3 ms·

Is there a name for the logical fallacy that if an aspect of a system benefits a group, that the group must have planned said system aspect? It's a constant th

by JPKab 5y ago

Is there a name for the logical fallacy that if an aspect of a system benefits a group, that the group must have planned said system aspect? It's a constant thread amongst all conspiracy theorists: GW Bush BENEFITED from 9/11, therefore he must have had some hand in planning it. Tech monopolise BENEFITED from COVID, therefore it's a "plandemic". Fuel sellers BENEFIT from stop signs, therefore they coordinate putting more of them up.

wyre 5y ago
Yes, they are called conspiracy theories. I don’t know if there is a more specific name, but I don’t think calling it a fallacy is correct as a fallacy means incorrect, while a conspiracy means it is unprovable/secret. Conspiracies can be false, but they can also be true with proper evidence and then it is called a scandal.
- ByteJockey 5y ago
  > but I don’t think calling it a fallacy is correct as a fallacy means incorrect The (logical) fallacy is in the word "must". Let's look at the statement again: > if an aspect of a system benefits a group, that the group must have planned said system aspect This is incorrect because sometimes groups benefit from things they haven't planned. If the statement were changed to "that there is a good chance the group planned said system aspect", it would no longer be a fallacy. It's the same as the slippery slope fallacy. Slippery slopes are real things. Sometimes A does get out of hand and cause B. Saying that if A happens, B must happen is where it becomes a fallacy. Changing this to "If A happens, there's a good chance it will snowball and B will happen" also removes this fallacy.
AuthorizedCust 5y ago
I agree with the other commentor that this relates to conspiracy theories, but I find that conspiracy theories are where people go when they have no evidence to support their premise. In other words, the ratio of alleged to likely conspiracy theories is really bad for theorists. Stop signs’ utility in shutting up squeaky wheels or appeasing anti-car agitators are a simpler and more direct explanation.
1123581321 5y ago
I think it’s a simple post hoc fallacy. Stop signs proliferated afterBig Oil gained a degree of power over Congress, therefore Big Oil must be part of the cause. That said, there is precedent for traffic laws being set by fuel consumption concerns and there was industry pushback against it that led to its repeal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law The difference between Drive 55 and the stop signs is that Drive 55 was enacted by a single legislative act, and stop signs proliferate due to a combination of state code, municipal code, civil engineering practices and limited imagination. Traffic circles are currently proliferating just as easy, and reduce fuel consumption.
fsckboy 5y ago
it has a name, but not as a fallacy. cui bono, "who benefits?" in the law is suggested as a good place to look (for suspects, for responsible parties) because there's motive.

by JPKab 5y ago

wyre 5y ago

Yes, they are called conspiracy theories. I don’t know if there is a more specific name, but I don’t think calling it a fallacy is correct as a fallacy means incorrect, while a conspiracy means it is unprovable/secret. Conspiracies can be false, but they can also be true with proper evidence and then it is called a scandal.

ByteJockey 5y ago
> but I don’t think calling it a fallacy is correct as a fallacy means incorrect The (logical) fallacy is in the word "must". Let's look at the statement again: > if an aspect of a system benefits a group, that the group must have planned said system aspect This is incorrect because sometimes groups benefit from things they haven't planned. If the statement were changed to "that there is a good chance the group planned said system aspect", it would no longer be a fallacy. It's the same as the slippery slope fallacy. Slippery slopes are real things. Sometimes A does get out of hand and cause B. Saying that if A happens, B must happen is where it becomes a fallacy. Changing this to "If A happens, there's a good chance it will snowball and B will happen" also removes this fallacy.

AuthorizedCust 5y ago

I agree with the other commentor that this relates to conspiracy theories, but I find that conspiracy theories are where people go when they have no evidence to support their premise. In other words, the ratio of alleged to likely conspiracy theories is really bad for theorists. Stop signs’ utility in shutting up squeaky wheels or appeasing anti-car agitators are a simpler and more direct explanation.

1123581321 5y ago

I think it’s a simple post hoc fallacy. Stop signs proliferated afterBig Oil gained a degree of power over Congress, therefore Big Oil must be part of the cause. That said, there is precedent for traffic laws being set by fuel consumption concerns and there was industry pushback against it that led to its repeal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law The difference between Drive 55 and the stop signs is that Drive 55 was enacted by a single legislative act, and stop signs proliferate due to a combination of state code, municipal code, civil engineering practices and limited imagination. Traffic circles are currently proliferating just as easy, and reduce fuel consumption.

fsckboy 5y ago

it has a name, but not as a fallacy. cui bono, "who benefits?" in the law is suggested as a good place to look (for suspects, for responsible parties) because there's motive.