Is the "stolen concept" truly a fallacy?

[LauricAcid]

You said they're fallacies of inductive logic and concept formation. But the examples don't show the form of inductive arguments but rather of deductive arguments. Are the examples those of fallacious arguments? And if so, in what way are they inductive arguments or commit inductive fallacies?

You say that JMeganSnow's explication is not incorrect, but then you contradict her explication.

Edited May 5, 2005 by LauricAcid

[y_feldblum]

Which examples?

And yes, I meant "I believe so".

[LauricAcid]

The ones mentioned earlier in this thread from quotes by various Objectivists.

Thanks for clearing up that you consider JMeganSnow's account incorrect.

[y_feldblum]

I wasn't paying attention to those examples.

If you have a specific question, ask.

[LauricAcid]

Questions:

1. What example do you offer of an instance of the fallacy of stolen concept that is not a deductive fallacy but rather a fallacy of both inductive logic and concept formation?

2. What is your explication of the example showing that it is not deductive but is instead both incorrect inductive logic and incorrect concept formation?

3. Is there concept formation that is neither deductive nor inductive? Specifically, are there errors of concept formation that are neither deductive nor inductive? If so, how are they different?

[y_feldblum]

1) "All property is theft."

2) For property to have a wrongful owner, it must have a rightful owner. It is clear, then, that the concept theft presupposes the concept property. One must first form the concept of property before one can form, based upon it, the concept of theft. Claiming that all theft is property inverts and subverts this logical relationship of the concepts.

3) Induction is what one does with concepts after one forms them in the first place. Deductive is the application of concepts to concretes or to less abstract concepts. First one forms the man by measurement-omission, then one notices that all men eventually die and so induces that fact into the concept of man, and then one deduces that if Socrates was a man, he will at some point die.

[LauricAcid]

"Induction is what one does with concepts after one forms them in the first place. Deductive is the application of concepts to concretes or to less abstract concepts. First one forms the man by measurement-omission, then one notices that all men eventually die and so induces that fact into the concept of man, and then one deduces that if Socrates was a man, he will at some point die." [y_feldblum]

Overwhelmingly, most philosophers, scientists, logicians, and mathematicians, before and since Objectivism, don't use the words 'induction' and 'deduction' in that way, nor are the terms used that way in general use. So what you've given is a special sense of the words. Would you refer me to the text that is the source of your usage, or are these your personal meanings?

Consider:

All men are mortal.

All logicians are men.

Therefore, all logicians are mortal.

Is that inductive since it adds to the concept of 'logician' and is not deductive since it does not apply to concretes (does not mention a particular existent)? Or is it both inductive and deductive since 'logician' is less abstract than 'man'? Or is 'logician' more abstract than 'man' so that the argument is indeed inductive?

Consider:

All men are logicians.

All logicians are men.

Therefore all men are mortal.

Is that deductive or inductive? And why?

Edited May 6, 2005 by LauricAcid

[LauricAcid]

Since 'Property Is Theft' is not much more than a slogan, and Proudhon gives much more argument than is contained in the slogan, it would be appropriate to consider some variations (and not necessarily representing Proudhon).

Does the fallacy of stolen concept appear here:

"Accomplishing sole possession of land by means of shooting or imprisoning people (other than a particular claimant or his invitees) who attempt to travel across it, rest on it, or use it, is wrong."

/

Does the fallacy of stolen concept appear here:

"An arithmetical sequence extends into infinity, wihout implying that infinity actually exists; such extension means only that whatever number of units does exist, it is to be included in the same sequence."

Edited May 6, 2005 by LauricAcid

[jrs]

JMeganSnow (Post #72):

You said "It is a definitional fallacy, ... trying to define a term in two contradictory ways at the same time; ...".

I agree that "contradictory re-definition" is a real fallacy. But I am not convinced that it is what is meant by "stolen concept".

Since two contradictory definitions is a fallacy regardless of whether one of them tries to use the other or not, what is the point of using the word "stolen" in the name?

You said "... Ayn Rand was referring, in general, to what happens to your propositions if you permit yourself the shoddy thinking of stolen concepts; ...".

Since she was making a definition and definitions must be precise, I do not think that she was writing about that to which the concept would lead in general.

How is Kant's attack on the senses a product of a "contradictory re-definition"? What are the two (or more) different definitions of the same term?

y_feldblum (Post #75):

You said "The fallacy concerns the formation and use of concepts, not their definitions.".

In OPAR, page 96, Leonard Peikoff says "The final step in concept formation is definition.".

So if FSC is about concept formation, then it is about definitions.

