jrs

No. I suggest that you re-read my quote of softwareNerd in Post #14. Contradiction and fallacy are two different things. Contradictions are caused by fallacies. But a fallacious step is not necessarily contradictory. Nor is a contradictory step necessarily fallacious. I have indeed been given many examples. But they were all incomplete and inadequate to show the existence of a stolen concept. I tried to help you-all by explaining what would be necessary: I suggest that in the future you tailor your examples to these requirements. Consider an ad hominem argument like this: ___Joe Smith believes that people should not smoke. ___Joe Smith is a smoker and a hypocrite. ___Thus, smoking is OK. In this case, ad hominem is an invalid "rule of inference", a deductive fallacy. It is like an argument from authority in reverse.

By increasing the elasticity of the supply of labor, that is: By helping workers to find better jobs. By training them so that they are more productive and worthy of being promoted. It could also help them by assisting them in: acquiring insurance or finding good investments or presenting grievances to management. My impression is that most unions do not do these things (except the grievances). If anything they do the opposite.

For more information on "stolen concepts" see the "'Stolen concept' a logical fallacy?" thread in the "Debate Forums" subforum. http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=5341

There are multiple words which are pronounced "tu", including: 1. "to" a preposition indicating travel or action which arrives at a place or thing. Converts noun into adverb. 2. "to" forms infinitives. Converts verb to noun. 3. "too" same as "also". Connective. 4. "two" the natural number after one. Noun or adjective. 5. "tu" second person singular (intimate) in some languages. Pronoun. Your author is confusing the first and second of these. "Gonna" is a contraction of "going" with the second, not the first.

You are begging the question. You have not shown that such a denial of a concept's hierarchical roots is EVER the root cause of a contradiction in the sense that it is a fallacy that introduces falsehoods (or meaningless statements) into a proof. Not necessarily. But as I said previously, I am mainly concerned about those people who think that "stolen concept" is a distinct (i.e. newly discovered) deductive fallacy. I recognize definitional fallacies and deductive fallacies. I do not know what an inductive fallacy might be because I do not know what would constitute valid induction. And Atlas51184 claimed that "stolen concept" is a propositional fallacy (whatever that is). Your example is quite amusing. "Faith" is a meaningful concept (see below). It is not the use of the concept "faith" which is the problem. The problem is having faith, i.e. taking feelings as a source of knowledge. "Feelings are a source of knowledge." is the proposition which they are implicitly assuming as they explicitly deny it. But the fact that they deny it is irrelevant. It is a false premise in any case. It would be just as wrong for a priest to say "Feelings are a source of knowledge. I know it because the Bible says so; and I feel that the Bible is inerrant.". And it would also be wrong to use it even if one took no explicit position on whether feelings are a source of knowledge or not. So in searching for the root of the error, we must try to find out why the person implicitly believes that proposition. What was the initial mistake (or fallacy) that led to it? So faith amounts to allowing feelings to take the place of reason.

That it can yield a falsehood even when applied to truths. A (deductive) proof is a sequence of propositions with the last step being the theorem. Each proposition must be justified. If no justification is provided, then that step is a non sequitur (the catch-all fallacy). If the justification is not valid, then it is fallacy. A justification is valid, if its nature is such that the step will always be true when the earlier steps, if any, upon which it depends are true. This allows us to check a proof by checking the validity of each step in order. If all the steps are valid, then the last step (the theorem) must be true (by mathematical induction). Now, suppose that one of the steps is a fallacy. Then that proposition may (or may not) be false. And any subsequent step that depends upon it directly or indirectly may also be false. So the proof is fallacious; and its conclusion, the "theorem", may be false. If one identifies a contradiction, A & ~A, then one of the two contradictory propositions must be false. If they are the "theorems" resulting from proofs, then at least one of the proofs must be invalid (the one which led to the false conclusion). But the fallacy responsible could occur at any step in the proof. It does not have to be the last step nor the first. And if A appears as a step in the proof of ~A, it is not necessarily the fallacious step.

(I took the liberty of correcting your spelling and grammar.) Yes, that is my main point. Attributing the contradiction to a non-existent fallacy leads to taking the wrong corrective action; which leads to the root cause of the contradiction surviving untouched. This is disastrous.

You say the idea is "invalid", but in the cases about which you are talking the idea (concept which was stolen) is actually valid, e.g. "existence", "property". And if the concept is valid for use by those of us who accept it, then it must be valid for use by anyone, including those who do not accept it. To determine what fallacy it is and which step of their argument is invalidated by it, I would have to see their entire argument spelled out. You did not give that; you only gave an overview. You have explained what you think it is. But you have not shown that it is actually a fallacy.

The older thread on "stolen concept" is at: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=3454 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_epistemology Here is another take on what "stolen concept" means, from Wikipedia. No. I am saying that no such fallacy exists, i.e. the notion that it exists is arbitrary. Consequently there are many different and confused ideas about what it is; just as there are with "God" who does not exist. That is why my argument for the negative must depend on the details of the argument for the affirmative. Some people, like JMeganSnow, may think that it is a definitional fallacy. In that case, it may be equivalent to a real fallacy. But that is not what I think that Ayn Rand believed. Nor is it what I am worried about. That is why I said "... if it is understood to be a distinct (i.e. newly discovered) deductive fallacy.". No. I wanted to keep the old thread together with this new stuff. And I wanted to be sure that the Administration of OOL would not discipline me for continuing to argue against Objectivism in the thread. That is why I suggested moving it here.

