"Stolen concept" a logical fallacy?

[AisA]

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?

Why is the demand that you provide reasons for your assertions “insulting”?

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.

Yes, I have read all of your posts in the two threads and what I see is a great deal of twisting and squirming to maintain your position. For instance, in post 29, you argue against the fallacy on the absurd notion that it would not work with an “anarcho-socialist” because he might have a different hierarchy of concepts -- which ignores the fact that, just as the test of the validity of an argument is not who will or will not accept it, so the test of whether or not a given argument is a fallacy is not determined by who will or will not recognize it as such. Those notions are a repudiation of the very concept of objectivity.

Also in post 29, you make the ridiculous claim that the fallacy of the stolen concept demands that one stop thinking at that point, abandon all further analysis and repudiate the principle of non-contradiction -- all of which is your invention and is, by the way, a classic example of the straw man fallacy.

You resurrect this straw man over and over again in post 51 and post 55. In post 58, you declare yourself to be a mind reader with this statement: “In EVERY case (of which I know) where Objectivists identify something as a FSC, they then simply dismiss it without further thought. That is a serious error.”

In post 33, in response to an example given by Jennifer, you muddy the water by noting that some tables are welded down and therefore do not qualify as furniture -- when you knew full well that this was completely irrelevant to Jennifer’s example.

In post 35 you introduce another smoke screen by bringing in the possibility of changing the definition of a concept and thereby rendering it meaningless, which you call “an instance of "using an undefined term (unformed concept)". This, you claim, is a real fallacy. You then attempt to cast doubt on the fallacy of the stolen concept on the preposterous basis that it is different from this other fallacy -- but that proves absolutely nothing.

In post 122, you make the outrageous accusation: “Taking FSC away would force (Objectivists) to face the fact that some of their ideas are false. Now, they are able to evade that by shooting down any argument against them as a ‘stolen concept‘”. Now, this is an example of an insult. You surely know that Objectivists have many arguments to offer other than the stolen concept.

I could list other examples from your posts, but the pattern is clear.

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.

This notion is too silly to take seriously. Furthermore, you are too intelligent to honestly believe that we helpless Objectivists are destroying our minds through the use of a false fallacy that deterministically forces us to abandon thought, discard logic, repudiate the law of non-contradiction and descend inevitably into mental disease -- a process that you must rescue us from by rooting out the insidious cancer of the fallacy of the stolen concept. Such a notion does not belong in the realm of rational discussion.

[jrs]

Why is the demand that you provide reasons for your assertions "insulting"?

It is not your demand for reasons which is insulting. It is your questioning of my motives and your assumption that they are malicious.

Yes, I have read all of your posts in the two threads and what I see is a great deal of twisting and squirming to maintain your position.

Yes. My squirming was caused by the fact that at that time I was trying to carry the burden of proving a negative. Now, I see that that is futile. You must first make clear what this alleged fallacy is by providing evidence for it, then I can agree with it or rip it apart.

That is all I have time for now. I will try to address the other issues after Christmas. Merry Saturnalia to all.

[jrs]

AisA: What kind of fallacy do you believe that "stolen concept" is? Deductive, definitional, inductive, propositional, or other?

Since I explained the requirements for a good example of a deductive fallacy in my Post #25, do you now accept that they are not "wholly arbitrary and preposterous"?

For instance, in post 29, you argue against the fallacy on the absurd notion that it would not work with an "anarcho-socialist" because he might have a different hierarchy of concepts -- which ignores the fact that, just as the test of the validity of an argument is not who will or will not accept it, so the test of whether or not a given argument is a fallacy is not determined by who will or will not recognize it as such. Those notions are a repudiation of the very concept of objectivity.

I was not using that as an argument against the existence of such a fallacy in general. I was saying that Proudhon may not have been committing it because he might have had a definition of "theft" which does not depend on "property". So instead, you might accuse him of having a nonstandard and inappropriate definition of "theft".

Since the argument being challenged is Proudhon's own argument, it is reasonable to try to understand it as he meant it rather than giving it some other meaning that you made up. After all, you would not dismiss his argument as meaningless because it was in French rather than in our language, English; would you? This is not a repudiation of objectivity. The meaning of words is not fixed by the laws of physics, but by the intentions of the author.

Also in post 29, you make the ridiculous claim that the fallacy of the stolen concept demands that one stop thinking at that point, abandon all further analysis and repudiate the principle of non-contradiction ...

