Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

"Stolen concept" a logical fallacy?

Rate this topic


HaloNoble6

Recommended Posts

A nod to Burgess here, since I'm using his general format for proposing this debate.

PROPOSED TOPIC

I am proposing a debate, the general subject of which is logic. The particular topic is an analysis of Ayn Rand's "fallacy of the stolen concept." Namely, the debate question is: "Is the fallacy of the stolen concept, as understood by Ayn Rand, truly a fallacy?"

DEBATERS

I do not have a side to take here, since I do not have any experience in formal logic: I call for someone knowledgeable in logic and who is confident in his position that the stolen concept is a fallacy. "jrs" has already agreed to take the opposing side.

It doesn't appear to me that the position on the fallacy of the stolen concept is part of O'ism, since it really is an aspect of the specialized art of non-contradictory identification. On the other hand, I'm not sure if this falacy plays any role in Ayn Rand's theory of proper concept formation. Eitherway, at first glance her position on this doesn't appear to me to be part of Objectivism proper, so this really isn't Objectivism vs. challenger, it is "advocate of Ayn Rand's logic" vs. challenger.

CONDITIONS

Once the pro-stolen-concept slot has been filled, please use this thread to agree upon conditions. I have two conditions of my own, however.

-I would like all important terms clearly defined. These include, but aren't limited to: concept, logic, fallacy.

-Additionally, I would like to see direct quotes, with citations, that clearly indicate what Ayn Rand thought the "stolen concept" was. Additionally, what special place the term "fallacy" has within the context of formal logic, and whether or not Ayn Rand was using the term "fallacy" in this special sense.

Questions? Comments?

Edited by Felipe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... the debate question is: "Is the fallacy of the stolen concept, as understood by Ayn Rand, truly a fallacy?".

My position is that no such fallacy exists, if it is understood to be a distinct (i.e. newly discovered) deductive fallacy.

The onus of proof rule states the following. If a person asserts that a certain entity exists (such as God, gremlins, a disembodied soul), he is required to adduce evidence supporting his claim. If he does so, one must either accept his conclusion, or disqualify his evidence by showing that he has misinterpreted certain data.

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.

"jrs" has already agreed to take the opposing side.

I see that you have "volunteered" me already. I accept.

It doesn't appear to me that the position on the fallacy of the stolen concept is part of Objectivism, since it really is an aspect of the specialized art of non-contradictory identification.
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 all important terms clearly defined. These include, but aren't limited to: concept, logic, fallacy.

I would like to wait on this until we see whether a proponent steps forward.

Additionally, what special place the term "fallacy" has within the context of formal logic, and whether or not Ayn Rand was using the term "fallacy" in this special sense.
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.

Additionally, I would like to see direct quotes, with citations, that clearly indicate what Ayn Rand thought the "stolen concept" was.

There are several different wordings which follow:

The fallacy consists of the act of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends.

The hierarchical nature of man's knowledge implies an important principle that must guide man's reasoning: When one uses concepts, one must recognize their genetic roots, one must recognize that which they logically depend on and presuppose.

Failure to observe this principle ... constitutes the fallacy of the stolen concept.

The fallacy consists in using a higher-level concept while denying or ignoring its hierarchical roots, i.e., one or more of the earlier concepts on which it logically depends.

... "the stolen concept" is the other side, the reverse, of "petitio principii." If this last is "begging the question" or "assuming that which you are attempting to prove," then "the stolen concept" is "begging the answer" or "assuming that which you are attempting to disprove."

...concept stealing...attempting to negate reason by means of reason...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(2) it must not be an example of another fallacy, ...
To clarify: are you saying that you concede that "stolen concept" is a fallacy, but you are saying it is a fallacy already known by a different name, or perhaps a minor variation of another fallacy?

Here is a quote that points to Ayn Rand's thought on the relationship between "stolen concept" and other fallacies. [i say "points to", because Journals were not written for publication.]

... "context-dropping" is really the wider (and more modern) name for Aristotle's "ignoratio elenchi"; and "the stolen concept" is the other side, the reverse, of "petitio principii." If this last is "begging the question" or "assuming that which you are attempting to prove," then "the stolen concept'' is "begging the answer" or "assuming that which you are attempting to disprove." (Many instances of "the stolen concept" are, in fact, instances of "petitio principii," such as ...etc.
[Note: I do not put this forth as part of the debate. I merely want to draw the lines clearly, so we know exactly what the debate is about.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that you have "volunteered" me already. I accept.
Excuse me, I didn't mean to presume you would accept to be a participant. I had thought the following was tantamount to volunteering for the debate.

