What's this paradox called?

[dstebbins]

Initially, I called this paradox a "catch-22," but I don't that entirely fits.

 

It's a logical paradox where a person, or a group of people, believe a general rule, but do not believe any one specific instance of the rule occuring.

 

A classic example of this paradox is government corruption. Most people believe that the government is corrupt...

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/global-survey-majority-feel-corruption-has-worsened-think-governments-cant-fix-it/

http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/07/10/majority-of-americans-say-corruption-has-increased

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-poll-most-americans-believe-obama-government-is-corrupt

 

... and yet, when most people are faced with specific allegations of government corruption and/or conspiracy theories (classic example: the JFK assassination), they tend to be in denial; the few who believe the conspiracy theories are generally seen as paranoid by the general public.

 

What is this logical paradox called? Where you accept a general truth but deny any specific allegations that stem directly from this general truth?

[imatfaal]

The problem is one of your making rather than a logical paradox. The fault in your reasoning is akin to the fallacy of distribution/division - there is a general trend that is recognised in the whole therefore that trend must be recognisable in each constituent part; in your arguments terms - we believe there is corruption in government therefore all acts concerning government are likely to be corrupt.

 

I would rephrase your assertion "Most people believe that corruption exists within Government" - this makes it clear that very few people would assert that ALL government is corrupt ALL the time.

 

On specifics - in all the many hours of TV I have never seen a single decent piece of proof of government corruption in the JFK affair - there is much that cannot be explained but that is always the case especially when dealing with the most famous assassination of recent years.

 

To accept a universal truth and then deny particular would be a fault in logic - but only in certain circumstances (you must be careful of converting universal affirmatives - "all of alma cogan is dead")

[EdEarl]

Although some government officials are found to be corrupt, sometimes, I think the greater problem is one called groupthink.

 

Wikipedia

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an incorrect or deviant decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

Sometimes lawmakers act as two groups: Democrats and Republicans, and sometimes they act as a single group. When they act as a single group, they are often influenced by big political contributors, and occasionally by public interest. In both cases, the decisions are usually suboptimal and occasionally quite bad.

 

Consequently, the government appears to be corrupt; although, few politicians can be prosecuted for corruption.

 

Civil servants fall into a different category; only a few can make decisions. Their role is to follow laws and rules established by the three branches of government. Since the laws and rules they follow are suboptimal or bad, diligent civil servants can appear corrupt. That an occasional government employee is convicted for corruption reinforces the image of the government as being corrupt.

[kristalris]

Imatfaal and Ed have IMO nailed this one to the specific question.

 

To the further point of the OP another extra point I think arises from the fact that politicians in a democracy are inherently forced by the system / their constituents to sell more than can be delivered. I.e. they have to state that say when they get into power they will close down Guantanamo bay. When in power this then proves impossible in reference to other more important goals. This is subsequently viewed as corrupt / a lie.

 

When a politician where to very accurately say what he means it will be stated that he/ she is wavering and unclear. Losing thus the needed votes. This then is indeed a Catch 22 paradox.

 

In fact this goes back to the dilemma the Greeks already knew of between democracy in peace versus dictatorship in times of crises. I guess only when you find the Yin and yang balance between these two extremes at all times in all important issues can a democracy survive in the long run. Otherwise it will become more and more unstable and polarized as you can see in the US with republicans vs democrats and in the Netherlands between the PVV and the SP which two parties are at the extreme left and right of the political spectrum. We Dutch had / have a long tradition of group think called poldering. This is not at all bad as long as wisdom prevails. People always tend to follow the leader as long as it hasn't turned all bad. I.e. the paradox then lies in the taking of an on average on stated goal correct decision that usual will thus work out good. Or when it doesn't to have been very careful on what was sold. Te latter becoming more and more difficult given mass communication.

 

A great majority of people want to hear a Yin or a Yang certainty from its leaders.

[dstebbins]

On specifics - in all the many hours of TV I have never seen a single decent piece of proof of government corruption in the JFK affair - there is much that cannot be explained but that is always the case especially when dealing with the most famous assassination of recent years.

To be fair, though: There are some conspiracy theories out there that actually DO have some evidenciary backing to them.

 

Take, for example, the theory that many major metropolis cities' mass transit systems were purchased and demolished by auto companies in a malicious attempt to cause more people to need cars. You even see this referenced as a plot point in Who Framed Roger Rabbit:

 

 

Judge Doom: I purchased the red car for the sole purpose of demolishing it!

 

Bold claim, right? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, right?