Thinking that you have found the root cause of the contradiction (when you have not) will tempt you to stop looking further; which would cause you to miss the actual cause, the real fallacy.

In post 33, in response to an example given by Jennifer, you muddy the water by noting that some tables are welded down and therefore do not qualify as furniture -- when you knew full well that this was completely irrelevant to Jennifer's example.

Now *you* are pretending to read my mind. I was trying to understand her position by asking a question about whether it is the particular units used in forming the concept which are decisive or the distinguishing characteristics.

In post 35 you introduce another smoke screen by bringing in the possibility of changing the definition of a concept and thereby rendering it meaningless, which you call "an instance of "using an undefined term (unformed concept)". This, you claim, is a real fallacy. You then attempt to cast doubt on the fallacy of the stolen concept on the preposterous basis that it is different from this other fallacy -- but that proves absolutely nothing.

JMeganSnow believes that changing a definition is what the "fallacy of the stolen concept" is, last I heard. I was saying that FSC is something else; and thus that her argument does not rescue it. Maybe that is not important to you, but it would matter to her.

In post 122, you make the outrageous accusation: "Taking FSC away would force (Objectivists) to face the fact that some of their ideas are false. Now, they are able to evade that by shooting down any argument against them as a 'stolen concept'". Now, this is an example of an insult. You surely know that Objectivists have many arguments to offer other than the stolen concept.

Suppose someone who accepts FSC makes a mistake in his thinking which leads him to some false conclusion. And another person points out that this conclusion contradicts a result that the second person has established. The first person is able to label the second person's argument as fallacious on the ground that it contains FSC, even if there is actually nothing wrong with it. If the first person combined the two arguments together to get a "proof" of a contradiction, he would probably regard his own contribution as more fundamental. So the contradiction would be attributed to a FSC in the second person's part.

Furthermore, you are too intelligent to honestly believe that we helpless Objectivists are destroying our minds through the use of a false fallacy that deterministically forces us to abandon thought, ...

If you put on a blind-fold, does that deterministically force you to not see what is in front of you? You are free to take the blind-fold off at any time. But you are not free to see while you have it on.

As long as you blame contradictions on the wrong step in your thinking (as FSC does), you are not free to identify the actual fallacy and fix it.

[RationalBiker]

jrs,

What type of fallacy am I committing if I posit the following?

I do not exist.

[AisA]

Since I explained the requirements for a good example of a deductive fallacy in my Post #25, do you now accept that they are not "wholly arbitrary and preposterous"?

No, I don't. Any set of requirements that includes the notion that a non-Objectivist must approve of a fallacy before we are entitled to describe it as such is, at a minimum, arbitrary and preposterous.

Upholding the validity of a concept -- which one implicitly does when one uses the concept in a statement -- while simultaneously denying that which makes the concept valid -- is obviously a contradiction. It is a form of argument that superficially appears to be valid, but which examination shows to be invalid -- and that makes it a fallacy.

You have agreed that this form of argument is a contradiction; yet you deny that it is a fallacy, on the grounds (as I understand it) that it might not be the "root cause" of the contradiction, and that if we stop there, the results will be disastrous for our minds. The example you give speculates that Proudhon has a different definition of theft, one that does not depend on the concept of property. I have not read Proudhon, but it is clear that whatever definition he is using for "theft", he intends it to be a pejorative term, and intends to use it to discredit the concept of property.

Your objection to the stolen concept fallacy on the grounds that the speaker may be using different definitions is like saying that an ad hominem such as, "Candidate X is immoral, therefore his arguments are false", is not a fallacy because, after all, the speaker may have a different definition of "immoral" than we do.

Or, it is like saying that a non-sequitur such as, "This dog is yours; this dog is a father; therefore this dog is your father" is not a fallacy, because, after all, the speaker may have a different definition of "father" than we do.

Surely, with this approach we could blast virtually all fallacies on the grounds that we do not really know what the speaker intends his words to mean. But what is the sense in doing that?

The stolen concept is a fallacy. Once it is identified, the statement that contains it may be rejected. Whether or not one wishes to engage in additional analysis or discussion with the speaker depends on the context and on one's purpose. If I hear the Pope declare that "Reason must be accepted on faith", I dismiss the statement and do no further analysis; I don't have to ask the Pope to define what he means by faith to verify that he is guilty of concept stealing. If an intelligent friend makes the same statement, I will probably do more, such as point out the concept stealing and/or ask him to define his terms.

