Editing Association fallacy

{{Short description|Formal fallacy}}
{{Redirect|Guilt by association||Guilt by Association (disambiguation){{!}}Guilt by Association}}{{Redirect|Appeal to spite|appeals to spite based on the origins of an argument|Genetic fallacy}}{{For|the [[informal fallacy]] that applies a rule beyond its scope|Accident (fallacy)}}
The '''association fallacy''' is a [[formal fallacy]] that asserts that properties of one thing must also be properties of another thing if both things belong to the same group. For example, a fallacious arguer may claim that "bears are animals, and bears are dangerous; therefore your dog, which is also an animal, must be dangerous."

When it is an attempt to win favor by exploiting the audience's preexisting spite or disdain for something else, it is called '''guilt by association''' or an '''appeal to spite''' ({{langx|la|argumentum ad odium}}).<ref>{{cite web |last=Curtis |first=G. N. |title=Emotional Appeal |url=http://www.fallacyfiles.org/emotiona.html |quote=Appeal to [[wikt:Hatred|Hatred]] (AKA, ''Argumentum ad [[wikt:Odium|Odium]])''}}</ref> Guilt by association can be a component of [[ad hominem]] arguments which attack the speaker rather than addressing the claims, but they are a distinct class of fallacious argument, and both are able to exist independently of the other.

== Formal version ==
[[File:Euler diagram.png|thumb|216x216px|An Euler diagram illustrating the association fallacy]]
Using the language of [[set theory]], the formal fallacy can be written as follows:
:'''Premise:''' A is in set S1
:'''Premise:''' A is in set S2
:'''Premise:''' B is also in set S2
:'''Conclusion:''' Therefore, B is in set S1.

In the notation of [[first-order logic]], this type of fallacy can be expressed as ([[∃]]''x''&nbsp;[[∈]]&nbsp;''S''&nbsp;:&nbsp;''φ''(''x''))&nbsp;⇒&nbsp;([[∀]]''x''&nbsp;∈&nbsp;''S''&nbsp;:&nbsp;''φ''(''x'')).

The fallacy in the argument can be illustrated through the use of an [[Euler diagram]]: A satisfies the requirement that it is part of both sets S1 and S2, but representing this as an Euler diagram makes it clear that B could be in S2 but not S1.

== Guilt by association ==
{{Further|Ad hominem}}This form of the argument is as follows:
* Group A makes a particular claim.
* Group B, which is currently viewed negatively by some, makes the same claim as Group A.
* Therefore, Group A is viewed as associated with Group B, and is now also viewed negatively.

An example of this fallacy would be "My opponent for office just received an endorsement from the Puppy Haters Association. Is that the sort of person you would want to vote for?"

=== Examples ===
Some [[syllogism|syllogistic]] examples of guilt by association:

* John is a Con artist. John has black hair. Therefore, people with black hair are necessarily Con artists.
* Lyle is a crooked salesman. Lyle proposes a monorail. Therefore, the proposed monorail is necessarily [[w:folly|folly]].
* Country X is a dangerous country. Country X has a national [[postal service]]. Therefore, countries with national postal services are necessarily dangerous.
* Simon and Karl live in [[Nashville]], and they are both petty criminals. Jill lives in Nashville; therefore, Jill is necessarily a petty criminal.
Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ''[[ad hominem]]'', if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.<ref name=Niz>{{cite web |url=http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html |date=12 June 2014 |title=Fallacy: Guilt By Association |last=Labossiere |first=Michael C. |website=The Nizkor Project |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181004015840/http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html |archive-date=4 October 2018 |url-status=dead |access-date=12 June 2014 }}</ref><ref name="Damer2008">{{cite book |last=Damer |first=T. Edward |title=Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments |date=21 February 2008 |publisher=Cengage Learning |isbn=978-1-111-79919-9 |edition=6th |page=112 |chapter=6: Fallacies that Violate the Relevance Criterion |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kAFtCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA112}}</ref>

