Ruby | v1.14.0Sep 25th 2020 | |||
Vladimir_Nesov | v1.13.0Nov 8th 2009 | (+747/-538) it's hard to express succintly... but if you need to decide whether to install a reactor, it *is* a yes/no question, yet the problem isn't that. | ||
Zack_M_Davis | v1.12.0Nov 7th 2009 | (+618) rewrite | ||
PeerInfinity | v1.11.0Sep 28th 2009 | (+68/-68) | ||
Vladimir_Nesov | v1.10.0Sep 21st 2009 | (+17) /* See also */ | ||
Vladimir_Nesov | v1.9.0Aug 6th 2009 | (+31/-38) reformatted | ||
PeerInfinity | v1.8.0Aug 6th 2009 | |||
Vladimir_Nesov | v1.7.0May 20th 2009 | moved [[Scales of Justice Fallacy]] to [[Scales of justice fallacy]]: standard capitalization | ||
Vladimir_Nesov | v1.6.0May 20th 2009 | (+12) /* See Also */ | ||
Vladimir_Nesov | v1.5.0May 20th 2009 |
The scales of justice fallacy refers to the error of compressing a complex empirical issue into a binary question. Sometimes one does need to consider a binary question, where the answer is yes or no, and evidence for the affirmative side is evidence against the negative. But a lot of real-world questions are much more complicated than this and involve questions that don't fit on a one-dimensional scale. For example, it might be tempting to argue whether some developmental feature of an organism is due to nature or to nurture, but the details of the true causal mechanism might not fit neatly in either category.
The scales of justice fallacy refers to the error of
compressingusing a simple polarized scheme for deciding a complexempirical issue into a binary question. Sometimesissue: each piece of evidence about the question is individually categorized as supporting exactly onedoes need to consider a binary question, where the answer isyesorno, and evidence for the affirmative side is evidence against the negative. But a lot of real-world questions are much more complicated than this and involve questions that don't fit on a one-dimensional scale. For example, it might be tempting to argue whether some developmental feature of an organism is due tonatureor tonurture, but the detailsof thetrue causal mechanism might not fit neatlytwo opposing positions. This scheme distorts the conclusions that can be drawn from each piece of evidence, doesn't allow to take into account the dependencies between the pieces of evidence ineither category.the context of the issue, and biases perception of individual pieces of evidence, making the ones that fall into the same category seem to support each other, and ones falling in the opposite categories to seem to oppose each other. In reality, individual pieces of evidence may be separate factual claims, arrived at independently, with the issue depending on specific combinations of facts.