Single Culprit Fallacy - Revision history

GSalmieri at 22:16, 10 August 2025

2025-08-10T22:16:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:16, 10 August 2025
Line 3:		Line 3:
	{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/submaps/755f10640666473c9cc7830bba28708a}}		{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/submaps/755f10640666473c9cc7830bba28708a}}

	Proposition 1 is clearly true~~. For a crime to be committed someone must commit it, and we call that person a criminal~~. Proposition 2 is also true. ~~[https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Police/Reports/Crime_and_Traffic/2020%20Crime%20and%20Traffic%20Report%20Final.pdf According to the Austin Police Department],~~ tens of thousands of ~~crimes (of one sort or another) occur~~ in the ~~city every~~ year. Moreover, the premises are related to one another such that we could deduce ''some'' conclusion from them, but the Inference A is clearly a [[non sequitur]]: the premises give us ''no reason'' to believe Proposition 3.		Proposition 1 is clearly true. Proposition 2 is also true. There are in fact tens of thousands of murders in the US on an average year. Moreover, the premises are related to one another such that we could deduce ''some'' conclusion from them, but the Inference A is clearly a [[non sequitur]]: the premises give us ''no reason'' to believe Proposition 3.

	From the premises we can conclude that there ~~are criminals in Austin or~~ at least ~~that there were at some point during~~ the year~~. Someone must have committed the crimes~~. But we can't deduce that there was any ''single ~~criminal~~'' that committed ''all the ~~crimes~~.'' The premises don't give us any information about how many of the ~~crimes~~ were committed by the same person. For all they say, every ~~crime~~ might have been committed by a different ~~criminal~~. And, going by our background knowledge of criminology, this is a lot more likely than that there was some single ~~master criminal who committed every crime in town~~. More likely than either of these alternatives is that there were many ~~criminals~~, and that some of them committed multiple ~~crimes~~. Any judgment we make about how many ~~criminals~~ there probably were is going to depend on such background knowledge, nothing in the premises suggests one way or another, and the premises certainly don't give us any reason to think that the ~~crimes~~ were all committed by one person.		From the premises we can conclude that there was at least one murderer in the USA last year. But we can't deduce that there was any ''single murderer'' that committed ''all the murders.'' The premises don't give us any information about how many of the murders were committed by the same person. For all they say, every murder might have been committed by a different murderer. And, going by our background knowledge of criminology, this is a lot more likely than that there was some single serial killer responsible for all the murders. More likely than either of these alternatives is that there were many murderers, and that some of them committed multiple murders. Any judgment we make about how many murderers there probably were is going to depend on such background knowledge, nothing in the premises suggests one way or another, and the premises certainly don't give us any reason to think that the murders were all committed by any one person.

	This argument commits what we can call the ''single culprit fallacy''. Let's describe it more generally. One premise tells us that a phenomenon of a certain sort (e.g. ~~crime~~) cannot exist without a being of a certain sort (e.g. a ~~criminal~~) to cause it. The second premise tells us that phenomena of that sort do exist. Then the conclusion says that there is a being of the relevant sort that causes all of the relevant phenomena.		This argument commits what we can call the ''single culprit fallacy''. Let's describe it more generally. One premise tells us that a phenomenon of a certain sort (e.g. murder) cannot exist without a being of a certain sort (e.g. a murderer) to cause it. The second premise tells us that phenomena of that sort do exist. Then the conclusion says that there is a being of the relevant sort that causes ''all'' of the relevant phenomena.

	{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/submaps/0ae85bfffc494680afab416d645fd08f}}		{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/submaps/0ae85bfffc494680afab416d645fd08f}}

	We could conclude from the premises that ''at least one'' being of the relevant sort exists, but not that there's a ''single'' such being causing ''all'' of the relevant phenomena. That's a [[non sequitur]]. To reach any conclusion about how many such beings there are, and about which of the phenomena are caused by the same being (and which by other beings of the same type) we'd need more information than is included in these premises.		We could conclude from the premises that ''at least one'' being of the relevant sort exists, but not that there's a ''single'' such being causing ''all'' of the relevant phenomena. That's a [[non sequitur]]. To reach any conclusion about how many such beings there are, and about which of the phenomena are caused by the same being (and which by other beings of the same type) we'd need more information than is included in these premises.

GSalmieri at 22:25, 2 September 2024

2024-09-02T22:25:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:25, 2 September 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Consider the following argument.		Consider the following argument.

