There is a little talked about fallacy called shoehorning (or shoe-horning as it is sometimes written) which is worth a mention here. There is a good example of this fallacy under the religion section on this forum.
Shoehorning is where one tries to set up one argument to make way for a completely irrelevant and unrelated one. By this account, people are trying to 'squeeze in' a piece of nonsense on the back of some other concept.
For example, the logical position that there is a possibility of God is used to shoehorn the reasoning that this now makes it probable and even a likely outcome. Indeed, the mere logical possibility makes some see it as a rival to other evidence-based frameworks.
This concept is also related to the fallacy of the irrelevant argument - but is more explicity directed at the purpose of the irrelevant argument.
To some this seems a small and obvious line of progressional thought. It is not. It is fallacious.
I have often wondered whether failure in this line of thinking is also related to the usually quite poor standard of probabilistic thinking in humans (we are all quite bad at this - and have to concentrate hard to think accurately in this way - even statisticians!). And thus a remote - so remote possibility - appears to some to be a likely probability.
Anyone have any other examples or thoughts on this?
argumentum ad kickassium
some nice examples here Dr B,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoehorning
http://skepdic.com/shoehorning.html
I'm not sure it's to do with misunderstanding probability so much as just a refusal to admit mistakes. "I am psychic, therefore my predictions must be true, therefore when I said he drowned I actually meant... and was therefore correct". Possibly people fail to notice shoehorning because of statistics, but the people actually doing the shoehorning are simply trying to retrofit their answers.
Originally Posted by bobdezon
argumentum ad kickassium
some nice examples here Dr B,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoehorning
http://skepdic.com/shoehorning.html
Cheers Bob
I had not seen those links (though I would take issue with the wiki entry on one or two points - it is not a ploy by the skeptics at all - it's a fallacy). The thing with shoehorning is that some are clearly aware that they are doing it and others are not. When you point out the flaw in their reasoning / writing - it is still, on the whole, not accepted.
Not aware of it but if it was what I was doing, I’m done with it. I have taken to questioning everything these days - twice!!
I've seen a lot of shoehorning of odd laws getting through parliament on the back of a larger bill
Oh, that's not what you meant?
Yes I noticed that error too Dr B, I assume that a practitioner of woo has been caught shoehorning and decided to edit the wiki page to "shoehorn" the sceptics argument. You should edit it properly so it becomes a fair description again.
The Wiki entry goes:
" Shoehorning is a ploy alleged by skeptics to be used by psychics as a way to make it sound like their prophecies or those of earlier prophets had come true."
It's a clumsy construction, leading the reader to link " ploy" with " skeptics" rather than " used by psychics".
By far the clearest way to write it would be to call it what it is - a reasoning fallacy.
Cuddles - never mind psychics, politicians are pretty good at rewriting the history of what they did and said. "We SHOULD invade Iraq because of the hidden weapons" becomes " We INVADED Iraq to recue the poor population from an evil tyrant and to spread democracy".
Harsh. Anybody can make a few spelling mistakes under pressure
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks