>Date: Mon, 1 May 95 12:47:21 BST >From: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) >Subject: Neo-/non-classical fallacies Tom Breton writes: >While I'm on the subject, can anybody tell me what the relation is >between GS and classical fallacies? There seems to be some overlap in >the subject matter, but what exactly is it? I don't know, but g.s suggests to me several fallacies which aren't on the standard lists. For PR purposes I've given them traditional-sounding names. Latinists are welcome to improve on the pig-Latin. These merge into one another, especially the first five, which are all about intensional orientation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ THE FALLACY OF ESSENCES Often found in scientific research. One finds that some easily observable phenomenon X is correlated with some more difficult observation Y. Y is then taken to be more real than X, in proportion to the expense of the instruments used to measure Y. The conclusion that Y is the cause of X is then proved by the following argument: "All X's are Y's; because if they weren't, they wouldn't really be X's." Example: certain types of brain waves are typically found in people who are asleep, and not in people who are awake. However, some people demonstrate these brain waves while they are by every other test awake. The perfection of the correlation is saved by inventing the concept of "waking sleep", which is just like sleep, as measured by the brain waves, except for being awake, as measured by behaviour. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ THE FALLACY OF TRUE NATURES Almost any sentence containing any of the expressions "really", "essentially", "only", "nothing but", "normal", "proper", etc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ THE FALLACY OF REIFICATION To believe that symbolic mental constructions have an independent, objectively observable existence. Example: the notion of "property". No objective test can be given to determine whether some entity is or is not someone's property, independent of particular social conventions. Discussions of, say, what intellectual property laws should be instituted, will not get anywhere if they proceed with the goal of discovering what sorts of things can be property. Relating to the ethics thread, I'd put "right" and "wrong" into this category as well. Opinions? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ THE FALLACY OF CLASSIFICATION To prove that X is Y, find a class Z which X belongs to, and whose typical members are Y. Then argue: X is Z; Z is Y; therefore X is Y. This is similar to the traditional fallacy of four terms: X is Z1; Z2 is Y; therefore X is Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ARGUING FROM THE GENERAL TO THE PARTICULAR Observing that X is a member of class Y, conclude that X has every property typical of class Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ARGUMENTUM AB CONCLUSIO (Arguing from the conclusion) or IGNORATIO PRAEMISSIAE (Ignoring (the truth of) the premises) or CONFABULATION To prove a conclusion by constructing a set of premises which logically imply it, without considering whether the premises are true. I took the term "confabulation" from the neurologist Oliver Sacks' books about brain-damaged patients. In that context it refers to their ability to invent explanations out of thin air to explain aspects of their situation that one might expect them to be perplexed by, such as loss of memory. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ IGNORATIO NASI (similar to CONFABULATION) To respond to a plain counterexample to an assertion by searching for a better proof of the assertion. (I derived the name from the expression "as plain as the nose on one's face" but perhaps there is a more authentically classical epithet.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ THE FALLACY OF TWO PERSONS To argue "X believes A; Y believes A implies B; therefore X must believe B". ------------------------------------------------------------------------ THE FALLACY OF IMPUTATION A case of TWO PERSONS, where Y is the person making the argument. To impute beliefs to your interlocutor from which you can derive a contradiction with his expressed beliefs. (It's easy to win an argument if you write your opponent's script.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ THE FALLACY OF MISSING ARGUMENTS To omit important arguments from a multi-argument relation. E.g. "Whizzo washes better." Washes what? Better than what? Better in what way? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ___ \X/ Richard Kennaway, jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk, http://www.sys.uea.ac.uk/~jrk/ School of Information Systems, Univ. of East Anglia, Norwich