CONVERSE ACCIDENT

Abstract: Converse Accident or hasty generalization is the fallacy of drawing a general

conclusion based on one or several atypical instances.

Foundations
The fallacy of Converse Accident occurs when you form a general rule by examining
only a few specific cases which aren’t representative of all possible cases.
The fallacy of Converse Accident is similar to the fallacy of Accident. In Accident, you
misapply a general rule to a specific situation; in Converse Accident, you generalize a
specific situation into a sweeping rule. Thus, Converse Accident is sometimes called
Hasty Generalization.
Many generalizations have exceptions. For example, water is essential for life and one
of the least toxic substances known to man, but there is a potentially fatal medical
condition called hyperhydration in which the subject drinks so much water it affects their
brain functions. It is very rare and usually results from water drinking competitions or
over drinking after extensive exercise. The converse accident fallacy is made when the
exception is taken to justify the conclusion. So in the previous example, hyperhydration
can be fatal therefore water is toxic. The fallacy focuses on the exception and ignores
all of the other situations when the generalization applies.

I. Converse Accident: (hasty generalization) the fallacy of considering certain

exceptional cases and generalizing to a rule that fits them alone. Note that the fallacy
of converse accident is the opposite of accident.

A. Thus, a general statement is made on the basis of insufficient evidence or on

the basis of only a few examples.

1. E.g., "Wow! Did you see that teenager run that red light? Teenage
drivers are really pathetic."

2. E.g., The following argument is raised to oppose the view that boys have
greater inherent mathematical ability. "When I was four, my father
taught me the beauty of numbers, and I have excelled in mathematics
ever since. My conclusion? The males who grew up with a high aptitude
for math are not spending enough time with their daughters." Nancy
Whelan Reese, "Letters," Time 117, No. 1 (January 4, 1981), 6.
B. The generalization is sometimes made on the basis of carelessly selected
evidence

1. E.g., "I interviewed ten people on Main Street in Greenwood on Friday

night, and they all stated they would rather be there than watching TV. I
conclude that the folks in Greenwood don't like to watch TV on Friday
night."

2. E.g., "As I drove to school this morning, not one car which was turning
had its turn signal on. Thus, I conclude that drivers in South Carolina are
not trained to drive very well."

3. E.g., "The induction problem forever haunts us. How many instances of
a class must be observed before one can be really sure? Having
experienced two uncoordinated woman-drivers, am I justified in making
a generalization about woman-drivers? (For too many men, a sampling
of two seems to justify such a generalization. Women, of course, never
make this sort of error.)"
[James L. Christian, Philosophy (New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich,1998), ]

4. As legislators, women make a difference. They are far more likely to

identify problems of gender bias, and we know this firsthand. Cokie's
mom, Lindy Goggs, served 18 years in Congress and authored
legislation banning discrimination against women in bank lending
practices.
[Cokie Roberts and Steve Roberts, "Women Are Flexing Their Political
Muscles," Index-Journal 94 No. 153 (September 30, 2012), 11A.]

C. Converse accident, as with other fallacies, is determinable in context, and the

argument sometimes has to be reconstructed:

"[T]he [P]resident [commented] last February: ‘One of the proudest things in

my three years in office is helping to restore a sense of respect for America
around the world.’ In light of the uprising that included the burning of
American flags in the Middle East and the murder of Americans in Libya, that's
one more broken promise that can be added to a growing list."
[Cal Thomas, "Distractions and Diversions," Index-Journal 94 Vol. 146
(September 24, 2012), 8A.]

Two tragic events are cited in support of generalization that the President
is not helping to restore a sense of respect for America around the world. Since
 these two examples are not particularly atypical examples, this converse
accident is also a weak inductive argument because they do lend some
probability to the unstated implicit or enthymematic conclusion.

D. Fallacies of converse accident and hasty generalization are sometimes difficult

to distinguish.

1. Converse accident occurs when a generalization about all instances of a

kind is based on either too few examples which are not known to be
typical or based on instances of a different kind, whereas false cause
occurs when the conclusion of a causal relation is based on a correlation
in time or circumstance. The generalization in converse accident need
not be causal, and the causal relation in false cause need not be general.

a. E.g., "There's nothing you can't get used to. Just think about all
the unpleasant things you've accepted as ordinary, like wading
through traffic or dealing with a bad-tempered relative or
coworker."
[Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche, The Joy of Living(New York:
Harmony Books, 2007), 44.]

The argument is that since you got used to a few ordinary

annoying situations, the conclusion then follows that you can get
used to anything. Since the conclusion is not a causal
generalization, the argument is converse accident rather than false
cause.

b. E.g., "[T]he market as a rule does better under Democratic

presidents than their counterparts. Certainly, the last four years
proves the point."
[Robert E. Anderson, "Mailbag: Earnings and
Interest," Barron's (November 12, 2012) 92 No. 46, 50.]

The last four years refers to the first Barack Obama administration
when the stock market rose about 20% and the correlation is being
suggested between a Democratic President and an improving
market. The general conclusion is said to follow from this one
correlation that the stock market does better under Democratic
leadership than it does under Republican leadership. Since no
causal relation is explicitly being asserted in the conclusion, the
better identification of this fallacy is converse accident.
 2. When the conclusion about a causal generalization is reached from a
premise or from premises involving one or more atypical correlations or
atypical causal relations either fallacy may be said to occur.

E.g., "A balanced, healthy diet is the best remedy for disease in general.
I have a cousin who is a breast cancer survivor, and she now consumes
juiced fruits and vegetables in enormous quantities to keep herself
healthy, and so far her cancer has stayed in complete remission."
[Karen Lee, "Restoring Your Inner Balance -- How to Stop the Aging
Process in its Tracks," Pick the Brain,
http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/restoring-your-inner-balance-how-to-
stop-the-aging-process-in-its-tracks/, accessed April 8, 2012.]

The conclusion that the remedy for all diseases is affected by a good diet
is based on the reason cited of a cousin whose healthy diet has kept her
cancer in remission. This example can be identified as either converse
accident or false cause since a causal relation of remedying all diseases
is concluded from the correlation or causal relation of one person
remedying one disease.

Name of fallacy Converse accident

Aliases
Type Denial Argument, Informal Argument
Description When an exception to a generalization is wrongly called for
Example All swans are white. This bird looks like a swan but is not
white therefore it is not a swan.
Form
Treatment The exception stops the generalization being tested. This a
method of rejecting evidence and denial.