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.
Edited by Felipe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"[...] "the stolen concept" is the other side, the reverse, of "petitio principii." If this last is "begging the question" or "assuming that which you are attempting to prove," then "the stolen concept" is "begging the answer" or "assuming that which you are attempting to disprove." - Ayn Rand (Journals of Ayn Rand, pg 704)

Given that that quote is not improperly out of context (I have no reason to think that it is) and putting aside the use-mention confusion caused by the quotation marks within the quote, then use of stolen concept (as 'stolen concept' is defined by that quote) is valid and pervasive in correct reasoning - both formally and infromally.

First though, just to be clear, about question begging:

P -> P

is valid.

What is invalid is

(P -> P) -> P.

About stolen concept (where 'F' can be any contradiction):

(P -> F) -> ~ P

is valid both classically, intuitionistically, and both formally and informally.

If one wishes to prove the denial of P, then it is valid to assume P, derive a contradiction, and infer the denial of P. But, per the quote by Ayn Rand, that would be use of stolen concept. Therefore, it is incorrect to claim that stolen concept is invalid, whether formally or informally. In fact, stolen concept is used pervasively as a valid argument. If you were ever on trial for murder but innocent of the crime, I would hope your lawyer would not flinch from using the valid argument, which is an instance of stolen concept: Assume my client is the murderer. We know that the murderer has type A blood. My client does not have type A blood. Therefore, the murderer has type A blood and the murderer does not have type A blood. That's a contradiction. Therefore, my client is not the murderer. (You wish to disprove that you are the murderer. You assume that which you wish to disprove, so you assume that you are the murderer. Then, from that assumption, usually along with other propositions held to be the case, you derive a contradiction. You correctly infer that you have disproven that which you wish to disprove.)

Edited by LauricAcid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LauricAcid, so are you volunteering for the pro-stolen-concept side of the debate?
(1) I wouldn't call my position 'pro stolen concept'. A better description of my position, as this point (pending definition and clarification of terms) is 'use of stolen concept as defined by Ayn Rand in the mentioned quote is not in itself fallacious'. (2) At this time I don't commit to a debate since I do not know that my changing schedule and availability of free time will allow me to participate with the regularity that one might expect in a debate. (3) For the most part, I'm happy to see what arguments jrs will have, but wouldn't mind throwing in my two cents also whenever I have a couple of cents that haven't been mentioned. (4) The purpose of my previous post is just to highlight, that, personally, I wouldn't mind the initial focus of the debate being the quote that jrs posted along with some context as I mentioned in my own post. Edited by LauricAcid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand. What schedule would be reasonable for you to be able to participate as jrs's opponent? We can take it reasonably slow if you wish.
Thank you for these invitations, Felipe, but there seems to be a misunderstanding. I do not oppose jrs's view on this matter; but rather, I basically I agree with him. I say 'basically', since I don't necessarily agree with every detail in his analysis of the matter (as well as, jrs and I do disagree on certain matters that arise in connection with this subject, as seen by some of our discussions in the previous thread about stolen concept). So it seems to me that, if jrs will take one side in the debate, what you need now is someone to argue that Ayn Rand does correctly classify that the following is fallacious: Assume what you wish to disprove. Anyway, I'm not disposed to commit to a debate, but only would like to be allowed to comment at my convenience. But if you prefer to have only committed debate participants, then I understand and do not disrespect that preference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The older thread on "stolen concept" is at:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=3454

Objectivism refers to any attempt to apply a concept outside its proper scope as "context-dropping." One form of context-dropping is considered a major and dangerous fallacy: the "fallacy of the stolen concept." The stolen concept fallacy consists of invoking a concept while denying the more fundamental concepts on which it depends. Much like the classical logical fallacy of "assuming what you are supposed to prove", the stolen concept fallacy is a fallacy of "assuming what you overtly deny."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_epistemology

Here is another take on what "stolen concept" means, from Wikipedia.

To clarify: are you saying that you concede that "stolen concept" is a fallacy, but you are saying it is a fallacy already known by a different name, or perhaps a minor variation of another fallacy?

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.".

I had thought the following was tantamount to volunteering for the debate.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, after reading some of the original thread, I realize that you actually do think that "stolen concept" is the identification of a contradiction. Your objections seem to be two-fold:

  1. The identification of the contradiction is made in a way that does not pin-point the mistake being made (the mistake in thinking)
  2. This type identification of contradiction (of which the "stolen concept" is one form) cannot be described as a "fallacy". In other words, what you're saying is that every pattern that helps identify faulty argument is not necessarily a "fallacy", and the "stolen concept" is one type of non-fallcy identification of contradiction.