If FSC is about how concepts are used, then it is about propositions.

y_feldblum (Post #81):

When you refer to "All property is theft.", are you construing it as: an improper re-definition of property; an wrongly inducted "fact"; the conclusion of an invalid argument; an arbitrary assertion; or what?

You said "One must first form the concept of property before one can form, based upon it, the concept of theft. Claiming that all property is theft inverts and subverts this logical relationship of the concepts.".

The claim "All property is theft." is false. But it cannot subvert the logical relationship of the concepts property and theft.

Those concepts are already established and do not depend on the truth or falsity of such a claim. Your contrary suggestion is an (inadvertent and ineffective) attempt to invert the hierarchy.

[Marc K.]

FSC interferes with that process.

Only for those that don’t accept it as a “true” fallacy.

Mathematicians know better than most people that one must learn some things before one can understand others.

Excellent. And if this hierarchy was violated, wouldn’t you consider that to be fallacious reasoning?

In other words, if I said: “you cannot prove that you exist or that you are conscious,” isn’t my inversion of the hierarchy reason enough to dismiss this fallacious statement out of hand?

[LauricAcid]

If all everyday concepts are hierarchical, then wouldn't it be possible to arrange all definitions in an hierarchical dictionary? And wouldn't such a reference work be useful? You'd be able to show people exactly how they've violated the hierarchy, and check yourself for hierarchical slippage.

Has this been attempted or even outlined? If there were serious difficulties with such a project, then wouldn't those point to serious difficulties with Objectivism?

[y_feldblum]

Lauric, perhaps I should point you to the widely known definition of definition as possessing genus and differentia.

[Marc K.]

If all everyday concepts are hierarchical [...]

If there were serious difficulties with such a project, then wouldn't those point to serious difficulties with Objectivism?

Hierarchical inconsistencies are easy to spot. Whenever someone uses a concept in an attempt to deny the existence of same concept you can be sure they are employing the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept. I made use of one in my last post and others here have pointed out several more.

Unfortunately, LauricAcid, you have put yourself beyond our help. At least jrs accepts that knowledge is arranged in a hierarchical manner (something you seem to refute with the above statements). Until you educate yourself about the true nature of knowledge and how to gain it, none of what we say here will make sense. And without a proper epistemology, describing the nature of reality -- and thus Objectivism will remain beyond your grasp.

[LauricAcid]

"Lauric, perhaps I should point you to the widely known definition of definition as possessing genus and differentia." [y_feldblum]

I'm already familiar with it. How does it answer the questions I asked?

"Unfortunately, LauricAcid, you have put yourself beyond our help. At least jrs accepts that knowledge is arranged in a hierarchical manner (something you seem to refute with the above statements). Until you educate yourself about the true nature of knowledge and how to gain it, none of what we say here will make sense. And without a proper epistemology, describing the nature of reality -- and thus Objectivism will remain beyond your grasp." [Marc K.]

1. I haven't made any statements that deny hierarchy.

2. "Until you educate yourself about the true nature of knowledge and how to gain it, none of what we say here will make sense" is a non sequitur.

[Marc K.]

1. I haven't made any statements that deny hierarchy.

Sorry, in what follows I thought the “if” questioned the existence of a hierarchy which you then used to question the validity of Objectivism:

If all everyday concepts are hierarchical [...]

then wouldn't those point to serious difficulties with Objectivism?

However, since you seem to acknowledge the existence of a hierarchy in 1. (above), I’ll ask you the same questions I posed to jrs:

If this hierarchy was violated, wouldn’t you consider that to be fallacious reasoning?

In other words, if I said: “you cannot prove that you exist or that you are conscious,” isn’t my inversion of the hierarchy reason enough to dismiss this fallacious statement out of hand?

2. "Until you educate yourself about the true nature of knowledge and how to gain it, none of what we say here will make sense" is a non sequitur.

A non sequitur? Really? So you think you’ll be able to understand Objectivism (and therefore reality) without a proper epistemological base? Impossible.

[Free Capitalist]

Part of the problem here arises from -- what else -- definitions.

Overwhelmingly, most philosophers, scientists, logicians, and mathematicians, before and since Objectivism, don't use the words 'induction' and 'deduction' in that way

This has only been true for about the past 100 years or so. Before that, and certainly in antiquity when logic was first discovered, the definitions you imply were not used. Aristotle defined induction as concept formation, and deduction as concept application.

Considering the pitifully dismal state of modern philosophy, you should be really wary of accepting any 'modern' conceptions of things.

