Masked man fallacy
The Masked man fallacy, also known as the intensional fallacy or epistemic fallacy, is a form of logical fallacy that arises when one substitutes co-referential names in a statement within an intensional (context-sensitive) context. The substitution leads to faulty reasoning. This fallacy stems from the misunderstanding or misapplication of the identity of items or individuals due to a lack of detailed information or understanding about them.
How it works
The Masked man fallacy occurs in situations where someone wrongly concludes that two co-referential terms (terms that refer to the same thing) are not the same due to a lack of understanding about their referential nature. For example, if one knows a masked man is in a room and learns that their brother is in the house, assuming they are not the same person because the identity of the masked individual is unknown constitutes this fallacy. The underlying error is equating knowledge of attributes with the identity of the subject.
Examples
- 1. Suppose you know Clark Kent, but not Superman. If someone tells you Superman is in the building, you might conclude Clark Kent is not in the building, assuming they are different people.
- 2. If you know your local librarian but not their role, and someone tells you the librarian made a particular decision, you might incorrectly assume the decision was made by a stranger.
Consequences
The Masked man fallacy can lead to misconceptions and faulty decision-making processes. It can cause individuals and organizations to overlook vital connections between seemingly disparate pieces of information, leading to errors in judgment and understanding.
Counteracting
To counteract this fallacy, one should emphasize the understanding of context and the nature of identity within statements. Critical thinking and questioning initial assumptions, as well as verifying the factual basis for identity claims, can help mitigate this fallacy. Educators and leaders should promote logical reasoning skills to support the accurate interpretation of statements.
Critiques
Critics of focusing extensively on such fallacies argue that in practical scenarios, most individuals do not critically analyze identity-based propositions in-depth, and therefore the real-world impact might not as be pervasive as suggested. Moreover, some suggest that focusing on such fallacies exclusively overlooks the broader context of decision-making environments.
Fields of Impact
Also known as
Relevant Research
Identity, Substitution, and Rationalization
John A. Barker (1978)
Philosophical Review
The Epistemological Role of Equivalence Properties
Charles H. R. Brooks (1983)
Noûs
Case Studies
Real-world examples showing how Masked man fallacy manifests in practice
Context
A mid-sized regional hospital uses a mix of branded and rebranded surgical instruments supplied through several vendors. Procurement and regulatory teams track devices by a master Unique Device Identifier (UDI), while operating-room staff often refer to items by familiar brand names.
Situation
During an otherwise routine emergency appendectomy, the lead surgeon asked the nurse for a specific approved laparoscopic clamp described in the procedure notes by its brand name, 'SafeClamp.' The circulating nurse located a visually identical clamp on the cart, labeled with the distributor's brand 'MedGrip.' Because the surgeon did not 'know' that the MedGrip label referred to the same UDI-approved product, they refused to use it and insisted on opening another sealed pack.
The Bias in Action
The surgeon treated two co-referential objects (the clamp labeled 'SafeClamp' in the medical record and the identical device labeled 'MedGrip' on the cart) as if they were different, because they lacked knowledge that both labels referred to the same UDI-registered product. In this intensional context of 'knowing,' the substitution of names failed — the surgeon's belief about 'SafeClamp' did not transfer to 'MedGrip' even though both refer to the same physical device. The operating team escalated to procurement for verification rather than using the known-approved device, reflecting the masked man fallacy: confusing lack of name-based knowledge with non-identity.
Outcome
The verification process took 150 minutes from the time the surgeon first queried the instrument's identity. The surgery proceeded once procurement confirmed the UDI match, but the delay contributed to a more complicated intraoperative course and a longer hospitalization for the patient. Hospital managers later calculated added costs attributable to the delay and revised supply-room labeling and verification protocols.