Tron
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:17 pm Post subject: Re: Name for the fallacy of attributing a correctable action |
 |
|
Hi,
"Scott H" <nospam> skrev i melding
news:PNadnQ-wMvXYDnfVnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@supernews.com...
[quote]Suppose I hit someone and say, "That>s just how the world works. It>s
survival of the fittest." Or I refuse to help someone and say, "It>s a law
of nature that people behave egoistically. It>s not going to change."
Here, I have quite obviously committed a fallacy. But what should we call
it?
[/quote]
I
AFAICS you are asking two questions, which both seem to presuppose that the
anwers given are false, and you seek to identify the error. The first kind
of error is a logical error. There are several errors in argument possible,
i.e. "Giving a None-reason for a Reason" ("fallacia non causae ut causae"),
appeal to authority, and possibly appeal to the prejudices of the audience
(e.g. assuming that the speaker knows or believes that the audience accepts
"survival of the fittest" as some kind of eternal truth).
II
Personally, I would perhaps not a) say that the answer is false because of
the logical fallacy, nor b) assume that the answer is false (before
investigating). IOW, the answers can be analyzed in other frameworks than
logic. This would be a interdisciplinary approach, perhaps going beyond
logic - aplologies in advance. However, since logic is still the method for
all ordered thinking, it can be brought in explicitly again later.
*) Philosophy of Science
The Respondent is subsuming a specific case under a general rule
(deduction), which is the general rule for scientific explanation, and as
such valid.
Possible error: The subsumption is wrong. and so a non-reason is then given
for a reason.
Possible error: The general rule is empirical, hence obtained by induction,
and may not be exhaustive enough to serve as the basis for deduction.
Again a non-reason may be given for a reason.
*) Rhetoric
The logical/verbal surface structure of this argument is not a syllogism,
but an enthymeme, a syllogism with a suppressed premise.
The Major seems to be stated, but the Minor, containing the connecting
middle term, is suppressed.
The role of the minor here would be to clarify e.g. exactly why the action
to be explained is a case falling under the general rule in the major.
("The fittest survive; those who hit, are fittest; ergo I hit him in orer to
be the fittest, to survive" ... etc.)
The nature of this type of enthymeme is to discuss/explain a single
occurrence by referral to the most general rule; which in turn is known as a
Locus Communis, i.e. a Commonplace. The rhetorical nature of this device
consists in referring a single case to a rule which is, while true (and
hence "convincing"), so wide and general that the exact relatuionship
between the single case and the rule remains obscure, such that it is not
immediately evident whether a proof has been given or not.
And that is why, of course, the enthymeme is the favoured form for
presenting a locus communis, precisely in order to cover up an uncertain
relationship.
Here, the answer as such may be true - that could indeed be how the world
works - but the Respondent has not shown this with sufficient clarity for
any Audience to accept his response as reason good enough to believe it.
*) Existenial Philosophy/Psychology
The "I couldn>t help it - I>m obeying Higher Powers"-position is what the
existentialists call "bad faith" - denying your own (human) freedom.
Psychologists would call it denial,or self-delusion, or rationalization,
falsifying the description of what is actually happening, again denying your
own freedom, i.e. again giving a non-reason for a reason, wherefore it fails
to be a true explanation; provided, of course, that man is fundamentally
free etc. etc.
*) Metaphysics (slightly irrelevant...)
From the time that the greeks took to sea travel, going many interesting
places, meeting many interesting people and trading with them (this was
before oil, or, rather, petroleum based locomotion; (olive) oil being what
the greeks traded), seeing the different appearances, customs, languages and
religions, they took a keen interest in the question of "the original
state". For this they coined the term "nature" ("how things are born"). The
views of the "nature of 'nature' " came to diverge, coalescing around two
distinct camps: Those who believed nature to be evil, with culture as the
beneficient influence; and those who thought nature to be good, with
civilization as the maleficient influence. Aristotle belongs to the former
camp: he saw the nature of e.g. man as a "morally neutral" raw material,
which was then cultured ( in the sense of "pruned" as one does with
cultivated plants) in society in order to produce Socially Viable Man, which
is Humanity. People without culture remain benighted barbarians. Others
believed man to be born good and true, and to be corrupted by evil, forced
to lie, commit crime etc. by "city life".
This gives us two types of distinction: nature as good or evil, and nature
as malleable or unchangeable.
These, in turn, often coincide with certain political positions. People in
power tend to assume that this is a good thing, and don>t want it to change.
It is therefore in their interest to present the prevailing order of
things - including man>s nature - as constant, natural, inevitable and
unchangeable; and that those who hold power are "good", while those who
suffer hardships do this, at least in part, because they are
"not-quite-that-good" or even bad. Those who want change, need first, of
course, to establish that things are changeable, and that perhaps the
downtrodden masses and noble savages (in short, everyone who is politically
correct) are the good ones, while the people who resist change are not quite
that good, or even bad.
So... politicos need to have the majority of people (for a given value of
"people") on their side, they need to spread their world-view (propaganda)
etc. etc.
In short: this is why appeals to "how things are" are made, or not.
.....
So, returning to I., I wonder if you could clear up why you in the first
place wanted to have this analyzed as a logical fallacy.
MVH,
T |
|
