Did 2+2 birth a new logical fallacy?

[SNOWBALL]

My guess is no, however, let's examine the structure of the following argument:

"In a fight to the death with no rules, a navy seal would be a favorite over the best UFC fighter because he has experience killing"

It's like saying "In a footrace between Los Angeles and San Diego, a native San Diegan will have an advantage over an elite marathon runner, because the San Diegan will have more experience getting to and being in San Diego"

So, is this a unique logical fallacy, or is it sort of a mishmash of different fallacies? If it's unique, let's give it a name. How about "The fighting Sklansky fallacy"

[Tom1975]

I don't get the analogy. Also, I doubt there are many Navy Seals who have actually killed a person with their bare hands. A better statement of the premise would be "In a fight to the death with no rules, a navy seal would be a favorite over the best UFC fighter because he has been trained how to kill whereas a UFC fighter has been trained to either knock out people or make them submit."

[alphatmw]

because killing an unconscious person or one with a broken arm would be severely hard.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
because killing an unconscious person or one with a broken arm would be severely hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. In a fight to the death, there is absolutely no difference between immobilizing someone and killing them. So, who cares if the SEAL is better at the latter? I'd settle for the best in the world at instantly blinding someone.

[soon2bepro]

I don't see a logical fallacy, however the statement is only valid assuming certain facts. For example, that killing a man is easier than rendering it momentarily motionless (unconscious or severely beat up, or whatever the UFC fighter would do).

If you assume that the UFC fighter won't know or won't be accustomed to the best strategy in hand-in-hand combat to the death, whereas the navy seal would, the statement could hold true.

[m_the0ry]

I think your analogy is way off the mark.

But I also think that the original statement about the two fighting to the death is false. In a fight where both people know it is a fight to the death they're influenced far more by millions of years of evolution than personal experience. When you know for a fact your life is threatened, your survival instinct will always overpower your hesitance to kill another.

The most skilled fighter would win. If your argument includes the fact that the navy teaches the seals finishing - killing - blows to the point where they are second nature then i think it's an unfair comparison. Equally trained individuals in a fight to the death will always be a coin toss regardless of whether you have killed before or not.


Note this leads to a minor paradox, we can't quantify the amount of training that the experience of killing someone else yields, and we certainly can't exchange that experience for some quantifiable amount of some other kind of training.


But in any case, evolutionary instinct wins. Proof enough exists in the fact that people with no criminal record will kill someone in the blink of an eye when they are overcome with rage.

[Kaj]

Another example of the Fighting Sklansky Fallacy (FSF):

If a fat, bald 40-something and a great-looking rich 20-something tried to score with a hot model, the 40-something would win because he's ejaculated more over his lifetime.

[SNOWBALL]

the basic structure of this argument is that if person A has an advantage over person B in the last term of a process, then he has an advantage over B in the entire process regardless of the beginning or intermediate steps that comprise the rest of the process.

Somebody trim that down for me. It's too wordy.

[Metric]

I suppose this is a pretty compact way to write it:

P(total) = P(1)P(2)...P(N)

Maximizing P(N) =/ maximizing P(total)

In the special case of fighting to the death, I think most of us would agree that if steps 1 through N-1 have been successfully completed, then P(N) is pretty close to 1 anyway. Thus training to maximize P(1) through P(N-1) would be a much better strategy than training to maximize P(N).

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

I suppose this is a pretty compact way to write it:

P(total) = P(1)P(2)...P(N)

Maximizing P(N) =/ maximizing P(total)

In the special case of fighting to the death, I think most of us would agree that if steps 1 through N-1 have been successfully completed, then P(N) is pretty close to 1 anyway. Thus training to maximize P(1) through P(N-1) would be a much better strategy than training to maximize P(N).


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks metric. That was elegant. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ChrisV]

I think this is just a problem with premises. You're assuming a third, unstated premise, which is that a certain skill (eg experience killing) helps with another skill (fighting). I'm assuming there's already a logical fallacy that deals with assuming an unstated premise.

[Alex-db]

Isn't this just a red herring fallacy (a Chewbacca defense)?

If you're saying that the reason stated doesn't actually help in the fight, then its the same as saying "he is more likely to win because he tends to wear blue"

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
"In a fight to the death with no rules, a navy seal would be a favorite over the best UFC fighter because he has experience killing"


[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, that's defintely a fallacy as stated. It could be true but not because it logically follows. For example, in a fight to the death between an expert marksman and a UFC champion with rules matching them up at 500 yards with long range rifles the expert marksman is a favorite. That would be true because of the factors involved. The Seal statement could be true because of factors involved but you'd have to look more closely at the factors. Consensus on the Sklansky Forum Thread were that the factors decided for the UFC guy.

PairTheBoard

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
"In a fight to the death with no rules, a navy seal would be a favorite over the best UFC fighter because he has experience killing"


[/ QUOTE ]

It is an argument with an unstated assumption. The assumption is valid but given too much weight.

Either:

Experience (or training) in killing is an advantage in a fight to the death.

Being familiar with San Diego will give an advantage to someone running a marathon in San Diego.

I think it is well established that the home team has an advantage. I think San Diego marathon runners will on average have an advantage (being able to practise the route, knowing the weather conditions, increased probability of having available family that can encourage and provide bottles of water etc.) over non San Diego residents, but probably only as a tiebreaker. It won’t compensate for any genuine difference in ability.

I think it is quite common to ignore counter arguments to ones position and over emphasise the arguments that favour it.

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
It is an argument with an unstated assumption. The assumption is valid but given too much weight.

Either:

Experience (or training) in killing is an advantage in a fight to the death.

Being familiar with San Diego will give an advantage to someone running a marathon in San Diego.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes in sense it's a fallacy as it removes the focus from an analysis of the unstated assumption. I'ts a bit like suggestion (in the hypnotists sense): unstated assumptions tend to be accepted, and less challenged that stated ones.
In this sense it's related to the argumentum ad hominem in it's psychological shift of focus.

As for the unstated assumption in this case: there are some people who are instinctively violent, and killing people is not that hard. The NBK will tend to do well wether he's a seal or a UFC fighter or an ex-con (the latter being most likely)

[Case Closed]

omg, this thread rules