And btw, I do know the definitions you imply:

deduction -- a syllogism where certainty is possible

induction -- a syllogism where all conclusions are probabilistic at best

Edited May 6, 2005 by Free Capitalist

[LauricAcid]

"I thought the “if” questioned the existence of a hierarchy which you then used to question the validity of Objectivism [...]" [Marc K.]

1. Conditionals do not imply the truth of their antecedents. 2. Questions do not assert denials.

"[...] you seem to acknowledge the existence of a hierarchy [...]" [Marc K.]

I haven't posted that I acknowledge the existence of a hierarchy.

"If this hierarchy was violated, wouldn’t you consider that to be fallacious reasoning?" [Marc K.]

If one asserts a hierarchy but contradicts it, then one has committed a contradiction.

"[...] if I said: “you cannot prove that you exist or that you are conscious,” isn’t my inversion of the hierarchy reason enough to dismiss this fallacious statement out of hand?" [Marc K.]

(1) This depends on your definition of 'fallacious'. To get an idea of your sense of the term. Do you hold that the following statement is fallacious?: Al Gore was president of the United States during the year 2004. (2) We do often reasonably ask for proof that certain things exist and that certain things have consciousness. So, if the statement is fallacious, it would be on account of expecting that an existent could prove its own existence and a consciousness its own consciousness. However, an existent can prove its own existence and consciousness. To prove my existence, all I have to do is show up for the demonstration! To prove my consciousness, all I have to do is submit to whatever brain scan or other test is is normally used to test for consciousness. So the the statement is false. And if all false statements are fallacious, then the statement is fallacious. But, returning to (1), are all false statements fallacious? (3) Since I can prove my own existence and consciousness, it is not fallacious just to ask me to do so, though, if you were in my presecne, it would be rather pointless to do so, since you would have the evidence right in front of you.

Edited May 6, 2005 by LauricAcid

[LauricAcid]

"And btw, I do know the definitions you imply:

deduction -- a syllogism where certainty is possible

induction -- a syllogism where all conclusions are probabilistic at best" [Free Capitalist]

I don't imply those definitions.

"Considering the pitifully dismal state of modern philosophy, you should be really wary of accepting any 'modern' conceptions of things." [Free Capitalist]

One should be wary of many things. The basic definitions of 'deduction' and 'induction' don't depend on anything dismal in modern philosophy.

"This has only been true for about the past 100 years or so. Before that, and certainly in antiquity when logic was first discovered, the definitions you imply were not used." [emphasis original] [Free Capitalist]

1. Since I didn't imply any definitions, it's difficult (to say the least) to say what's true about such non-existent implications.

2. Just how far back do you think the terms 'deduction' and 'induction' go?

"Aristotle defined induction as concept formation, and deduction as concept application." [Free Capitalist]

Please cite.

Edited May 6, 2005 by LauricAcid

[Free Capitalist]

While I look it up, please post your definitions of deduction/induction. It's rather interesting how long you've participated in the discussion without defining your terms, yet simultaneously criticizing the definitions of others.

[LauricAcid]

"It's rather interesting how long you've participated in the discussion without defining your terms, yet simultaneously criticizing the definitions of others." [Free Capitalist]

What's so interesting about it? 1. No one had asked me for definitions. 2. One is not logically required to state one's own definitions just to criticize definitions of others. 3. I haven't done much criticism, anyway, but mostly asked questions.

"[...] please post your definitions of deduction/induction [...]"

I'm not committed to these, but they're good for a start:

X is a deductive argument presentation iff X is a presentation of an argument for evaluation of entailment of the conclusion from the premises.

X is an inductive argument presentation iff X is a presentation of an argument for evaluation of liklihood of the conclusion from the premises.

I have no interest in defending those definitions, but rather an interest in understanding what's good about them and not so good about them, while working toward this understanding I may question or criticize comments about them.

/

"So you think you’ll be able to understand Objectivism (and therefore reality) without a proper epistemological base?" [Marc K.]

Whatever answer I gave to that question would not make ""Until you educate yourself about the true nature of knowledge and how to gain it, none of what we say here will make sense" not a non sequitur.

"Hierarchical inconsistencies are easy to spot." [Marc K.]

Would there be no intellectual difficulties in writing a hierarchical English dictionary?

Also, what hierarchical fallacy, if any, do you spot in this sentence: "An arithmetical sequence extends into infinity, wihout implying that infinity actually exists; such extension means only that whatever number of units does exist, it is to be included in the same sequence."

Also, if it is a hierarchical fallacy to assert that property is theft, since the definition (or concept?) of theft depends on the definition (or concept?) of property, would it be a hierarchical fallacy to mention criminality in an anarchy, since the definition (concept?) depends on the definition (concept?) of laws?

