User talk:Ranze/Apex fallacy

Contesting speedy deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because...
 * no valid source, no real information

The source is a newspaper, that seems like a valid source. The information here is 'real', how it is 'unreal' is not clarified.
 * it's an internet neologism

There is no reason to assume that this term is limited to the internet or created on the internet.
 * no actual substance

There is substance, but it is a stub, and stubs tend to lack significant substance until they are expanded upon.
 * akin to sayings on "urban dictionary". Are we going to make a Wikipedia page for every neologism added to urban dictionary now?

It isn't on UrbanDictionary, that's not where I came across the idea/term.
 * Can I just make up concepts as I see fit, and then make a Wikipedia page for it?

I did not make up the concept. I discovered it this year, and it was around at least 5 years ago, if not further.
 * the source doesn't appear to be a valid source for a logical fallacy

What is a valid source for a logical fallacy? This wasn't clarified.
 * makes this "original work" (I use that term lightly, there is no work to be seen here.

It isn't original work, the work done here was consolidating information from other sources. Also work was indeed done to phrase this in a more encyclopedic manner.

I feel these reasons are abrasive and not adequately specifically critical of it. Is countered arguing that this belongs on Wiktionary instead? I'm not very clear. Ranze (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's actually not a news source, it's an internet blog/news letter, sourced by the way back machine. It doesn't fit the criteria for a source, as it's 1, a deleted page, and 2, personally run. While it may not be on urban dictonary, it simply doesn't have the credibility or sources to validate as an actual concept. Perhaps if you found a page that wasn't deleted, or an academic source that isn't personally run, then this page might have merit, and actually have a reason to exist. Outside of that, I don't see why a neologism created on the internet, without any real sources, should have its own page. Countered (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I have located that this was published 2 days later by a notable newspaper which we do have an article about though. It's an interview with an established forensic psychologist (who has her own page) who quotes another psychologist (who also has a page). This is a notable topic in academia. Ranze (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... it is a valid term and worthy of explanation. Such terms are often taken down for political reasons, and it appears that this may be the case with this term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.4.80 (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree with Deletion: This page should not be speedily deleted. The term is in increasing use both in scholarly literature and in common use. It is an important variant of the Fallacy of Composition. Wikipedia records such variants. CSDarrow (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We're luckily past the point of speedy deletion, but that only means it's vulnerable to getting voted to death (whatever is said about AFD not being democratic). Ranze (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I found this term used in an article without any scare quotes or any other indicator that it wasn't what it appeared; a useful and familiar shorthand for a logical fallacy in deductive logic. I hadn't heard this specific fallacy before, googled it, found this page and was grateful for its explanatory value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.203.242.94 (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Page needs more work
This page should be kept but needs more work on it, at worst it can act as a stub for further expansion. My understanding of the fallacy is, and sources suggest, that the fallacy infers properties of the most visible members of a group can be ascribed to the whole group. It is from the Informal Fallacy family and in particular a variant of the Fallacy of Composition. CSDarrow (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mind showing me these sources that you've claimed exist? Countered (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is self evidently a variant of the Fallacy of Composition. CSDarrow (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Self evidently? According to you? Where are your sources? I see no mention of it on that page, nor anywhere else on the internet under that description. Countered (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Self evidently is similar to QED. It basically means "the proof is right there, you just have to think about it." An example: If I where to say "1+1=2" I wouldn't have to source it because it's simple and it just makes sense if you understand basic math. Just because you don't understand the application of the fallacy of composition doesn't mean there aren't striking comparisons between the two. Requiring sources for this is similar to requiring sources to explain that "the sky is blue".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.152.3 (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added this to the page. Clearly "when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole" does apply here. This appears to be a specific variant of it when judging groups by those who excel. Other variants would include judging groups by those who fail. Ranze (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

== I often encounter the term "Apex Fallacy" and am surprised that there is no Wikipedia entry for it. I found a good summary of the term here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Apex_fallacy. I think Wikipedia proper should have an entry too, if only as a stub. --bws92082 17 Sep 2017

Stripping
The see also section was built up with related terms, these were stripped out, how is the article supposed to grow if additions are removed? Do we have to source mere examples of logical fallacies or the 'see also' section now? Ranze (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Harvard Business Review.
Commentary by Alison Beard a senior editor of the Harvard Business Review, in the Harvard Business Review itself, by any measure satisfies  Reliable Sources.

CSDarrow (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Apex fallacy is a fallacy of quantifiers
Note: notations of logic might differ, my point still stands.

It's not hard to prove that it's an actual fallacy if someone had at least a little background in logic. Let's take a sentence: "A man has money and power." ∃x(M * P) (There exists at least one x (namely a man in this case), which/who has the predicates/qualities money (M) and power (P)). Unfortunately to some, logic does not permit a movement from an existential quantifier to an universal one (while it does allow the opposite case). There's a special case, which does permit the change in quantifiers - being a "what if" situation.

The Apex fallacy is simple:

"There are men who have lots of money and power. Therefore, all men have lots of money and power."

∃x(Mx * Px) (yes, the existential quantifier is also used for words like "some", "there exist" and et cetera, due to the fact that they still state that there is at least one x, which has these qualities).

/ (x)(Mx * Px)

It retains its form as a fallacy as long as the faulty movement of a quantifier is maintained.