Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

"You'll understand when you're older."

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

It's occurred to me that "you'll understand when you're older" must be a logical fallacy. Is it simply argument from authority with a little spice?

While it certainly can and maybe regularly is used as a fallacy, it can be a valid response as well. In the latter case it would mean: "To make a convincing argument would take more effort than I am willing to spend right now, but I believe that you will learn much of this argument anyways over time since it is common knowledge in our society."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they mean that you need more experience to understand something, then it can be legitimate; for example, a three-year old indeed does not understand what falling in love means as well as a thirty-year old does.

But all too often, the people who say this do not refer to the experience that can be gained with age, but rather to motives for evasion that they have picked up over the years. As a young child, you might not "understand" why one should believe that a God exists if there is no evidence for it, but to a person who has just turned fifty and realizes that he has squandered his most productive years without realizing any of his dreams, the idea of an eternal afterlife suddenly starts to "make a lot of sense."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one sure test to check if it is being used as a fallacy is to ask if there are no other people of your age who have accepted or "understood" his position. Or, even better, if there are no intelligent older people (of his age) who have rejected his position. Expect another fallacy to be unleashed on you at this stage!

As a fallacy, it is a type of an argument from authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fallacy is that getting older, on its own, does not make you smarter. In fact, you may still not understand when you're older.

Edit: And the person who made that claim, being older, may not understand what he thinks he understands... since his entire justification is based on being old. :-)

Edited by freestyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's occurred to me that "you'll understand when you're older" must be a logical fallacy. Is it simply argument from authority with a little spice?

It's not a logical fallacy; you'll understand why when you're older.

edit: This is a rhetorical fallacy. There is no logic here, it is just a means to block the discussion. Now you are older and wiser.

Edited by Grames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's occurred to me that "you'll understand when you're older" must be a logical fallacy. Is it simply argument from authority with a little spice?

Well, apart from being presumptuous and patronising, it is often evasive.

Who says you don't have the capability to understand right now?

But, on the other hand, be wary of the reverse assumption, that time plays no part in increasing your understanding - because it most certainly does in the case of a tirelessly searching mind.

Ageing has its advantages B) . Not the least of which is the narrowing of focus down to what is most important to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's occurred to me that "you'll understand when you're older" must be a logical fallacy. Is it simply argument from authority with a little spice?

No proposition is a "logical fallacy." Logical fallacies, by definition, only occur in arguments.

Edited by ctrl y
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought this song was an excellent response to the "someday you'll understand" position:

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/c/creedence+cle...s_20034342.html

"First thing I remember was askin' papa, "Why?",

For there were many things I didn't know.

And Daddy always smiled; took me by the hand,

Sayin', "Someday you'll understand."

Well, I'm here to tell you now each and ev'ry mother's son

You better learn it fast; you better learn it young,

'Cause, "Someday" Never Comes."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I would go with "ad hominem", since it's a refusal to attack the argument and instead disingenuously attack the person who made the argument.

Your argument is wrong because you'll understand when you're older.

I hereby give my vote to Black Wolf! It is an ad hominem, if substituted for reasons.

-- Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...