 

Well, there are public records with the various state Secretaries of State (who, at the state government level, handle mostly administrative things, such as business filings, while the federal Department of State mostly handles diplomatic relations) showing purchases of these mass transit companies by new, upstart companies that were owned by the at-the-time boards of directors for automotive companies... and were shut down mere months after said purchases. How's THAT for proof?

Edited January 16, 2014 by dstebbins

[imatfaal]

To be fair, though: There are some conspiracy theories out there that actually DO have some evidenciary backing to them.

 

Take, for example, the theory that many major metropolis cities' mass transit systems were purchased and demolished by auto companies in a malicious attempt to cause more people to need cars. You even see this referenced as a plot point in Who Framed Roger Rabbit:

 

 

 

Bold claim, right? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, right?

 

Well, there are public records with the various state Secretaries of State (who, at the state government level, handle mostly administrative things, such as business filings, while the federal Department of State mostly handles diplomatic relations) showing purchases of these mass transit companies by new, upstart companies that were owned by the at-the-time boards of directors for automotive companies... and were shut down mere months after said purchases. How's THAT for proof?

 

 

A cartoon character's speech as a piece of evidence - well that's a new one on me. But I know what you mean and sometimes literary sources can be the most accurate and incisive record of an age.

 

However this is the other side of fallacy of distribution - the fallacy of composition . Just because some conspiracy theories are based in fact does not mean (and really offers no evidence at all in favour of) all the other theories being fact-based

[swansont]

Once a conspiracy has been established we generally refer to it that way, and not a conspiracy theory; this is the lay definition of theory, not the scientific one.

 

I'm not sure the description in the OP is a logical paradox, per se. It sounds more like some cognitive dysfunction. People think of US democrats as being anti-business, for example, but the data show that businesses/the economy generally does much better when democrats are in the White House.

 

The simple word for that is propaganda. When people are blindly believing lies, you don't need to invoke faulty logic as a cause.

 

edit: also, there have been studies that show that the "information gap/deficit" model doesn't work when firmly-held ideology is involved. People believe something, and presenting them with facts that contradict the belief, their belief gets stronger.

[kristalris]

The only conspiracy that I first disbelieved and was later proven to be true has been the Rainbow Warrior blown up by the French secret service. This indeed proved to be so unbelievably stupid, yet true.

 

One conspiracy that I did think to be true has recently been shown to be untrue in a for me convincing way in a NG documentary. The hole in the sign shows on the film where the missing bullet went and a marksman should to be able to hit the target in the prescribed way with the Carcano gun leaving the spent cartridges in the way they show on the police photo's. This doesn't exclude the possibility that more people were involved and that there might still have been a conspiracy to kill JFK, yet one to cover that up because more than one shooter was present I don't buy anymore.

 

There was some time ago a beautiful BBC documentary knocking the (several) conspiracy theories of 911 for six. I guess there are creative people at work who like to dream up these schemes that subsequently are taken over by unstable characters who actually start believing in them.

[Marshalscienceguy]

Initially, I called this paradox a "catch-22," but I don't that entirely fits.

 

It's a logical paradox where a person, or a group of people, believe a general rule, but do not believe any one specific instance of the rule occuring.

 

A classic example of this paradox is government corruption. Most people believe that the government is corrupt...

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/global-survey-majority-feel-corruption-has-worsened-think-governments-cant-fix-it/

http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/07/10/majority-of-americans-say-corruption-has-increased

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-poll-most-americans-believe-obama-government-is-corrupt

 

... and yet, when most people are faced with specific allegations of government corruption and/or conspiracy theories (classic example: the JFK assassination), they tend to be in denial; the few who believe the conspiracy theories are generally seen as paranoid by the general public.

 

What is this logical paradox called? Where you accept a general truth but deny any specific allegations that stem directly from this general truth?

simply believing the government is corrupt does not mean you are going to follow every conspiracy theory that is put out. One could say that the government is ran by aliens. It does not mean everyone who believes in possible corruption are going to agree the "Aliens" did it. They might agree in a "Embezzlement scheme" but find the idea of aliens less likely. A lot of conspiracy theories are downright stupid. I have had people attempt to convince me aliens rule the government, that we are all aliens without realizing it, and that aliens control us like puppets and our thoughts are not our own. This is all nice and all but when I asked them for evidence for this they simply said "because its true". As well as this a lot of these theories have flaws in them. The 911 theories end up falling apart. So saying "This looks fishy" is ok but no one has any real explanation which explains another scenario. They will fall apart since they say "Oh they evacuated the people before the plane went off" but than ask "Well than what happened to the people on that plane?"

Edited January 21, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy