Appeal to fiction
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Cogito ergo sum Logic and rhetoric |
Key articles |
General logic |
Bad logic |
An appeal to fiction (also generalizing from fictional evidence) is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone makes claims about reality based on evidence drawn from works of fiction.
Explanation
Fiction is not reality — it is driven in large part by considerations of being interesting to the audience rather than reflecting reality with 100% accuracy. Furthermore, fiction shows systemic bias in its distortion of reality; common deviations for the audience's benefit are catalogued and studied as tropes. Using fiction to argue about reality can therefore systematically skew your beliefs and expectations.
Example
- This tactic was deployed by Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia when he justified the use of torture on terrorism suspects by citing the television show 24[1] as evidence, stating "Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so."[2]
- Just about anything to do with 1984.
See also
- Things to keep in mind before starting a conspiracy, mostly informed by fictional examples
External links
- Cognitive biases potentially affecting judgment of global risks, p. 9, Nick Bostrom
- The Logical Fallacy of Generalization from Fictional Evidence, on LessWrong
- ↑ 24 IMDb.
- ↑ Scalia and Torture (Jun 19, 2007) by Andrew Sullivan The Atlantic.