3 ms·

That's a 'begging the question' fallacy, where the conclusion ('Caltech students are more honourable than that') is used as the premise (ditto). Even if we all

by vacri 11y ago

That's a 'begging the question' fallacy, where the conclusion ('Caltech students are more honourable than that') is used as the premise (ditto). Even if we all agree that Caltech students are not representative of college students in general, it doesn't automatically follow that there is no significant degree of cheating.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> That's a 'begging the question' fallacy, where the conclusion ('Caltech students are more honourable than that') is used as the premise (ditto). No, its not. Rejecting the validity of an argument for p is not the same as making an argument for not-p.
- vacri 11y ago
  But that's exactly how you presented their supposed argument: "Caltech students don't cheat because they're not representative of the general student population", with the vague assumption that Caltech students are more honour-bound. Not being representative of a population doesn't give any information about the makeup of the subsample, unless you have more information to add.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > But that's exactly how you presented their supposed argument: "Caltech students don't cheat because they're not representative of the general student population" No, its not, which is why you had to present a "quote" that isn't to advance that story. I presented how they would reject an argument from the general population, not positive argument for the absence of cheating at Caltech.
    - vacri 11y ago
      What are you talking about? You presented the argument as a potential rebuttal to the claim that students cheat. It's inherently implied that it's an argument for the absence of cheating at Caltech... otherwise it wouldn't be a rebuttal at all, and instead is a non-sequitur fallacy. Yes, if you strip away the context of the literal words you said, you're correct. But in context, you're not.

3 ms·

That's a 'begging the question' fallacy, where the conclusion ('Caltech students are more honourable than that') is used as the premise (ditto). Even if we all

by vacri 11y ago

dragonwriter 11y ago
> That's a 'begging the question' fallacy, where the conclusion ('Caltech students are more honourable than that') is used as the premise (ditto). No, its not. Rejecting the validity of an argument for p is not the same as making an argument for not-p.
- vacri 11y ago
  But that's exactly how you presented their supposed argument: "Caltech students don't cheat because they're not representative of the general student population", with the vague assumption that Caltech students are more honour-bound. Not being representative of a population doesn't give any information about the makeup of the subsample, unless you have more information to add.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > But that's exactly how you presented their supposed argument: "Caltech students don't cheat because they're not representative of the general student population" No, its not, which is why you had to present a "quote" that isn't to advance that story. I presented how they would reject an argument from the general population, not positive argument for the absence of cheating at Caltech.
    - vacri 11y ago
      What are you talking about? You presented the argument as a potential rebuttal to the claim that students cheat. It's inherently implied that it's an argument for the absence of cheating at Caltech... otherwise it wouldn't be a rebuttal at all, and instead is a non-sequitur fallacy. Yes, if you strip away the context of the literal words you said, you're correct. But in context, you're not.