	{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/~~arguments~~/~~4efb15d472cb439d919b18d63f3bfe1e~~}}		{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/submaps/755f10640666473c9cc7830bba28708a}}

	Proposition 1 is clearly true. For a crime to be committed someone must commit it, and we call that person a criminal. Proposition 2 is also true. [https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Police/Reports/Crime_and_Traffic/2020%20Crime%20and%20Traffic%20Report%20Final.pdf According to the Austin Police Department], tens of thousands of crimes (of one sort or another) occur in the city every year. Moreover, the premises are related to one another such that we could deduce ''some'' conclusion from them, but the Inference A is clearly a [[non sequitur]]: the premises give us ''no reason'' to believe Proposition 3.		Proposition 1 is clearly true. For a crime to be committed someone must commit it, and we call that person a criminal. Proposition 2 is also true. [https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Police/Reports/Crime_and_Traffic/2020%20Crime%20and%20Traffic%20Report%20Final.pdf According to the Austin Police Department], tens of thousands of crimes (of one sort or another) occur in the city every year. Moreover, the premises are related to one another such that we could deduce ''some'' conclusion from them, but the Inference A is clearly a [[non sequitur]]: the premises give us ''no reason'' to believe Proposition 3.

GSalmieri at 22:25, 2 September 2024

2024-09-02T22:25:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:25, 2 September 2024
Line 11:		Line 11:
	{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/submaps/0ae85bfffc494680afab416d645fd08f}}		{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/submaps/0ae85bfffc494680afab416d645fd08f}}

	We could conclude from the premises that ''at least one'' being of the relevant sort exists, but not that there's a ''single'' being ~~and that it's~~ causing ''all'' the phenomena. That's a [[non sequitur]]. To reach any conclusion about how many such beings there are, and about which of the phenomena are caused by the same being (and which by other beings of the same type) we'd need more information ~~that~~ is included in these premises.		We could conclude from the premises that ''at least one'' being of the relevant sort exists, but not that there's a ''single'' such being causing ''all'' of the relevant phenomena. That's a [[non sequitur]]. To reach any conclusion about how many such beings there are, and about which of the phenomena are caused by the same being (and which by other beings of the same type) we'd need more information than is included in these premises.

GSalmieri at 22:23, 2 September 2024

2024-09-02T22:23:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:23, 2 September 2024
Line 11:		Line 11:
	{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/submaps/0ae85bfffc494680afab416d645fd08f}}		{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/submaps/0ae85bfffc494680afab416d645fd08f}}

	~~From~~ the premises ~~we could conclude~~ that ''at least one'' being of the relevant sort exists, but not that there's a ''single'' being and that it's causing ''all'' the phenomena. That's a [[non sequitur]]. To reach any conclusion about how many such beings there are, and about which of the phenomena are caused by the same being (and which by other beings of the same type) we'd need more information that is included in these premises.		We could conclude from the premises that ''at least one'' being of the relevant sort exists, but not that there's a ''single'' being and that it's causing ''all'' the phenomena. That's a [[non sequitur]]. To reach any conclusion about how many such beings there are, and about which of the phenomena are caused by the same being (and which by other beings of the same type) we'd need more information that is included in these premises.

GSalmieri at 22:22, 2 September 2024

2024-09-02T22:22:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:22, 2 September 2024
Line 3:		Line 3:
	{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/4efb15d472cb439d919b18d63f3bfe1e}}		{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/4efb15d472cb439d919b18d63f3bfe1e}}

	Proposition 1 is clearly true. For a crime to be committed someone must commit it, and we call that person a criminal. Proposition 2 is also true. [https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Police/Reports/Crime_and_Traffic/2020%20Crime%20and%20Traffic%20Report%20Final.pdf \|According to the Austin Police Department], tens of thousands of crimes (of one sort or another) occur in the city every year. Moreover, the premises are related to one another such that we could deduce ''some'' conclusion from them, but the Inference A is clearly a [[non sequitur]]: the premises give us ''no reason'' to believe Proposition 3.		Proposition 1 is clearly true. For a crime to be committed someone must commit it, and we call that person a criminal. Proposition 2 is also true. [https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Police/Reports/Crime_and_Traffic/2020%20Crime%20and%20Traffic%20Report%20Final.pdf According to the Austin Police Department], tens of thousands of crimes (of one sort or another) occur in the city every year. Moreover, the premises are related to one another such that we could deduce ''some'' conclusion from them, but the Inference A is clearly a [[non sequitur]]: the premises give us ''no reason'' to believe Proposition 3.