Does that sumamrize your position correctly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The identification of a contradiction is made in a way that does not pin-point the mistake being made (the mistake in thinking).

2. This identification of a contradiction (of which the "stolen concept" is one form) cannot be described as a fallacy. In other words, not every pattern that helps identify a faulty argument is necessarily a fallacy, and the "stolen concept" is one type of non-fallacious identification of a contradiction.

Does that summarize your position correctly?

(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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, then, would you say is the essential characteristic necessary for something to be considered a fallacy?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
If the "root cause" of a contradiction is the denial or ignorance of a concept's hierarchical roots, what else is there to do but point this out by identifying it as a stolen concept? And what possible "corrective action" is there other than requiring the other party to respect and acknowledge those hierarchical roots?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A (deductive) proof is a sequence of propositions with the last step being the theorem. Each proposition must be justified.

Then, do you mean to confine "fallacy" to deduction only? If so, then by your use of the term "fallacy" I would have to agree. Ayn Rand's description of the fallacy of the stolen concept is not a description of a type of invalid deductive proof, however.

Incidentally, the fallacy of the stolen concept does yield a contradiction when applied to a truth. Objectivist dogmatists do this quite a lot, in fact. Their entire mode of operation is: Ayn Rand said faith is not a means of obtaining knowledge, therefore faith is not a means of obtaining knowledge. Faith certainly isn't a means of obtaining knowledge, but the reason why isn't because Ayn Rand said so, and that statement implicitly makes use of the concept "faith" while attempting to deny it.

Edited by dondigitalia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the "root cause" of a contradiction is the denial or ignorance of a concept's hierarchical roots, what else is there to do but point this out by identifying it as a stolen concept?

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.

Then, do you mean to confine "fallacy" to deduction only?

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).

Incidentally, the fallacy of the stolen concept does yield a contradiction when applied to a truth. Objectivist dogmatists do this quite a lot, in fact. Their entire mode of operation is: Ayn Rand said faith is not a means of obtaining knowledge, therefore faith is not a means of obtaining knowledge. Faith certainly isn't a means of obtaining knowledge, but the reason why isn't because Ayn Rand said so, and that statement implicitly makes use of the concept "faith" while attempting to deny it.
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?

The concept of faith does not pertain to the content of a man's ideas, but to the method by which they are to be accepted. "Faith" designates blind acceptance of a certain ideational content, acceptance induced by feeling in the absence of evidence or proof.

So faith amounts to allowing feelings to take the place of reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
So, using a concept -- which means: counting on the validity and meaning of the concept -- while denying its heirarchical roots -- which means: while denying the very thing that makes the concept valid and gives it meaning -- is not a contradiction? We may invoke the validity of a concept while simultaneously denying the things that make the concept valid -- and not be guilty of a contradiction? Is that your position?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

:sigh: You've been given several examples of just that.

And Atlas51184 claimed that "stolen concept" is a propositional fallacy (whatever that is).
I have no clue what he means, either, so I'm not gonna touch that one.

"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.

The fallacy doesn't necessarily mean a use of the concept qua concept, just some implicit acceptance of it. You're misunderstanding.

"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.

I don't understand what this has to do with anything.

At any rate, I've pretty much said my piece. I'm not interested in debating the validity of this as a fallacy, which is why I declined Felipe's nomination. My purpose in getting involved in the discussion(s) on stolen concepts was to clear up the notion that Ayn Rand was rejecting reductio ad absurdum, which she certainly wasn't, and I think I've accomplished that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I recognize definitional fallacies and deductive fallacies.
What would you call the use of a strawman, or an ad hominem? Fallacies in this context arent related to deductive/formal logic; theyre related to 'informal logic', or 'critical thinking'. In formal logic, you just have valid and invalid inferences, not fallacies as such.

P => Q
Q
you smell bad
----------
P[/code]

This isnt really what people have in mind when they are talking about ad hominems.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We may invoke the validity of a concept while simultaneously denying the things that make the concept valid -- and not be guilty of a contradiction? Is that your position?

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.

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.

:sigh: You've been given several examples of just that.

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:

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 suggest that in the future you tailor your examples to these requirements.

