Anecdotal Proof: Absence of Anecdote
Additionally Recognized As: Do You Personally Know Anybody?
Description:
This fallacy, a variant of Anecdotal Proof, happens when a common declare is rejected as a result of the particular person making the declare lacks a private anecdote that might help the declare. It has the next type:
Premise 1: Individual A makes common declare C.
Premise 2: Individual A doesn’t have a private anecdote that helps declare C.
Conclusion: Declare C is fake.
It is a fallacy as a result of a scarcity of a private anecdote doesn’t function proof {that a} common declare is fake. This fallacy is thus a variant of the Anecdotal Proof fallacy. In Anecdotal Proof, an anecdote is accepted as proof towards a common declare, and this normally entails an express rejection of statistical proof. Within the Absence of Anecdote, the error is to reject a common declare due to the shortage of an anecdote. These are fallacious for comparable causes: an anecdote or lack of anecdote doesn’t show or disprove a common declare. One frequent variant of the Absence of Anecdote is the Do You Personally Know Anybody?. This can be utilized as a rhetorical system or a fallacious argument.
As a rhetorical system, it entails asking a model of the query “do you personally know anybody who X?” with the intention of getting “no” as the reply. This can be utilized in good religion when X does not often happen or doesn’t happen in any respect. However even when utilized in good religion, rhetoric proves nothing.
For instance, an individual who needs to guard sharks would possibly attempt to handle worries about shark assaults by asking the viewers if anybody has been attacked by a shark. They’re betting that nobody has and hope this can make their viewers extra receptive to their dull statistics showing that shark attacks are incredibly rare. There’s an apparent danger in utilizing this rhetorical system since it might probably backfire if somebody solutions “sure.” Psychologically, individuals are influenced extra by anecdotes, particularly vivid ones. than by boring statistics, which underlies the fallacies of Anecdotal Proof and Deceptive Vividness. Within the shark instance, if somebody says a shark bit their arm off, this can are inclined to outweigh the statistical knowledge about shark assault, no less than within the minds of the viewers. Whereas the shark instance reveals religion use of this rhetorical system, it can be utilized in unhealthy religion.
When utilized in unhealthy religion, the intention is to create the misunderstanding that X is uncommon and even that it doesn’t happen in any respect. It can be used to create the misunderstanding that X is just not severe. For instance, somebody would possibly ask on Fb if anybody personally is aware of somebody who died of a illness with the hope that this can create the impression that the illness is uncommon or not that severe (when the illness is just not uncommon and is severe). This does run the chance of getting “sure” responses, which is likely to be countered by accusations of mendacity or different Advert Hominem assaults. When utilized in unhealthy religion, this rhetorical system is commonly upgraded to a fallacy, typically with an implied conclusion. As a fallacy, it has the next common type:
Premise 1: Individual P asks viewers A (which isn’t an ample pattern), “do you personally know anybody who X?
Premise 2: (Individual P assumes) Viewers A’s reply is “no.”
Conclusion: Subsequently, X is uncommon, doesn’t happen or is just not severe.
This model can be seen as kind of Hasty Generalization or Biased Generalization for the reason that inference relies on an insufficient pattern. If a consultant pattern is used, then this may not be fallacious reasoning.
The fallacy can be introduced as this way, which might happen in case you responded to the query:
Premise 1: Individual P asks Individual A, “do you personally know anybody who X?”
Premise 2: Individual A’s reply is “no.”
Conclusion: Subsequently, X is uncommon, doesn’t happen or is just not severe.
That is fallacious reasoning as a result of even when a single particular person doesn’t know anybody who X, it doesn’t comply with that X is uncommon, doesn’t happen or is just not severe. That is, after all, simply drawing an inference from a scarcity of anecdotal proof. To make use of a foolish instance, it might be absurd for me to deduce that nobody has ever gained an Oscar as a result of I don’t personally know somebody who has gained one.
When utilized in unhealthy religion, this fallacy is best when the X is statistically unusual. That’s, there’s a good likelihood that a person wouldn’t personally know somebody who X. If X is frequent or the reality about X is well-known, then this fallacy will are inclined to fail. For instance, attempting to persuade those who coronary heart illness is a hoax by asking “do you personally know anybody who has coronary heart illness?” would presumably fail. As such, this fallacy normally requires an X that isn’t too frequent and a level of ignorance (willful or in any other case) within the target market. Whereas this fallacy lacks logical drive, it might probably have appreciable psychological drive as a result of individuals have a tendency to just accept their very own private expertise (or lack of experiences) over statistical knowledge.
This fallacy may be efficient when an incidence is critical or severe but is unusual sufficient that many individuals won’t personally know somebody who has been affected. To make use of a nice instance, think about a lottery in the US during which everybody will get a ticket, and the chances of successful one million {dollars} are 1 in 1600. Whereas these would possibly appear to be “unhealthy odds” of successful, there could be about 207,156 winners. This might be a big occasion, however you’d most likely not personally know anybody who gained, since most individuals find out about 600 different individuals. To make use of horrific instance, think about a terrorist assault on the US during which 1 in 1600 individuals are killed. Whereas these would possibly appear to be “good odds” of not dying, there could be about 207,156 individuals killed. This might be a big occasion, however you’d most likely not personally know anybody who died if you already know about 600 individuals.
Protection: To keep away from inflicting this fallacy on your self or falling for it, the primary protection is to take into account that the absence of anecdotal proof for a common declare doesn’t disprove that declare. Whereas statistics and likelihood are past the scope of this work, understanding among the fundamentals generally is a good protection when contemplating whether or not not having a private anecdote or not understanding somebody who has skilled one thing is ample proof for a declare.
Instance #1
TV Persona: “Do you personally know anybody who died of Squid Piox? I guess you don’t. It’s simply one other hoax to scare individuals into handing over extra energy to Large Brother.”
Instance #2
TV Persona: “Do you personally know anybody who has been the sufferer of shoplifting? I guess you don’t. It’s simply one other hoax to scare individuals into handing over extra energy to Large Brother.”
Instance #3
Ted: “This scholar mortgage debt state of affairs appears unhealthy. The President mentioned he would do one thing about it, however he has finished nothing.”
Jen: “So, have you learnt anyone who’s struggling due to scholar debt?”
Ted: “Properly, no.”
Jen: “So how large a deal can it’s?”
Ted: “However I went to school forty years in the past. What about individuals who graduated lately?”
Instance #4
Tony: “Wow, we misplaced a so many individuals to COVID. And are nonetheless dropping individuals.”
Tucker: “That’s what the media says, however do you personally know anybody who died of COVID?”
Tony: “Properly, my coworker’s brother died of it.”
Tucker: “Do you know them personally?”
Tony: “No. Are you saying that my co-worker lied about her brother’s dying?”
Tucker: “I’m simply asking questions. We have to give attention to the actual risk, like Antifa and their violence.”
Tony: “Do you personally know anybody who has been harmed by Antifa?”
Tucker: “Um…”
