Timeline for Is the use of inconsistent definitions a logical fallacy?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 4, 2019 at 3:27 | comment | added | shieldgenerator7 | my favorite example of this is "God is love. Love is Blind. Ray Charles is Blind. Therefore, Ray Charles is God." | |
| Feb 10, 2017 at 2:58 | comment | added | Conifold | Regardless of Euclid "an argument that contains an inconsistent definition is guilty of "equivocation"" is not explained generally, or by example in the post. I was not asking you to change it, or saying that it is wrong, only asking to explain what you meant, and later trying to say why it puzzled me. I imagined a response in a couple of lines after the first comment. I don't understand what happened here, but ok, back to silence. | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 4:34 | comment | added | virmaior | I'm positive I'm not saying Euclid equivocates. If you want to suggest Euclid equivocates, I would say either (a) we are using the term in differing ways or (b) you're wrong. If you have a different answer, provide it in the answer box (as you have). If you dislike my answer, downvote it as you may. I don't see any necessity to change it vis-a-vis the question. | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 4:28 | comment | added | Conifold | I am not saying there is an equivocation, you are. Euclid's proof can be easily rephrased (accepting your view that Euclid himself does not phrase it that way) into manipulating an inconsistent term, "rational number with square 2". You say that involves equivocation, I do not see what it might be. Frankly, I generally do not see how use of inconsistent terms necessarily involves equivocation, that would seem to classify all Meinongian logics as equivocative. Why would talk about round squares be equivocative? What was the example you had in mind? | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 4:15 | comment | added | virmaior | I'm rather lost as to what we're talking about or why. The question is about whether the inconsistent use of terms can be fallacious. Neither the question nor my answer refers to Euclid or the proof of the irrationality of the square root of two. Moreover, at least on my memory (and interpretation) of the proof, there's no equivocation going on. There's an assumption made specifically to produce a contradiction and negate the assumption. That's not at all the same thing as equivocation. | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 3:59 | comment | added | Conifold | We may disagree on that, but why does it matter if it is an accurate description of what Euclid does, or whether the proof depends on it? The point is that it can be (and often is) described in this manner, along with many other contradiction proofs. Where then is the definition of the term changed? It seems the same (inconsistent) conjunction is used throughout. | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 3:30 | comment | added | virmaior | I don't think that's an accurate description of what's happening there. Or may be to add something, an equivocation is when you accomplish your conclusion by changing the definition of the term. The proof of the existence of irraitonal numbers does not depend on that. | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 2:52 | comment | added | Conifold | If inconsistent definition is guilty of equivocation then "rational number with square 2" is guilty of equivocation. This seems to mean that Euclid's proof of irrationality of the square root of 2 equivocates when it defines such a number and then derives a contradiction by reasoning about it. If the equivocation is in using rationality in some parts of the proof and square 2 in others (although, frankly, they mix in this case) then any conjunctive definition can be said to equivocate. | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 2:37 | comment | added | virmaior | I'm not seeing the connection between proof by contradiction and equivocation. Maybe you could spell it our more? | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 2:01 | comment | added | Conifold | Does this mean that proofs by contradiction equivocate when they reason about things like rational number with square 2? | |
| Dec 20, 2016 at 22:15 | vote | accept | LightCC | ||
| Dec 31, 2015 at 6:36 | history | answered | virmaior | CC BY-SA 3.0 |