Without further offending by defending the substance of what I said, I can only say this: The messages in question were posted before the debate forum was created. I was never warned about them. But the thread was locked for some weeks without explanation. The intentions of a person making an argument have no bearing on the validity or invalidity of his argument. To say otherwise is to commit the fallacy of attacking the person, i.e. ad hominem. So the validity of an intermediate step does not depend on what the author is hoping to do at the end of his argument. (However, the validity does depend on the hypotheses on which that part of the argument has been made contingent.) Notice that in Ayn Rand's Journal entry she is comparing "stolen concept" with "petitio principii" ("begging the question") which is definitely a deductive fallacy. This suggests that she regards "stolen concept" as a deductive fallacy. However, this does not exclude the possibility that she might also regard it as affecting definitions and/or induction. Thus they are contradicting themselves; which implies that they are committing some fallacy. This does not necessarily mean that they are committing the "stolen concept fallacy". For the reader's convenience, here is the paragraph in Wikipedia to which I believe you are referring: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_epistemology If he is assuming a truth (even if he denies it elsewhere), then he is not thereby introducing any falsehood into his argument. So absent another fallacy, he should not be able to reach a false conclusion. Your quote from Proudhon suggest the following possible explanation to me: He is rejecting the idea of LAND as property; and so regards rent as theft of chattel which he does regard as legitimate property. If this is the case, then he would not be assuming the opposite of what he is trying to prove (albeit he is still wrong).

My position is that no such fallacy exists, if it is understood to be a distinct (i.e. newly discovered) deductive fallacy. I think that this rule applies here. And because I am taking the negative side, I believe that the onus of proof is on my opponent. I ask that he provide an example. An example of such a fallacy must meet these requirements: (1) it must appear as a step in an argument where all the other steps are valid; (2) it must not be an example of another fallacy, so it must appear to be a valid step to non-Objectivists; (3) all the premises of the argument must be true; and (4) the conclusion must be false. I see that you have "volunteered" me already. I accept. I hope that I am not being vain as a logician, but it appears to me that: Whether something is a fallacy or not is an essential part of logic. And logic is part of reason since reason is the application of logic to one's perceptions. Since reason is the subject matter of epistemology, logic is part of epistemology. So the notion that there is a "fallacy of the stolen concept" is part of Objectivism. I would like to wait on this until we see whether a proponent steps forward. One does not normally talk about fallacies (invalid inferences) in mathematical logic. One talks about axioms and rules of inference, i.e. what constitutes a valid proof. Of course, anything which is not valid is invalid (fallacious). In formal logic, the onus is on the prover to provide a valid justification of any challenged step in his proof. The word "fallacy" is used in informal, debate-style, logic. In debates, any plausible-sounding argument is presumed to be valid unless it contains an instance of a known fallacy. There are several different wordings which follow:

Here is a link to Alfred Russel Wallace's original paper on evolution by survival of the fittest. "On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type" by Alfred Russel Wallace in 1858 http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/wallace/S043.htm

I would divide rights into substantive rights and procedural rights. Substantive rights directly protect or otherwise benefit the right holder. Procedural rights are internal rules of the government created by it for its own purposes. For example, they might be intended to protect the government from accidentally violating someone's substantive rights. Or they might be intended to help expose corruption in the government. Or they might be intended to create the appearance of "fairness". In some legal systems a court might consist of a single official. In our system, the functions of the court have been divided among several officials, including: (1) the judge is an umpire who oversees the whole trial process and decides questions of law; (2) the prosecutor argues the facts and law which tend to implicate the defendant; (3) the public defender argues the facts and law which tend to exonerate the defendant; (4) the jury decides questions of fact; (5) the bailiffs use force when necessary to maintain order; (6) the court reporter keeps a record of everything which is said; and (7) the clerk keeps track of the papers and items of evidence. The prosecutor and public defender are distinct from the judge, not merely to reduce his work load, but to avoid a conflict of interest and prevent the judge from becoming personally involved on one side or the other. So the public defender is not merely a helpful and knowledgeable friend of the defendant; he is an officer of the court whose duty is to prevent the court from erroneously convicting an innocent man or imposing excessive punishment. Yes.

I have not thought about it since my last message on "stolen concept" in this thread which was Post #128 in May 2005. So my position has not changed since then, except that I have forgotten some of the details. If you want to reactivate this thread, you might want to move it to the debate forum because I will be arguing against the Objectivist position in it. So if you want to argue about this again, please give a detailed example of an argument which contains an instance of this alleged fallacy. Jennifer is correct that this is a fallacy. But it is not the same as what Ayn Rand said. This is not a fallacy. She is rejecting the legitimate method called "reductio ad absurdum" (RAA).

