According to Epstein, an arugument is considered a fallacy if the premise is questionable and does not support the conclusion. An example of a fallacy that deals with a lack of clarity is the drawing the line fallacy. It is found when a concept is rejected because it is too unclear and if you cannot draw a straight line in order to determine the outline of the concept.
Here is an example of a drawing the line fallacy:
Bob can never be called fat. Bob isn't fat now, however if he eats one more donut, that won't make him go from not fat to fat either. If he eats one more donut after that, this one gain will not either make him go from not fat to fat. Therefore, no matter how many donuts he eats, he can never be called fat.
This argument would be rejected because it is very unclear and a straight line cannot be drawn when trying to figure out the outline of this argument. So, it is considered a drawing the line fallacy.
Your explanation of drawing the line fallacy helped me understand this particular fallacy better. Your example especially showed me what drawing the line fallacy statement looks like. Your example of how Bob cannot be "go from fat to fat" was very confusing and repetitive. I had to read it a good 3 times to understand why Bob "can never be called fat." Even then, the argument was not sufficient in explaining itself, which made me, as the reader not convinced.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your example, I can see how frustrating it is to understand a drawing the line fallacy. It is very unclear and the premises just do not back up the conclusion adequately enough.
I agree that you did clarify this fallacy through your explanation of it. When I first read about it, it was fairly confusing. I had to read it several times and I still had a difficult time understanding what it means.
ReplyDeleteYour example was good and your explanation of why it was a drawing the line fallacy made sense. I agree that the argument was very unclear and the premises about Bob eating donuts and not becoming fat no matter how many he ate was very questionable indeed. Those claims did not support the conclusion and that further showed the argument was a drawing the line fallacy.