Edited May 6, 2005 by LauricAcid

[Free Capitalist]

LauricAcid, I'm seeing a lot of wishy-washiness. I provided definitions which I am willing to stand by, which are not just a start for further improvement, but are already perfect and set, as far as I'm concerned. Why don't you provide definitions tht you believe you will stand by, and that you think are correct and definite. Without these, no discussion can procede, and if you don't have any definite definitions by which you'll be willing to stand by, you have no basis for argument whatsoever, no matter how good everything else you say may be.

[LauricAcid]

1. I am happy to learn of your definitions. However, they raise questions. These questions do not depend on my asserting alternative definitions. If you care not to answer the questions, then, of course, it is entirely your prerogative not to.

2. Your definitions are used by (relatively) extremely few people. That is fine, as long as we don't confuse your special definitions with those that are in common use among speakers of the English language.

3. That I allow that my own definitions admit of criticism and qualification is a function of my own recognition of possibility of improvement. If that makes me "wishy washy", then I am wishy washy. Anyway, my purpose in this immediate context is not to assert any particular definitions, positions, philosophy or system of knowledge, but rather to understand the benefits and criticisms of some of the views that have been posted. So any "wishy washiness" of mine doesn't bear upon the pertinence of the questions and criticisms.

4. Whether I stand by the definitions I mentioned has no bearing on your freedom to criticize them.

Edited May 6, 2005 by LauricAcid

[TomL]

1. I am happy to learn of your definitions. However, they raise questions. These questions do not depend on my asserting alternative definitions.

Yes, they do depend on that by corollary. To say that "this part of this statement could be wrong" is the same thing as saying "this part of this statement might actually be <something else>". The fact of you not being explicitly aware of what the <something else> is (possibly buried in your subconscious mind) doesn't change the fact, and is only further evidence of wishy-washiness.

2. Your definitions are used by (relatively) extremely few people. That is fine, as long as we don't confuse your special definitions with those that are in common use among speakers of the English language.

Every concept (word) actually has one and only one objective definition. A is A. Many words represent multiple concepts in different contexts, thus the fact that words have multiple definitions. The fact of a mob improperly, innacurately, or completely failing to acknowledge an objective definition for a given concept does not wipe that objective definition from reality, nor does it make the "common" definition correct.

I am wishy washy.

Agreed.

Anyway, my purpose in this immediate context is not to assert any particular definitions, positions, philosophy or system of knowledge, but rather to understand the benefits and criticisms of some of the views that have been posted. So any "wishy washiness" of mine doesn't bear upon the pertinence of the questions and criticisms.

It most certainly does. Arguments of the type which try to simply argue that a given idea is wrong but offers no assertion of a correct solution itself, offer no way to refute the assertion that the original idea is wrong. You simply want to cast shadow and doubt on the idea and leave it like that -- in a dark cloud, unable to be penetrated or grasped clearly by anyone.

Any alternative suggested by you could be attacked by us and thereby give more clarity to the actual definition, which is something you clearly wish to avoid. I can only imagine why.

[LauricAcid]

[all quotes by TomL]

"To say that "this part of this statement could be wrong" is the same thing as saying "this part of this statement might actually be <something else>". "

The rationality of questioning, wondering about, or asking for explanation of what appears to be an inconistency does not depend on asserting some other consistent statement. And the rationality of asserting that a step in an argument is incorrect or inconsistent does not depend on stating some other proposition (or argument for it). Most particularly, to point out a problem with an argument or definition, does not logically obligate one to state and prove the negation of the statement. Otherwise, for example, would one have to have a fully formed theory of the migration habits of swallows to criticize the statement: "Swallow fly to Capistrano because they like take Shiatsu massages there."

And to point out that a given definition is not that used by the overwhelming number of people who use the term in the English language does not depend on commiting to any definition whatsoever. No matter what definition I prefer or would or would not defend is independent of the facts of how people actually use a term.

"The fact of you not being explicitly aware of what the <something else> is (possibly buried in your subconscious mind) doesn't change the fact, and is only further evidence of wishy-washiness."

In this regard it's not a matter of what's buried in my subconscious but rather of the specific questions I've asked and points I have made. If the questions are ill-premised, then you are free to say how they are. If I am incorrect that people don't ordinarily use 'deduction' in some of the ways that have been mentioned, then you are free to dispute my contention. None of that depends on my subconscious or any indecisiveness I may have.

"Every concept (word) actually has one and only one objective definition. A is A. Many words represent multiple concepts in different contexts thus the fact that words have multiple definitions."

If words represent multiple concepts in different contexts, then it's important to distinguish contexts. If you use the words 'induction' and 'deduction' for a context, then it's fair to state that the words are not normally used in that context.

