Thread: Not all X are like that.

This is often used in debates, where something that was said makes a negative implication to something one of the debaters has a connection to --such as being part of X, being involved with X, or being in possession of an X.

What do you think of this line of reasoning? Some may say that the existence of exceptions is enough to disprove the argument (qualitative), while others argue that if the grand majority fits the description, then it is enough evidence to make it an acceptable statement (quantitative). I personally agree with the later, since they are called exceptions for a reason, which is that they are the least representative sample of the group.

A few examples:

Not all women like shopping, therefore you can't affirm women like shopping.

Not all cars have four wheels, therefore you can't affirm cars have four wheels.

Not all babies cry, therefore you can't affirm babies cry.

Another, more personal variation, is making one selves or a selected group "an exception" and thus refuting all blame:

Not all soap operas are shallow dramas, some are quite deep.

Not all children are mischievous, my kid is quite well behaved.

The problem I find with this is that generally speaking, when we define a characteristic 'C' to a group 'X', it is a given that C is prevalent but not necessarily absolute. The only thing that has to be absolute in a group is the requirement 'R' that defines who belongs or not to said group. When we say C is characteristic of a group X, it means that C is satisfied for a sufficient --for the observer making the claim-- amount of members of X, and thus a generalization can be made. In other words, unless the argument is "All X are C" --making C a requirement-- then "Not All X are C" is a completely meaningless statement.

Not all debates are like that, some avoid the technique altogether.

Originally Posted by elite

This is often used in debates, where something that was said makes a negative implication to something one of the debaters has a connection to --such as being part of X, being involved with X, or being in possession of an X.

What do you think of this line of reasoning? Some may say that the existence of exceptions is enough to disprove the argument (qualitative), while others argue that if the grand majority fits the description, then it is enough evidence to make it an acceptable statement (quantitative). I personally agree with the later, since they are called exceptions for a reason, which is that they are the least representative sample of the group.

A few examples:

Not all women like shopping, therefore you can't affirm women like shopping.

Not all cars have four wheels, therefore you can't affirm cars have four wheels.

Not all babies cry, therefore you can't affirm babies cry.

Another, more personal variation, is making one selves or a selected group "an exception" and thus refuting all blame:

Not all soap operas are shallow dramas, some are quite deep.

Not all children are mischievous, my kid is quite well behaved.

The problem I find with this is that generally speaking, when we define a characteristic 'C' to a group 'X', it is a given that C is prevalent but not necessarily absolute. The only thing that has to be absolute in a group is the requirement 'R' that defines who belongs or not to said group. When we say C is characteristic of a group X, it means that C is satisfied for a sufficient --for the observer making the claim-- amount of members of X, and thus a generalization can be made. In other words, unless the argument is "All X are C" --making C a requirement-- then "Not All X are C" is a completely meaningless statement.

If you want an example of a completely meaningless statement, look no further than your own post. Alternatively, does any of it really matter?

Well played, Capulet. Bluntly stated but true, xO.

Not all writers are logicians.