Association fallacy

[[File:OneChairToBindThem.jpg|thumb|right|165px|In contrast to {{wpl|Iron Throne (A Song of Ice and Fire)|Iron Throne}} rules, it would appear that: you sit on this particular chair ''and'' you die.]]{{logicnav}}
{{cquote|[[Godwin's law|Hitler wrote a book!]]|||Protest sign against books, ''{{wpl|Postal_2|Postal 2}}''<ref>[https://postal.fandom.com/wiki/Book_Protestors POSTAL Wiki: Book protestors]</ref>}}
The '''association fallacy''', also known as '''guilt by association''', is an [[informal fallacy|informal]] [[logical fallacy|fallacy]] that is committed when a [[person]], [[belief]], or group is attacked or defended on the basis that it has something in common with a positively or negatively viewed person, belief, or group. It is, to an extent, a form of [[non sequitur]].

In other words: the speaker assumes that since two things share one thing in common, they must share '''everything''' in common, including the things they are (in)famous for.

==Alternate names==
*''ex concessis''
*bad company fallacy
*company that you keep
*guilt by association
*honor by association
*group fallacy
*social identification

==Forms==
[[File:Venn-diagram-association-fallacy-01.svg|thumb|right|165px|Even though A is a member of both group B and group C, not all members of B are members of group C.]]
This form is used when arguing for the guilt/virtue of a large group of people.
{{syl
|2=A is part of group B.
|4=A is also part of group C.
|5=C|6=Therefore, all members of group B are part of group C.
}}
Meanwhile, this form is used when arguing for the guilt/virtue of a specific person. Here, the idea that all members of group B are members of group C is implied, rather than explicitly stated.
{{syl
|2=A is part of group B.
|4=A is part of group C.
|5=P3|6=D is also part of group B.
|7=C|8=Therefore, D is part of group C.
}}

==Positive uses==
Using this fallacy in a positive context is called ''Honor by Association''.

Examples:
{{syl
|2=[[Martin Luther King]] was a [[Baptist]].
|4=King was a good person.
|5=C|6=Therefore, Baptists are good.
}}

In this case, the fallacy implies that the good things that people associate with Martin Luther King came from him being a Baptist. While this may, in part, be true, it is fallacious to state that ''all'' Baptists will be good, or that someone becoming a Baptist will become good. In [[politics]], the association fallacy is often subtly combined with ''[[a priori]]'' reasoning in a manner that is clearly nonsensical when spelled out:
{{syl
|2=The [[Republican Party]] is opposed to raising the [[Minimum wage|minimum wage.]]
|4=[[Abraham Lincoln]] was a member of the Republican Party.
|5=P3|6=Abraham Lincoln was a good man.
|7=C|8=Therefore, we should not raise the minimum wage.
}}

Although it might well be true that Abraham Lincoln was a good man, this does not reflect on the Republican Party's political ideas today, and it also misses the historical context. More importantly, such arguments take as a premise that the Republican Party ought to oppose the minimum wage and then seek to [[Rationalization|rationalize]] it, rather than concluding that the minimum wage ought not to be raised based on [[empirical]] evidence.

==Negative uses==
Using this fallacy in a negative context is called ''Guilt by Association''.

Examples:
{{syl
|2=[[Stalin]] was an [[atheist]].
|4=[[Holodomor|Stalin had millions of people killed]].
|5=C1|6=Killing millions makes you an awful person.
|7=C2|8=Therefore, atheists are awful people.
}}
Usually [[Hitler]] is used instead of [[Stalin]], but [[Hitler#Controversy over religious beliefs|Hitler]] wasn't an [[atheist]]...

Another classic example is the thought process used by some in the [[anti-nuclear movement]]:
{{syl
|2=[[Nuclear weapons]], which can destroy civilization, utilize energy from fission.
|4=[[Nuclear power]] utilizes energy from fission.
|5=C|6=Therefore, nuclear power is bad. 
}}

Negating the positive use above:
{{syl
|2=[[Fred Phelps]] was a [[Baptist]].<ref group=note>Though [[Hyper-Calvinism|he really wasn't]].</ref>
|4=Fred Phelps was intolerant.
|5=C|6=Therefore, Baptists are intolerant.
}}

Guilt by association typically relies on fear and pre-existing [[stereotype|stereotypes]]. In the former case, many of the acts that Stalin committed are inherently fearful, but it's doubtful whether he ordered them on account of his atheism{{efn|As Stalin was [[Personality cult|viewed as something akin to]] a [[god]] on [[Earth]] himself, "atheism" may not exactly be the right term…}} or in the name of [[communism]]. Even if this doubt wasn't present, to attribute the negative aspects of Stalin to these beliefs is fallacious as the beliefs ''themselves'' say nothing about mass murder. This is similar to how, in a post [[9/11]] world especially, moderate [[Muslims]] have been faced with [[Islamophobia|unfortunate associations]] due to the acts of [[fundamentalist]]s and [[Jihad|Jihadists]]. In the latter case, the fear of nuclear weapons inspired by [[Cold War]] [[propaganda]] is used to suggest that nuclear power should be similarly feared on the basis that it uses the same physical process, even though the process of fission itself is morally neutral.

