RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Original position fallacy

Original position fallacy | Result: Deleted

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete

 * 1) It's difficult to parse what this is trying to say, because it's an ungrammatical stub. It seems to be trying to say something like: People X tend to advocate some change because they think they will benefit from it, but they wouldn't: a fallacy.  But this isn't so much a logical fallacy as just being wrong in one premise (namely, that X would benefit from the change).  Possibly it's just taken from the linked TV Tropes article.  If an article doesn't describe what it purports to describe, and it doesn't make sense, it shouldn't stay. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  20:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, it seems to be self-contradictory. The first sentence seems to say that the fallacy is in thinking that one should consider things from the original position, but the article goes on to suggest that those who don't consider things from the original position are committing a fallacy. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  20:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: it was definitely taken from the TV Tropes article (there's a comment about it in the markup). 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  02:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) There's really no authoritative source calling this a fallacy (TV Tropes can be authoritative about some things but not about this). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes it as a thought experiment, not a fallacy. Bongolian (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, it could be merged there...Andrew5 (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's OK to merge it onto the thought experiment page, but only if someone makes it coherent first. Bongolian (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) It's just not a "fallacy". It's some guy's suggestion about how laws should be created.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a world of difference between somebody who writes a newspaper article and one who get published by Belknap Press aka "The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press". John Rawls got published by the latter and is reliable even by the much stricter standards of wikipedia.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Still doesn't make it a fallacy. Does/did he claim it's a fallacy?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (EC) This article is not about the original position. It is about the so-called original position fallacy, which comes not out of Harvard University Press, but out of TVTropes.  The article fails to make the distinction clear, because it is poorly written, and was worse at the time this AfD began; it confounds Rawls's idea (the original position) with that of the people at TVTropes (the original position fallacy). 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  17:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Matthew McAteer used the term "Original Position Fallacy" back on March 19, 2020 while the TVTropes article was first created Nov 23rd 2011 so the idea did not originate from that particular TVTropes article as people claim. "A person supports some kind of policy, action, or revolution because they assume they’re either A) in the group that will benefit from it, or B) not in the group that will suffer from it. When used as a literary device, this is often used to compount a character’s suffering with the knowledge that they supported the measure when they thought someone else would be hurt. Indeed, you can think of the Original Position Fallacy as the opposite of the Golden Rule."--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (EC) That inference is so absurd I cannot believe your post is in good faith. How, exactly, does a post on an obscure blog a decade after the creation of the TVTropes article show that the term does not originate from TVTropes?  Are you supposing that Mr. McAteer could not possibly have seen the article in that time?  And that the term could not have reached him through some intermediary during that time?  He even uses almost exactly the same example to illustrate it, and his definition is similarly near verbatim taken from the TVTropes article. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  05:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "a decade after the creation of the TVTropes article" I checked the TV tropes pages and it says the page was edited 427 times with the first edit being listed as "by Xzenu Nov 23rd 2011 at 7:05:31 AM" which unless, TVTropes is doing something totally nonstandard with its wiki ,should be the creation date ("Showing 427 edit(s) of 427").  If it was a move it should de noted as such.   Don't claim bad faith because evidence that is likely precedes the TV tropes article has surfaced and you don't like that.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * JUst because it isn't a fallacy doesn't mean it can't be merged elsewhere, like thought experiment. Andrew5 (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. If it were completely rewritten from that standpoint and it would be fine.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. Logic isn’t my strongpoint, however, but I will see what I can do over the weekend (I’m going to be too busy before then.) Andrew5 mobile (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) This article fundamentally misunderstands Rawls' (rather famous) thought experiment. 14:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Serene’s meticulous research.  Leucippus Salva veritate 18:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) -Flandres (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) As a Rawls fanboy this article makes me feel ill... GeeJayK (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Christopher (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

 * 1) I support a merge into fallacy, as I have seen some sources call it a fallacy and they're is nothing on fallacies there, though I want to make something clear: I am not against deletion as an alternative, so if it comes down to 'no consensus', feel free to treat this vote as a delete and delete it. The reason I am not opposed to deletion is because it will require a copyedit when merged, and isn't a super notable fallacy. Andrew5 (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have seen some sources call it a fallacy. Where did you see this?  When I look it up, I get TV Tropes (where it was made up), then RW (that's us), then Conservapedia, where it is alleged to be used by "militant homosexuals", then Tropedia, which I'm guessing is something like TV Tropes. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  02:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is true that TV Tropes is not a reliable source, even less so then Wikipedia (which is also not reliable.) However, even if it isn't a fallacy it could still be merged into thought experiment. Andrew5 (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Critical Thinking in Clinical Practice (available through Wiley) has something similar: ""The original position may be misstated in an extreme version (“insight therapy is effective with all clients”), and this extreme version is then criti- cized. the original, less extreme position should be reaffirmed." Also wikipedia has an article on Original position giving us a reliable source: John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Cambridge, Massachudsetts: Belknap Press, 2001.  Based on Belknap Press's webpage it is part of Harvard University Press and that is certainly reliable.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your quote from Critical Think in Clinical Practice is completely irrelevant. They're not talking about Rawls's original position, i.e. the state of affairs wherein everybody is behind the veil of ignorance.  They mean original position as in the position initially put forward in the context of this discussion.  In particular, they mean the position "that insight therapy is useful with many (not all) clients", which is probably a lot more significant to proper clinical practice than to a theory of justice.  Now, Rawls himself is certainly an important figure, and his idea of the original position has been influential, but the topic of this article is only tangentially related to his ideas.  It is taken from here, a page describing an (alleged) trope in media involving attitudes and behaviors that (i) are not fallacious, (ii) occur in fictional stories, (iii) are inconsistent with the the recommendations of Rawls. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  17:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I lean towards merge as this had other usage like the dead hand of tradition (The Great Doctors by Robert Silverberg ) and similar statements.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Merge to avoid losing info. 02:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Merge and expand please. I want to know more about it. N. Harmonik (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Merge, but make it clear it's a thought experiment rather than a fallacy Plutocow (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) At the very least, merging can allow for a grammatical cleanup and for the original text to be made clearer with more citations. Jake Holmes ''yell at me 16:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Goat

 * If there is no consensus between delete and merge, what do we do? No consensus defaults to keep and no one likes it. Do we merge? Delete? Wait a while for someone to break the tie? Andrew5 (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure what our policy is here. No new votes in 10 days, and delete leads over merge/redirect.  Can deletion proceed as it stands?Omicron (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There was substantial support for merging, but no one as yet has done the merge. If someone will do the merge, then the page can be deleted. Bongolian (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But merge it into what exactly? There is also substantial support for the point of view that it's not a fallacy. So merging it into "fallacy" when the main reason for the majority delete vote was "it's not a fallacy" would seem to be absurd. Rewriting it completely and an including it in thought experiment would be Ok I would have thought.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)