Talk:Animistic fallacy

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Neutrality[edit]

The bullet point on Marxism is unnecessary because it is not a neutral statement. It shows your negative sentiment on the subject. Uwaisis (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)2:51am GMT London 27/12/07[reply]

The examples relating to the stock market are incorrect because the market is not a natural system, and is quite manipulable by entities large enough to manipulate sufficient volumes of trade and prices. Additionally, the example of short-sellers does relate to a human action, a person or a program designed by a person had to make the shorts. Deleting them although if someone has a reason they are good examples they can go ahead and undo it.

Taking another look, the Marxism example is another case of this, and on a third check, this applies to all of the examples except for the first one. Better examples are "The wind howled and battered the door with all its might" "The lava flowed calmly, dispassionately towards the town below", "The sun shone lovingly on the beach" and things like that.

Wrong, those are pathetic fallacy. And the Marxist example and stock market examples perfect examples of the fallacy. A fallacy doesn't mean the conclusion is necessarily wrong; it means the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premise and argument. It may be true that the stock market dropped today due to manipulation, but the argument, "(premise) the market dropped today therefore (conclusion) there was price manipulation" is fallacious, even if the conclusion is true.--Louiedog (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any verifiable sources to back up your claim against the charge of questionable neutrality? This is a stub without any verifiable citations, which means this is original research and is, in fact, not proven to be neutral as it currently stands. --Dante the Bard (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Louiedog is correct above, however it is best if we stick to examples presented by reliable sources rather than our own inventions. If for some reason we must create our own examples it should be easy to avoid contentious issues. —Mrwojo (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pathetic Fallacy and Animistic Fallacy[edit]

Just to clarify, what exactly is the difference between pathetic fallacy and animistic fallacy? It's just slightly confusing as the same example is used for both George.eliza (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this question is properly answered soon, it might be necessary to merge the to articles in order to eliminate confusion. --Dante the Bard (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the old examples by ones presented by Sowell. —Mrwojo (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still confused! Am puzzled by how "some spirit" becomes "someone" ie a person? Also wonder if Sowel might have had a run in with an engineer at some time? I ask as most engineers might be accused of this because a) cars are driven by a person, and b) most engineering models *animate* black boxes (which can be anything) which are unchanging/passive without the transfer functions. 82.47.140.47 (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research and the NEED for Verifiable Information[edit]

This Wikipedia stub is an example of original research because it lacks the citations to qualify it as being verifiable. As such, websites like www.reference.com are citing this stub as if it were verifiable fact, which is, technically, contributing to the spread of misinformation. --Dante the Bard (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference to Sowell's book. The reliable sources that I found that discuss this fallacy cite Sowell, so I wouldn't be surprised if he originated this usage. —Mrwojo (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]