			From the premises we can conclude that there are criminals in Austin or at least that there were at some point during the year. Someone must have committed the crimes. But we can't deduce that there was any ''single criminal'' that committed ''all the crimes.'' The premises don't give us any information about how many of the crimes were committed by the same person. For all they say, every crime might have been committed by a different criminal. And, going by our background knowledge of criminology, this is a lot more likely than that there was some single master criminal who committed every crime in town. More likely than either of these alternatives is that there were many criminals, and that some of them committed multiple crimes. Any judgment we make about how many criminals there probably were is going to depend on such background knowledge, nothing in the premises suggests one way or another, and the premises certainly don't give us any reason to think that the crimes were all committed by one person.

			This argument commits what we can call the ''single culprit fallacy''. Let's describe it more generally. One premise tells us that a phenomenon of a certain sort (e.g. crime) cannot exist without a being of a certain sort (e.g. a criminal) to cause it. The second premise tells us that phenomena of that sort do exist. Then the conclusion says that there is a being of the relevant sort that causes all of the relevant phenomena.

			{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/submaps/0ae85bfffc494680afab416d645fd08f}}

			From the premises we could conclude that ''at least one'' being of the relevant sort exists, but not that there's a ''single'' being and that it's causing ''all'' the phenomena. That's a [[non sequitur]]. To reach any conclusion about how many such beings there are, and about which of the phenomena are caused by the same being (and which by other beings of the same type) we'd need more information that is included in these premises.

GSalmieri at 22:07, 2 September 2024

2024-09-02T22:07:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:07, 2 September 2024
Line 3:		Line 3:
	{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/4efb15d472cb439d919b18d63f3bfe1e}}		{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/4efb15d472cb439d919b18d63f3bfe1e}}

	[https://~~app~~.~~reasonspace~~.~~com~~/~~assessments~~/~~f24b8d14265848ea85d1cde0c8bb76d9~~/~~export?options~~[~~embed]=true&options~~[~~dpi~~]~~=200&options[format~~]=.~~png]~~		Proposition 1 is clearly true. For a crime to be committed someone must commit it, and we call that person a criminal. Proposition 2 is also true. [https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Police/Reports/Crime_and_Traffic/2020%20Crime%20and%20Traffic%20Report%20Final.pdf \|According to the Austin Police Department], tens of thousands of crimes (of one sort or another) occur in the city every year. Moreover, the premises are related to one another such that we could deduce ''some'' conclusion from them, but the Inference A is clearly a [[non sequitur]]: the premises give us ''no reason'' to believe Proposition 3.

GSalmieri at 22:03, 2 September 2024

2024-09-02T22:03:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:03, 2 September 2024
Line 3:		Line 3:
	{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/4efb15d472cb439d919b18d63f3bfe1e}}		{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/4efb15d472cb439d919b18d63f3bfe1e}}

	[[https://app.reasonspace.com/assessments/f24b8d14265848ea85d1cde0c8bb76d9/export?options[embed]=true&options[dpi]=200&options[format]=.png]]		[https://app.reasonspace.com/assessments/f24b8d14265848ea85d1cde0c8bb76d9/export?options[embed]=true&options[dpi]=200&options[format]=.png]

GSalmieri at 22:03, 2 September 2024

2024-09-02T22:03:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:03, 2 September 2024
Line 2:		Line 2:

	{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/4efb15d472cb439d919b18d63f3bfe1e}}		{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/4efb15d472cb439d919b18d63f3bfe1e}}

			[[https://app.reasonspace.com/assessments/f24b8d14265848ea85d1cde0c8bb76d9/export?options[embed]=true&options[dpi]=200&options[format]=.png]]

GSalmieri at 22:00, 2 September 2024

2024-09-02T22:00:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:00, 2 September 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
			Consider the following argument.

	{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/4efb15d472cb439d919b18d63f3bfe1e}}		{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/4efb15d472cb439d919b18d63f3bfe1e}}

GSalmieri: Created page with "{{Map|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/4efb15d472cb439d919b18d63f3bfe1e}}"

2024-08-28T21:00:42Z

Created page with "{{Map|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/4efb15d472cb439d919b18d63f3bfe1e}}"

New page

{{Map|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/4efb15d472cb439d919b18d63f3bfe1e}}