One for All; Screw the Rest

Have you ever been in an debate where a person/party will point to a specific case/example, and use it as a generalization of their entire argument?

On the surface, that makes sense. We often take anecdotal evidence as one of the best kinds. Worse yet, we accept eyewitness testimony as concrete and absolute, even though it's been proven to be pretty unreliable. As long as you don't dig too deep or don't think too hard, then that sort of support and evidence makes sense.

"But Kyle," you retort, "if such scenario really happened, then how can it not be a good example?" excellent question, reader. Just why don't such things work as well as we all think they should? Because of Logic. The crusher of hopes and dreams. The destroyer of all that once was, and all that will be.

The problem with cherry picking one example and using it as a blanket statement is that it leads to a little fallacy called the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Wikipedia describes it as "No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule."  Basically, it's using one example, and denouncing the counterexample as not being true to the original example. See the problem there? It's even worse when both parties are committing the fallacy, and using it against each other like some sort of logic braking, horribly argued, orgy.

Back to the subject. I'm sure you've all been pestered (or have done the pestering) about the Zimmerman trial. Now, before you being shouting your opinions about it, let's set something clear: we're not going to talk about the outcomes, or whether this man did this with his gun, or whether Florida really is some sort of bastardized combination of a gun and penis (it is); just using the trial as an example. I know, that sounds contradictory to my last paragraph, but just roll with me.

People have been using the Zimmerman trial as an example for the whole legal system. "It's all corrupt," they say. "Everything's about race," they chant. "Florida's gun laws are stupid and unfair!" (See above penis joke.) The point is that they take this even, being that it's recent, and slap it on like some sort of judicial concealer, hiding every other case that could be used to make some hollow point in an argument that amounts to vast nothingness.

It's not just court cases either. Go back and read a previous post of mine. Their are plenty of examples in which one example is used as the catch all. The only problem is, this goes a step further. Suddenly, one example becomes the only viable. And daring to counter-argue the point makes you the bad guy. Because presenting a counter point is obviously the wrong thing to do in an argument.

But where can all of this be seen? In everything. Notably those with (or have the illusion of) power. The argument goes as such.

Person with power (The Man): "Drones and advanced CIA reconnaissance are the reasons why we were able to locate person-of-special-interest."
Man who dares to point out obvious flaw: "But what about the numerous times when no such person was apprehended and innocent people were injured."
The Man: "Sacrifices have to be made to accomplish our goals."

You see that? That total bullshit excuse there? How one case justifies everything else done? Now let's fast forward a year.

The Man: (getting ready for more drone strikes) "Past missions have proven these measures to be highly effective in accomplishing our goals. As such, we'll be putting more drones onto the battlefield to better help our troops." 

Now how did that change? It didn't over time, it just became the standard. Because X happened, X is now the standard, despite countering Y and/or Z. It just makes no damn sense.