One does not have to be a fascist to read "My Struggle" by Adolf Hitler. I have read more than half of it; and I certainly do not agree with it.

How can YOU not see a contradiction between "there is only one action possible" and "NOT that there is only one possible outcome"? Are you saying that the same action (by the same entity in the same circumstances) can have two outcomes? Are you saying that focusing and non-focusing are the same action? Do you think that one and two are the same? You appear to be ignoring the plain words of pages 14 and 15 of OPAR. You cannot just pick and choose which of several different versions of causality is convenient for your particular application and rationally claim to be consistent. Fine. But that violates Leonard Peikoff's version of the law of causality, in spite of his and your protestations to the contrary. Does being rationalistic mean not evading the plain meaning of the words in question? Of what context am I taking Peikoff's words out? Please spell it out.

So you have resolved the contradiction by rejecting Leonard Peikoff's version of the law of causality. Right? This chaos may be OK with EC; but I would prefer to have my messages separated from the flood pouring from donnywithana.

Then what is the point of your participation in this thread? Notice that there were errors in your quotation which I have corrected. The action in question here is the particular choice of one of the alternatives rather than the process of choosing itself. The fact that there are two possible alternatives (focus or nonfocus) violates Dr. Peikoff's version of the law of causality which insists on only one possible outcome.

How do you think that the Union fought the War? They conscripted (enslaved) enormous numbers of men. And the War itself was an exercise in mass murder. Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended the writ of habeas corpus without the approval of Congress and had many people arrested and held without trial. Despite Lincoln's beautiful words, the Union was quite tyrannical under his presidency. By destroying the right of the States to secede from the Union, Lincoln destroyed the most fundamental check and balance in our system. Thus the national government has grown ever more oppressive since then. The confederate States did not secede merely to preserve slavery. Their most immediate goal was to escape from the oppressive tariffs imposed on the industrial goods they imported from Europe. And you should understand that the case against slavery was not as obvious then as it seems today. The people who were purchased as slaves in Africa and transported to America were people who were captives taken in wars and would otherwise have been killed by their captors.

The following two quotations seem to me to contradict each other. Please explain why they do not. The only reason I can see for a distinction is psychological -- Objectivism seeks to empower people. If non-human objects act deterministically, then people can understand and control them. But if humans acted deterministically, then we might be the play things of external forces.

I would revise your definitions as follows: OBJECTIVIST: one who understands and agrees with every element of Ayn Rand's philosophy. It makes no sense to me to give a pass to those who have not studied an element or who do not yet understand it. STUDENT OF OBJECTIVISM: one who has begun a study of Objectivism and wants to learn more about it. If we required agreement to be considered a student, then neither I nor most members of this forum could even be called students of Objectivism. I think that in most of the disputes in the threads within the Philosophy subforum at least one side is arguing against Objectivism. It goes to the point that if your suggestion were enforced, most of this forum would be made unavailable to myself and most other members which would defeat the educational objective of the forum. After all, the forum rules say "Agreement with Objectivism is not required for participation. Anyone interested in Ayn Rand's philosophy may join.". This would give us a list of "sensitive" elements of Objectivism which members could avoid opposing. This would be a restriction which would be much easier to meet than avoiding opposing every element.

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14044035 This is good news, if they are serious.

Correct. And Thomas Moore got "utopia" from the Greek word for "nowhere" or "no place", not on this planet anyway. I think that the instabilities work both ways. Notice the collapse of many communist governments. There are those who use their power to advance short-term irrational agendas and thus totalitarianism. And there are those who see the destructiveness of such policies and try to eliminate them.

The enormous complexity of Objectivism (the very large number of elements) is the reason why I think that even most of the people who think that they are Objectivists actually are not. Just imagine that one made such a list into a series of true/false questions where the questions were phrased in such a way as to avoid giving hints as to which was the "correct" Objectivist position. How many people could get 100% on such a test? Very few. This is a good idea. I suggest that it be a list of precedents -- whenever a member is warned, banned, or disqualified from taking the Objectivist side in debate because he opposed an element of Objectivism, then that element should be added to the list (if not already on it). This list could be an appendix to the forum rules.

By asking how interest rates AFFECT savings, Jimbean is asking about causation from interest rates to savings. While also true, your statement reverses the direction of causation -- you are answering about causation from savings to interest rates. This is a different question. There is a negative feed-back loop here. Interest is a price -- the price of using the principal for a period of time. As with other prices, it changes to bring supply (lending) and demand (borrowing) into balance. But the supply and demand also depend on other factors. I assumed that Jimbean was using the words as follows: Saving is a private entity lending money or buying equity, i.e. parting with money for a period of time in order to get interest or dividends. Investment is a private entity borrowing money or selling shares for the purpose of building its business: buying raw materials; paying workers; renting a plant; buying or renting tools; paying shipping costs; etc.. The hope is that it will make enough from selling its products and services to repay the borrowed money with interest and have a profit left over. With these definitions, saving is not a form of investment. Nor are they necessarily equal in amount, contrary to what some people say. Money could be borrowed for consumption which is not investment. And the government can either borrow or lend money and so unbalance the equation further.