|
Fallacy: Misleading Vividness
Misleading Vividness is a fallacy in which a very small number of
particularly dramatic events are taken to outweigh a significant amount of
statistical evidence. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
- Dramatic or vivid event X occurs (and is not in accord with the majority
of the statistical evidence) .
- Therefore events of type X are likely to occur.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the mere fact that an event is
particularly vivid or dramatic does not make the event more likely to occur,
especially in the face of significant statistical evidence.
People often accept this sort of "reasoning" because particularly vivid or
dramatic cases tend to make a very strong impression on the human mind. For
example, if a person survives a particularly awful plane crash, he might be
inclined to believe that air travel is more dangerous than other forms of
travel. After all, explosions and people dying around him will have a more
significant impact on his mind than will the rather dull statistics that a
person is more likely to be struck by lightning than killed in a plane crash.
It should be kept in mind that taking into account the possibility of
something dramatic or vivid occurring is not always fallacious. For example, a
person might decide to never go sky diving because the effects of an accident
can be very, very dramatic. If he knows that, statistically, the chances of the
accident are happening are very low but he considers even a small risk to be
unacceptable, then he would not be making an error in reasoning.
- Bill and Jane are talking about buying a computer.
Jane: "I've been thinking about getting a computer. I'm really tired of
having to wait in the library to write my papers."
Bill: "What sort of
computer do you want to get?"
Jane: "Well, it has to be easy to use, have
a low price and have decent processing power. I've been thinking about getting
a Kiwi Fruit 2200. I read in that consumer magazine that they have been found
to be very reliable in six independent industry studies."
Bill: "I
wouldn't get the Kiwi Fruit. A friend of mine bought one a month ago to finish
his master's thesis. He was halfway through it when smoke started pouring out
of the CPU. He didn't get his thesis done on time and he lost his financial
aid. Now he's working over at the Gut Boy Burger Warehouse."
Jane: "I
guess I won't go with the Kiwi!"
- Joe and Drew are talking about flying.
Joe: "When I was flying back to school, the pilot came on the intercom and
told us that the plane was having engine trouble. I looked out the window and
I saw smoke billowing out of the engine nearest me. We had to make an
emergency landing and there were fire trucks everywhere. I had to spend the
next six hours sitting in the airport waiting for a flight. I was lucky I
didn't die! I'm never flying again."
Drew: "So how are you going to get
home over Christmas break?"
Joe: "I'm going to drive. That will be a lot
safer than flying."
Drew: "I don't think so. You are much more likely to
get injured or killed driving than flying."
Joe: "I don't buy that! You
should have seen the smoke pouring out of that engine! I'm never getting on
one of those death traps again!"
- Jane and Sarah are talking about running in a nearby park.
Jane: "Did you hear about that woman who was attacked in Tuttle Park?"
Sarah: "Yes. It was terrible."
Jane: "Don't you run there everyday?"
Sarah: "Yes."
Jane: "How can you do that? I'd never be able to run
there!"
Sarah: "Well, as callous as this might sound, that attack was out
of the ordinary. I've been running there for three years and this has been the
only attack. Sure, I worry about being attacked, but I'm not going give up my
running just because there is some slight chance I'll be attacked."
Jane:
"That is stupid! I'd stay away from that park if I was you! That woman was
really beat up badly so you know it is going to happen again. If you don't
stay out of that park, it will probably happen to you!"
| 
