The AskPhilosophers logo.

Knowledge

Is there a philosophy of 'Generalisations'? I've heard the phrase 'all generalisations are wrong' and, after getting over the irony of the generalisation (surely it should be 'THIS is the only true generalisation', wondered if it were true. Generalisations seem to be at the heart of a lot of misconceptions, including all manner of prejudices and 'isms'. There seems to be a tendency for people to see a few random events and imagine a they see a patern which everything else must follow - I notice myself doing it sometimes, and do my best to stop it! On the other hand, what if a generalisation is a sine qua non of a thing? for instance 'all female mammals are warm blooded and give birth to live young' must be true because both assertions are essential characteristic for an an animal to be classed as a true mammal. So where do we stand in relation to generalsations? What are they, where do they come from, and how do they relate to 'truth'? - Mark
Accepted:
September 19, 2006

Comments

Peter Lipton
September 19, 2006 (changed September 19, 2006) Permalink

This doesn't address all of your question, but notice that if (as it seems) we can truly say that certain things do not exist, then there must also be true generalisations, since 'There are no A's' is equivalent to the generalisation that 'Everything is a non-A'. Thus 'Griffins do not exist' is equivalent to 'Everything is a non-griffin', and 'There are no non-black ravens' is equivalent to 'All ravens are black''.

  • Log in to post comments
Source URL: https://askphilosophers.org/question/1366
© 2005-2025 AskPhilosophers.org