Page 1 of 1

Logical Fallacy

Posted: Sun May 15, 2016 9:35 am
by chaggle
The statement...
The cure for cancer hasn't been found because Big Pharma makes a lot of money out of cancer
...assumes that there is a cure for cancer.

What kind of fallacy is that?

Re: Logical Fallacy

Posted: Sun May 15, 2016 10:49 am
by Matt
Isn't it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

At least the assumption that there is a cure for cancer seems to be as they say assuming the initial point. There's a whole lot more to be picked apart in that argument however than the rather gloomy possibility that some cancers may not have a cure to be found. For at least some cancers, at least some of the time, cures have demonstrably been effected. Doesn't this falsify the statement by counterexample? Of course there's also the assumption that only big pharma could find a cure. There are other research organisations which aren't profit motivated: e.g. research charities or state owned healthcare. Then whilst the pharmaceutical industry are certainly profit-motivated and self-centred isn't this rather at odds with a description of 200 independent multinational corporations sacrificing their own immediate profits for the future good of the collective?

Re: Logical Fallacy

Posted: Sun May 15, 2016 11:06 am
by chaggle
Yes - all of that Matt. I assumed it was Begging the Question but none of the explanations nor examples I could find fitted exactly.

Here's another of the same I've just seen on another forum...
If it hadn't Been for Farage the rotten core of the EU would never have been exposed.
... which presumes that the core of the EU is rotten.

Re: Logical Fallacy

Posted: Sun May 15, 2016 3:45 pm
by Abdul Alhazred
chaggle wrote:The statement...
The cure for cancer hasn't been found because Big Pharma makes a lot of money out of cancer
...assumes that there is a cure for cancer.

What kind of fallacy is that?
What if the cure for cancer is wild hickory nuts?