiers who go to war to protect their country? They could be put in the position where they have to take a life and they won’t get in trouble for it or go to jail, it’s part of their job. This would be an exception to the general rule that we shouldn’t be killing people. Now, this can be a tricky subject b/c there are some people who are against joining the military for this exact reason, they don’t want to be put into this position, so there are nuances here, but regardless, it’s a good example where a widely-accepted rule that we shouldn’t kill people does have an exception.
Question to ask yourself: “Does that rule apply in this situation?” *repeat*
Remember: When you learn HOW to think, you will no longer fall prey to those who are trying to tell you what THEY want you to think and it all starts with asking one simple question: “Is that really true?”