What would you call the use of a straw-man, or an ad hominem?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
So you agree that it is a contradiction, but deny that it is a fallacy. Why would that be the case? Because you say so? And why, exactly, do you wish to split that particular hair? Is it because you are bound and determined to find something in Objectivism that you believe you can prove to be false?

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:

QUOTE(jrs @ Post #2)

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 the game you are playing now. This is a wholly arbitrary and preposterous set of “requirements”.

1) It establishes you – as a “non-objectivist” – as the sole judge of what is or is not a fallacy. As long as you claim that you never considered a particular type of argument to be “a valid step”, you can rule it out as a fallacy. It means Objectivists cannot identify something as a fallacy without your agreement. Why not just establish, as a rule of the debate, that you must be declared the winner, no matter what? Such a rule would be no more arbitrary than this nonsense.

2) It restricts fallacies to multi-step arguments, when, in fact, some of the best examples of the stolen concept are found in simple assertions. Again, why not just demand that the rules of the debate stipulate you as the winner?

The burden of proof argument cannot be stretched to include the notion that you alone will decide the criteria for establishing a fallacy. Any discussion under such terms is a waste of time.

The value of identifying the stolen concept fallacy is, at least in part, that it allows one to refute such assertions as, “Property is theft”. While one could also respond to such an assertion by demanding proof or declaring it arbitrary, it is extremely useful to show the contradiction that is inherent in such a statement. I cannot imagine what you hope to gain by agreeing that a particular statement is inherently contradictory but does not constitute a fallacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you agree that it is a contradiction, but deny that it is a fallacy. Why would that be the case? Because you say so? And why, exactly, do you wish to split that particular hair? Is it because you are bound and determined to find something in Objectivism that you believe you can prove to be false?

Why do you feel that it is necessary to be insulting? Is it because you have no rational arguments?

My position is true, not because I say so, but for the reasons which I have tried, at enormous length, to explain in these two threads.

If you are determined to find an ulterior motive for my actions, it is this -- I want to save you-all from destroying your minds by accepting this notion (that there is a fallacy of the "stolen concept") which tends to prevent you from correcting the errors in your thinking.

Nothing would make me happier than if Objectivism were 100% true; but it is just not so.

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.

This is a wholly arbitrary and preposterous set of "requirements".

No. I asked myself what would someone like Aristotle have to do to determine whether some syllogism (or other type of argument) was fallacious or valid. I concluded that he would have to presume that the method was valid unless he could find a counter-example. A counter-example would consist of a case where the method led to a clearly false result when given clearly true data, because that is what it means for the method to be fallacious. These requirements are just an attempt to spell out clearly what that counter-example would look like in this case.

1. I am concerned here about whether "stolen concept" is a distinct deductive fallacy; it would not be a problem if it were a definitional fallacy. So I put the counter-example in the context of a deductive argument, i.e. a sequence of steps. The other steps (if any) are required to be valid because, if they were fallacious, they would obscure the case since they might then be the cause of the false conclusion.

2. If the step in question was some other known fallacy, then that could be the reason for the false conclusion rather than because it is a "stolen concept". So it is required not be another known fallacy.

3. If a premise were false, then that could be the cause of the false conclusion. So they are all required to be true.

4. The conclusion must be false because the ability of the "stolen concept" to produce a false conclusion is the defining characteristic of a fallacy.

It establishes you – as a "non-Objectivist" – as the sole judge of what is or is not a fallacy. As long as you claim that you never considered a particular type of argument to be "a valid step", you can rule it out as a fallacy. It means Objectivists cannot identify something as a fallacy without your agreement.
If and when an example is presented which purportedly meets these requirement, each of us can and will judge for himself whether it actually does so. I am not trying to prevent you from making an independent and objective decision on that. You can check the standard lists of fallacies (relative to requirement #2) just as well as I can.

It restricts fallacies to multi-step arguments, when, in fact, some of the best examples of the stolen concept are found in simple assertions.

I was ALLOWING multiple steps, not requiring them. If you can show that a proposition which is normally a postulate becomes false when it is a "stolen concept", then please do so.

The burden of proof argument cannot be stretched to include the notion that you alone will decide the criteria for establishing a fallacy.
I am not deciding it arbitrarily, as you suggest. I was trying to help you by explaining what I think would work, if "stolen concept" were truly a fallacy. If you can discover another method of carrying the burden, then please explain what it is.

While one could also respond to such an assertion by demanding proof or declaring it arbitrary, it is extremely useful to show the contradiction that is inherent in such a statement.

Fine. Go ahead. Just do not abuse the concept of "fallacy" by calling it that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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