"The fact of a mob improperly, innacurately, or completely failing to acknowledge an objective definition for a given concept does not wipe that objective definition from reality, nor does it make the "common" definition correct."

I have not asserted that the common definition is correct, or even that definitions are correct or incorrect in the sense you describe. On the other hand, if you believe that the common definition is incorrect, then you are free to show how.

But what is your context, and what are your definitions of 'inductive' and 'deductive'?

"Arguments of the type which try to simply argue that a given idea is wrong but offers no assertion of a correct solution itself, offer no way to refute the assertion that the original idea is wrong."

1. That's basically the point you just tried to make. It is incorrect, as I discussed.

2. In this thread, I have not posted that a particular definition is wrong. I did say that some examples weren't of certain form. And they're not.

3. One doesn't need to assert not-A to rationally assert that a particular argument for A is invalid, and especially not to rationally mention difficulties, and even more especially not to ask about them.

"You simply want to cast shadow and doubt on the idea and leave it like that -- in a dark cloud, unable to be penetrated or grasped clearly by anyone."

That is incorrect, and it is irrational of you to have concluded it.

"Any alternative suggested by you could be attacked by us [...]"

Go ahead, attack the suggestion I gave! Who's stopping you?!

"[...] thereby give more clarity to the actual definition, which is something you clearly wish to avoid."

It is false that I wish any particular definition not be clear. But it is not my duty to clarify the definitions of others. I've been asking for clarifications. If you have any of your own, then nothing is stopping you from giving them.

"I can only imagine why [...]"

Since you have made some pretty irrational inferences and doing so have drawn false conclusions, I wouldn't dare wonder about the veracity of what you imagine.

And your comments about my motives and what I wish for are ad hominem, as are some of my comments in return. If you desire a discussion that is not ad hominem, then your best bet would be not to make ad hominem assertions and insinuations. If you don't care about that, then so be it.

Edited May 6, 2005 by LauricAcid

[TomL]

The rationality of questioning, wondering about, or asking for explanation of what appears to be an inconistency does not depend on asserting some other consistent statement.

It most certainly depends on, at the very least, stating what you think the inconsistentcy is, thereby suggesting possible alternatives.  You have not done so.  All you have done is say "this is inconsistent."  With what?  How?

No matter what definition I prefer or would or would not defend is independent of the facts of how people actually use a term.

Well you're the one that brought it up! Why bother?

In this regard it's not a matter of what's buried in my subconscious but rather of the specific questions I've asked and points I have made.

You have asked how things are contradictory that are self-evidently so. For example:

"using reason (which depends on validity the senses) to disprove the validity of the senses!" [JMeganSnow]

Please explain how that uses a contradictory definition as opposed to assuming a proposition to disprove a proposition.

No. The fact that reason depends on the validity of the senses is not a "proposition". Tell me why it is not a "definition" and I'll tell you, as I could guess Ayn Rand would have herself, to "look and see."

If I am incorrect that people don't ordinarily use 'deduction' in some of the ways that have been mentioned, then you are free to dispute my contention.

Who cares how people use it? We don't. We only care about what it actually is, not the mob's misguided, floating, and fuzzy notion of it.

If words represent multiple concepts in different contexts, then it's important to distinguish contexts. If you use the words 'induction' and 'deduction' for a context, then it's fair to state that the words are not normally used in that context.

Then do so, instead of implying that a true definition comes from consensus rather than reality.

I have not asserted that the common definition is correct, or even that definitions are correct or incorrect in the sense you describe.

Oh really?

Your definitions are used by (relatively) extremely few people. That is fine, as long as we don't confuse your special definitions with those that are in common use among speakers of the English language

What the heck is that, then?

On the other hand, if you believe that the common definition is incorrect, then you are free to show how.

Just as soon as you give us the common definition!

But what is your context, and what are your definitions of 'inductive' and 'deductive'?

The context is "reason". The definitions are:

Induction: the primary process of reaching knowledge that goes beyond perception through a process of valid generalization. Valid generalization, in turn, requires valid concept formation, and a hierarchy beginning with self-evident first-level generalizations, to which all generalizations must be reducable. It also requires the contextual discovery of causal connections using the methods of difference and agreement (which I can explain further if you like).

Deduction: a secondary process of reaching knowledge that goes beyond perception by subsuming new instances of known generalizations.

Thus, any deduction presupposes prior inductions, and thus induction has primacy over deduction.

Go ahead, attack the suggestion I gave! Who's stopping you?!

What suggestions? Where?

Edited May 6, 2005 by TomL