Posted by Larry Hoover on October 25, 2004, at 15:17:16
In reply to Re: Forging false memories, posted by Larry Hoover on October 25, 2004, at 12:16:57
> > Whole memory fabrication is an extreme and exceptional circumstance. If A then B, not B is not proof of not A. That's called denying the antecedent.
>
> Wrong fallacy...rushed answer. More, later.Actually, it's a hasty generalization, of the form of the fallacy of converse accident, also know as secundum quid, also know as dictum simpliciter.
It's a fallacy of induction...."An inductive generalization is defined as 'an argument that draws a conclusion about all members of a group from evidence that pertains to a selected sample.' The fallacy is said to occur when the sample is not 'representative' of the group."
See: http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~walton/Walton12.PDFIt is incumbent on the presenter of the inductive argument to show that the sample is, in fact, representative, for the generalization to hold. Just because some memories *can* be falsified, that is not evidence that memories themselves are completely unreliable.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:406646
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20041016/msgs/407101.html