== Galileo gambit ==
A form of the association fallacy often used by those denying a well-established scientific or historical proposition is the so-called '''Galileo gambit''' or '''Galileo fallacy'''.<ref name="Collins2012">{{cite book|last=Collins|first=Loren|title=Bullspotting: Finding Facts in the Age of Misinformation|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8gXvP3MCAqcC&pg=PT27|date=30 October 2012|publisher=Prometheus Books|isbn=978-1-61614-635-1|pages=27–28}}</ref> The argument runs thus: [[Galileo]] was ridiculed in his time for his scientific observations, but was later acknowledged to be right; the proponent argues that since their non-mainstream views are provoking ridicule and rejection from other scientists, they will later be recognized as correct, like Galileo.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.indiana.edu/~c228/Fallacies.pdf | title=Recognizing Microstructural Fallacies | access-date=24 March 2014 | author=Amsden, Brian | pages=22 | archive-date=12 July 2019 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190712055955/http://www.indiana.edu/~c228/Fallacies.pdf | url-status=dead }}</ref> The gambit is flawed in that being ridiculed does not necessarily correlate with being right and that many people who have been ridiculed in history were, in fact, wrong.<ref name="Collins2012"/><ref>{{cite book |url=http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/03/galileo-gambit.html |date=28 March 2005 |title=The Galileo Gambit |last=Gorski |first=David |author-link=David Gorski |website=Respectful Insolence |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180228113627/http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/03/galileo-gambit.html |archive-date=28 February 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref> Similarly, [[Carl Sagan]] opined that people laughed at such geniuses as [[Christopher Columbus]]{{Efn|The idea that Columbus proved that the Earth is spherical to his contemporaries is a historical misconception;<ref>{{Cite encyclopedia |title=Columbus, Christopher |date=2007-01-01 |encyclopedia=The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea |editor-first=I. C. B. |editor-last=Dear |url=https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199205684.001.0001/acref-9780199205684-e-633 |access-date=2024-11-17 |publisher=Oxford University Press |language=en |doi=10.1093/acref/9780199205684.001.0001/acref-9780199205684-e-633 |isbn=978-0-19-920568-4 |editor2-last=Kemp |editor2-first=Peter}}</ref> see [[Myth of the flat Earth]].}} and the [[Wright brothers]], but "they also laughed at [[Bozo the Clown]]".<ref>{{cite book | title=The Yale Book of Quotations | publisher=Yale University Press | author=Shapiro, Fred R. | year=2006 | pages=[https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780300107982/page/660 660] | isbn=9780300107982 | url-access=registration | url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780300107982/page/660 }}</ref><ref name="Sagan1979">{{cite book|last=Sagan|first=Carl|title=Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science|url=https://archive.org/details/brocasbrainrefle00sagarich|url-access=registration|year=1979|publisher=Random House|page=[https://archive.org/details/brocasbrainrefle00sagarich/page/64 64]|isbn=9780394501697 }}</ref> It is often committed by those whose theories reject common scientific consensus.<ref>{{Citation |last=Johnson |first=David Kyle |title=Galileo Gambit |date=2018-05-09 |work=Bad Arguments |pages=152–156 |editor-last=Arp |editor-first=Robert |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119165811.ch27 |access-date=2024-02-03 |edition=1 |publisher=Wiley |language=en |doi=10.1002/9781119165811.ch27 |isbn=978-1-119-16578-1 |editor2-last=Barbone |editor2-first=Steven |editor3-last=Bruce |editor3-first=Michael|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

== See also ==
{{Columns-list|colwidth=22em|* [[Common purpose]]
* [[Discrimination]]
* [[Genetic fallacy]]
* [[Jumping to conclusions]]
* [[Motte-and-bailey fallacy]]
* [[Nine familial exterminations]]
* [[Prejudice]]
* [[Presumption of guilt]]
* [[Propaganda techniques]]
* ''[[Reductio ad Hitlerum]]''
* [[Scapegoating]]
* [[Sippenhaft]]
* [[Social stigma]]
* [[Stereotype]]
}}

== Footnotes ==
{{Noteslist}}

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== Further reading ==
<!-- Rudinow, J.; Barry, V. E.; Munson, R.; Black, A.; Salmon, M. H.; Cederblom, J.; Paulsen, D.; Epstein, R. L.; Kernberger, C.; Others, -->
* {{cite book |title=Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings |editor1-first=Hans V. |editor1-last=Hansen |editor2-first=Robert C. |editor2-last=Pinto |year=1995 |publisher=Pennsylvania State University Press |isbn=0-271-01417-2 }}
* [http://www.ditext.com/eemeren/bib.html Bibliography on Fallacies]

== External links ==
* [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html The Fallacy Files] at Guilt by Association
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20050301044628/http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.fc.transfer.html "Transfer technique"] at Propagandacritic.com
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20050301010917/http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.fc.testimonial.html "Testimonial"] at Propagandacritic.com

{{Fallacies}}

[[Category:Genetic fallacies]]
[[Category:Syllogistic fallacies]]