2.3 KiB
Need the name of a fallacy for manuscript (I know it's not fiction, but social science is close enough)
-
Author: u/anewhopeforchange *
-
URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/4l8tod/need_the_name_of_a_fallacy_for_manuscript_i_know/
-
Score: 2
-
Created: 2016-05-27T02:36:33
Post:
[removed]
Comments:
u/gryfft [+3] (48 minutes later)
I think this is going to be removed soon-- social science really isn't close enough to RationalFic for this to be on-topic (although this would be more than welcome in one of the weekly off-topic discussion threads, I'm sure.)
In the meantime, what you describe seems to be somewhere between confirmation bias and the findings of the Rosenhan Experiment.
u/xamueljones [+2] My arch-enemy is entropy (an hour later)
It sounds rather similar to the Salem Witch Trials where no matter the outcome of a test, the poor defendant was doomed. For example, tests to prove if someone is a witch or not involved drowning, choking, or beheading the suspected and if they were witches, they would have survived the test. In which case, they were burned to death. However, dying in the tests proved they weren't witches and were 'saved' or something similar.
I think this is called the false dilemma where one is making the claim that either X or Y is true (when in reality both could be false). Since Y is proven false, then clearly X must be true!
In your case, the clinician says the one of the following two statements must be true: (1) either the subject has a mental disorder or (2) they are lying about it since the first test 'demonstrated' that the patient has a mental disorder. If the second 'test' proves that they are 'telling the truth', then the patient does have the mental disorder. But if the patient is shown to be 'lying' then they must have some mental disorder anyway due to lying on a test for mental disorders. The fallacy largely comes from the assumed fact mental disorders have any relationship to whether or not someone choses to lie.
A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning": Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false). Claim Y is false. Therefore claim X is true.