Any logic experts here?

[Squatch]

Here's a question:

"A University is a planned, socialist enterprise, much like we observed in the former USSR. It’s no wonder universities are so inefficient.” Defend or attack this proposition.

I just know that this thing is a fallacy, just having a hard time figuring out which one. Any ideas? I'm thinking hasty generalization or red herring.

[mainegreen]

1. Attack the basic premise.

That Universities are a subset of the set of Socialist Enterprises. Simply not true. Some Univerisities get patents, have research departments, and do so for the sole purpose of making money for the entity, the University.

So, Define what a socialist enterprise is, prove that at least one University is not a socialist enterprise, argument falls.

[Midlodemocrat]

4. That's what I would say. Universities are not

socialist entities.

[ALago1]

2. False comparison or perhaps fallacy of division?

It doesn't sound like a good idea to compare the workings of a government to the workings of a university.

And you can also say that just because a large scale planned government is inefficient, doesn't mean a smaller planned institution is that as well...

[Squeech]

3. I say

it's a baroque implementation of the "lump of labor" fallacy.

The traditional statement of the fallacy is that there's only so many jobs to go around-- that it doesn't actually work to apply an economic stimulus (e.g. lower interest rates) to encourage entrepreneurs to hire more people. That's demonstrably false, although as bogus theories go, this one is apparently making a humongous rebirth, especially among Fox news types trying to defend the Bush tax cuts as stimulative.

But in this instance it's that "education" is a fungible commodity, that academicians rev up their mental engines and this magic education fluid oozes out and into the funnel-like ears of students, at a measurable flow rate.

Like trying to go to the store to pick up a gallon of "Innovation" or a carton of "Entrepreneurship."

[ThomCat]

5. Universities are not socialist.

They operate with a strict hierarchy. Tenure offers some protection for the workers (professors) but that hardly makes them socialist.

They provide a product (education) in exchange for money (tuition) so they are capitalist organizations.

Legacy admissions encourage hereditary elits.

High tuition encourages class differences. Only people with money can send their kids to universities. Only the wealthy can send their kids to the best universities.

A university degree is a credential that helps hereditary and class elites remain elite, which is a very un-socialist goal.

Universities are very efficient at educating people. No better system has been developed.

The whole statement is non-sense. Should be easy to refute.

[khashka]

6. Flawed premise

University = Socialist??????? WTF?

Flawed premise.... no where to go from here without being silly. Start over.



Khash.

[Burma Jones]

7. If all planned things are socialist

and the Bush Administration will not do anything socialist

then the Chimp and his gang will not plan.

This explains a lot.......




Anyway, the statement looks like an ad hominem argument (reference to the USSR), and who the hell says Universities are socialist....I had some hefty bills to pay.

[Boojatta]

8. Some comments

A University is a planned

Of course the activities of an individual institution are planned. This is true for all kinds of institutions: commercial, charitable, etc.

socialist enterprise, much like we observed in the former USSR.

If a soup kitchen receives government subsidies, then one might say that it is a "socialist enterprise." It's possible that an advertised donation to a soup kitchen may provide goodwill for the donor. However, an anonymous donation to a soup kitchen does not pay any financial dividends to the donor. This "inefficiency" is not a sign that soup kitchens are poorly managed. If soup kitchens received no donations, then they would have to close.

universities are so inefficient

How inefficient are they? Consumers usually want to get as much as they can for their money, but many consumers of education have a different attitude.

[Squatch]

9. Here's my response:

There are two premises here:
- Universities are socialist enterprises.
- Universities are inefficient.

These two premises do not constitute an argument or a proposition; rather they only constitute two unrelated, but debatable, statements.

The argument should have been constructed:

- Universities are socialist enterprises.
- Socialist enterprises are inefficient.
- Therefore, universities are inefficient.

Had the argument been constructed in that manner, we can begin to argue the conclusion. Are universities inefficient based on the premises that they are socialist enterprises and social enterprises are inefficient?

First, in order to be considered a socialist enterprise, the means of production at a university must be controlled and owned by the people. In the case of a university this is not true. Production, or what is taught, is not controlled or owned by the people, namely the student body. Rather, the subject matter is vetted through some academic board composed of faculty and advisers. The student body has very little say in what is taught at a university. Therefore, universities are not socialist enterprises.

Second, are socialist enterprises inefficient? By and large, the country of Germany constitutes a democratic socialist government. Germany, to many, is the benchmark of governmental efficiency. Therefore, not all socialist enterprises are inefficient.

Therefore, based on these two rebuttals, the conclusion “universities are inefficient” is invalid

[EstimatedProphet]

10. I think it's kind of similar to Affirmation fo the Consequent

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html

Here's how

Affirmation of the consequent is a fallacy that takes the structure:

if p then q
q
therefore p

I.E. If it's raining, the streets are wet
The streets are wet
Therefore it's raining.

Here's how the above example fits in this format; it kind of takes this form, although part is assumed:

(If) A University is a planned socialist enterprise (unspoken: it will be inefficient) like the former USSR
The former USSR was inefficient
Therefore universities are inefficient.

What the arguer is trying to do is hide part of the premise of the argument. He never comes out and says that socialism in and of itself is inefficient-he's hiding it by burying it as assumed in the statement about the USSR, so by comparing the USSR to universities, he affixes that trait to the first premise. It's a very disingenuous way to construct an argument, in addition to being invalid.