Lee Corbin wrote,
> Now, I think that there *is* an implication in that sentence that
> Mexicans are poorer than business executives, and are poorer
> than some other ethnic groups. But Olga---this is a fact!
This is not a fact. This is sloppy logic. If you were working on an AI
database and wanted to code the logical "fact" that "Mexicans are poorer
than business executives", I would object most vigorously. This "fact"
would break a lot of the logical relationships of other "facts" and would
probably poison the whole project.
It implies that "all" Mexicans are poorer than "all" business executives,
which is untrue. It implies that the groups of Mexicans and business
executives are mutually exclusive which is not true. It implies that
Mexicans cannot be rich like business executives, which is not true. It
creates a continuum of wealth from poor to rich, but then uses the
descriptors "Mexican" for poor and "business executive" for rich. These are
not comparatives adjectives for the same attribute. One is really
describing race while the other is really describing job functions. This
continuum uses the wrong adjectives and changes topic in the middle. It
compares apples and oranges.
This "fact" is so imprecise and sloppy that it invokes more logical
fallacies than it evokes truth. It is logically inconsistent and
contradicts other facts. Even if not meant to be deceptive, it is
misleading at best.
This is the exact reason that statistical numbers for a whole group cannot
be applied to any individual. It is one of the more common logical
fallacies. It produces unproven conclusions through faulty logic. It is
not so much a question of "true" or "false", but "unproven" because of
faulty logic. The statement itself is invalid logic regardless of the
truthfulness of any implied supporting facts or statistics.
-- Harvey Newstrom <http://HarveyNewstrom.com> <http://Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:15 MDT