An example of [[conspiracy theorists]] demonizing (no pun intended) a [[Skepticism|debunker]]:<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yakODIoUM-c</ref>
{{syl
|2=Stanton LaVey is a [[Anton LaVey|LaVeyan]] [[Satanist]].
|4=[[Joe Rogan]] is friends with Stanton LaVey.
|5=C|6=Therefore Joe Rogan is a [[Equivocation|Satanist]] and a [[Shill gambit|shill]].
}}

==Baiting==
The construction "x-baiting," where x is an undesirable [[ideology]] or group of people, is often used when a speaker attempts to make an association (real or imagined) between a person or group and x. Examples include:
*[[Green-baiting]], associating all [[environmentalism|environmentalists]] with [[ecoterrorism|ecoterrorists]].
*Race-baiting, making [[racism|racially divisive]] comments or associating a person of a certain race with some [[wingnut]] (e.g. associating [[African Americans]] with [[Louis Farrakhan]]).
*[[Red-baiting]], connecting a person to some (usually imaginary) communist plot or associating them with communism in some way.
*[[Terrorism-baiting]], making spurious accusations of the subject's relation to a [[terrorist]] organization.
*[[Greece-baiting]], connecting one's fiscal situation to that of [[Greece]].
*[[Pink-baiting]], linking everything bad to [[homosexuals]] and homosexuality.
*[[Godwin's Law| Hitler-baiting]], connecting anything interpreted as bad to [[Nazism]].
*[[Antisemitism|Jew-baiting]], connecting all of your problems to an [[International Jewish Conspiracy]].

==Examples from the fringe==
===Molyneux's version===
{{main|Stefan Molyneux}}
{{cquote|[[Determinist]]s say [[humans]] are exactly like [[computer]]s [in causation] but they only ever debate people.|||[[Stefan Molyneux]] on the Joe Rogan Experience.}}
Stefan Molyneux's argument against determinism goes as follows:
{{syl
|2=Determinists say humans are identical to rocks in causation.
|4=Determinists debate people.
|5=C|6=They're doing the same thing as debating rocks.
}}

Molyneux elaborates on this by using the analogy that if a group of oranges is identical, "it wouldn't matter which one I eat"; without realizing the [[irony]] that according to his logic, oranges are identical to computers because of deterministic causation, so he should eat computers.

===Galileo Gambit===
{{main|Galileo gambit}}
[[Cranks]] often say, "But [[Galileo]] was persecuted in his day, and he was right!" when their ideas come under attack.

This follows the form:
{{syl
|2=Galileo was persecuted for his beliefs.
|4=Galileo was right.
|5=P3|6=[[Persecution complex|I'm persecuted for my beliefs]].
|7=C|8=I'm right.
}}

This is [[not even wrong]] — Galileo was persecuted not just because people disagreed, but for contradicting [[Catholic]] doctrines of the time. (And also for being an [[asshole]] about it and not being able to prove his assertions.)<ref group=note>The Pope at the time was actually on Galileo's side until Galileo mocked him one time too many.</ref>

Another example is as follows:
{{syl
|2=In the past, scientists doubted the idea of heavier-than-air aircrafts.
|4=The Wright Brothers invented one, proving that the doubts are wrong.
|5=P3|6=You doubt the notion that [[aging]] can be cured or significantly delayed.
|7=C|8=Therefore, your should doubt less and open up your mind for the possibility that aging will be cured within our lifetime.
}}

==See also==
*[[Ad hominem]]
*[[Poisoning the well]]
*[[Shill gambit]]

==External links==
*{{wpa|Association fallacy}}
*[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html Guilt by Association], [[Fallacy Files]]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20070812001632/http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/exconcessis.asp Ex Concessis], Bruce Thompson
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20050426032900/http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/Allport/Allport_1924.html The Group Fallacy], the Mead Project
*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm#GuiltbyAssociation Guilt by Association], Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
*[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html Guilt by Association], [[Nizkor Project]]
*[http://papyr.com/hbp/logic6.htm#social_id Using Logic in Composition], Papyr.com

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{logfal}}

[[Category:Ad hominem]]
[[Category:Informal fallacies]]
[[Category:Latin phrases]]
[[Category:Scapegoating]]

Categories: Ad hominem, Informal fallacies, Latin phrases, Scapegoating