Name the historical fallacy?

[Eater Sundae]

It’s the “We must give everything a name instead of just accepting that stuff evolves” fallacy.

 

It reminds me of interviewers who insist asking “If there’s one thing...” when there’s invariably a whole range. We seem to have a need to simplify and reduce everything to a single headline.

[petemcewan]

Why not use ,"Catalyst".

[Eater Sundae]

I think change was on the way in America, but Rosa a brave lady, highlighted the injustice and helped to bring the inevitable forward.

As for technology changes and inventors, bit out of my depth

We have two names now Key Agent Fallacy and Tipping Point.

ECCOnoob would be good on this Thread

 

Of the two, I’d go with tipping point. There is rarely a single causal event, but there does seem to be an identifiable point that catches the public eye (regardless of whether or not it was a key event).

 

It’s more the point of public acceptance

[hauxwell]

Of the two, I’d go with tipping point. There is rarely a single causal event, but there does seem to be an identifiable point that catches the public eye (regardless of whether or not it was a key event).

 

It’s more the point of public acceptance

 

I think you have just come up with another name. A KEY EVENT.

you could say it was a key event that unlocked change, I think.

[carosio]

Watershed moment (event)?

[Waldo]

Isn't it in the realms of nonsense? To say, if some past event never happened, then this that or the other present day condition would prevail. Well hold on, you just changed history (not possible) and all bests are off, and there is no way to predict what might happen as a result.

[Cyclone]

Isn't it in the realms of nonsense? To say, if some past event never happened, then this that or the other present day condition would prevail. Well hold on, you just changed history (not possible) and all bests are off, and there is no way to predict what might happen as a result.

 

That doesn't make it abnormal for historians to look for key events and catalysts that caused large changes to occur around tipping points does it.

 

I like the word catalyst there though, the individuals involved whilst key, could actually have been anyone in most cases because the pressure was coming from society generally and a tipping point had been reached or nearly reached.

 

Interestingly though, there are a few individuals who actually drove major events, Hitler for example, he exploited certain social conditions of Germany at the time of his rise, but if he didn't exist, it's doubtful that anyone else would have replaced him and driven things forward in just the way he did.

[alchresearch]

"If It Wasn’t For The Beatles We’d All Still Be Listening To Jazz."

 

of course it is a fallacy. Jazz was never an especially popular kind of music in the first place. Anywhere. Even when it was at its peak of popularity, in the US in the 1930s it was still not the most popular kind of music.

 

Very true. Someone seems to be forgetting about the early American rockers, like Bill Haley and the like, around some ten years before The Beatles.

[Waldo]

That doesn't make it abnormal for historians to look for key events and catalysts that caused large changes to occur around tipping points does it.

 

I like the word catalyst there though, the individuals involved whilst key, could actually have been anyone in most cases because the pressure was coming from society generally and a tipping point had been reached or nearly reached.

 

Interestingly though, there are a few individuals who actually drove major events, Hitler for example, he exploited certain social conditions of Germany at the time of his rise, but if he didn't exist, it's doubtful that anyone else would have replaced him and driven things forward in just the way he did.

 

Yes, catalyst seems a good word here.

 

I suppose I'm looking at this more from a philosophical point of view; if you say some historic event (e.g. birth of Hitler) never happened; it's not possible to meaningfully predict what may or may not have happened as a consequence.

 

It could be the Butterfly Effect I'm thinking of? If you change one event from history; the knock on effects are just unpredictable. Had hitler not been born, how do we know someone else more capable would not have assumed power and even won WW2?

[truman]

Yes, catalyst seems a good word here.

 

I suppose I'm looking at this more from a philosophical point of view; if you say some historic event (e.g. birth of Hitler) never happened; it's not possible to meaningfully predict what may or may not have happened as a consequence.

 

It could be the Butterfly Effect I'm thinking of? If you change one event from history; the knock on effects are just unpredictable. Had hitler not been born, how do we know someone else more capable would not have assumed power and even won WW2?

 

If that "more capable" person had existed then they would have assumed power anyway wouldn't they?