Knowledge of the stolen concept fallacy does not deter me from additional thinking or analysis; in fact, by clearing up the conceptual confusion induced by this fallacy, time and mental energy is freed to do more analysis than might otherwise be possible.

[jrs]

To show how you could give a proper example of the "fallacy of the stolen concept", if it existed, I give the following example of "begging the question" (aka "petitio principii" or "circular argument"):

1. If one person is married to another, then the latter is married to the former. (premise)

2. If Bill Clinton is married to Laura Bush, then Laura Bush is married to Bill Clinton. (instantiate 1)

3. Laura Bush is married to Bill Clinton. (modus ponens: detach 5 from 2) [fallacy]

4. If Laura Bush is married to Bill Clinton, then Bill Clinton is married to Laura Bush. (instantiate 1)

5. Bill Clinton is married to Laura Bush. (modus ponens: detach 3 from 4) [false conclusion]

The premise, #1, is true. #2 and #4 are true vacuously. #3 and #5 are false. Modus ponens may be valid, but in the case of #3, its minor premise, #5, is a subsequent step which is not allowed. This makes it an instance of "begging the question". #5 is a valid application of modus ponens; and it is also the false conclusion caused by the fallacy at #3.

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.

I previously dismissed this example. But as I was working up the above example of "begging the question", I realized that I could modify this to give an example which satisfies my requirements and is much closer to what I think Ayn Rand was getting at than any of the examples I have seen so far.

1. For any X, if Ayn Rand says X, then the dogmatist feels X. (premise)

2. Ayn Rand says that feelings are not a source of knowledge. (premise)

3. If Ayn Rand says that feelings are not a source of knowledge, then the dogmatist feels that feelings are not a source of knowledge. (instantiate 1)

4. The dogmatist feels that feelings are not a source of knowledge. (modus ponens: detach 2 from 3)

5. Feelings are a source of knowledge. (because this is the negation of step 6) [fallacy]

6. Feelings are not a source of knowledge. (apply 5 to 4)

7. Feelings are a source of knowledge. (reiterate 5) [false conclusion]

#1, #2, #3, #4, and #6 are true. #5 and #7 are false.

Notice that the justification for the fallacious step is truly bizarre -- "because this is the negation of" a subsequent step. I have never heard of anyone justifying something this way. But this is what one would have to have in order to qualify FSC as a real and distinct deductive fallacy.

Usually, in the cases which are alleged to be FSC, the real fallacy at that step, if it is at that step, is non sequitur or "using an undefined concept" or "argument from authority". Is this example FSC or another "straw-man"?

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.

If she was thinking of what I showed in the last example, then you are correct that it is not a reductio ad absurdum.

Fallacies in this context aren't related to deductive/formal logic; they're related to 'informal logic', or 'critical thinking'. In formal logic, you just have valid and invalid inferences, not fallacies as such.

So what is your position on "stolen concepts", Hal?

What type of fallacy am I committing if I posit the following?

I do not exist.

Without any justification being offered for it, it is an arbitrary assertion, i.e. a non sequitur.

[RationalBiker]

Without any justification being offered for it, it is an arbitrary assertion, i.e. a non sequitur.

I disagree that any further argumentation is needed to evaluate that truth of that assertion. As stated, it's a fallacious statement. My ability to make such statement subsumes my existence.

[AisA]

Without any justification being offered for it, it is an arbitrary assertion, i.e. a non sequitur.

An arbitrary assertion is not one that is merely offered without justification; it is one that has no relationship to reality, i.e. it cannot be established as true or false. The statement offered by RationalCop can be shown to be false, therefore it is not arbitrary.

RationalCop's statement is self-contradictory, but let me offer a better example of a stolen concept. Suppose you say, "All reality, including my existence, is but an illusion." The concept "illusion" gains meaning only in contrast to that which is real. If nothing is real, there is no way to arrive at or form the concept “illusion”. Thus, the concept "illusion" is stolen in an attempt to deny the very thing on which it depends: reality. That is the fallacy of the stolen concept.

[jrs]

What type of fallacy am I committing if I posit the following?

I do not exist.

Without any justification being offered for it, it is an arbitrary assertion, i.e. a non sequitur.

I disagree that any further argumentation is needed to evaluate that truth of that assertion. ... My ability to make such statement subsumes my existence.

Yes, I forgot definition of "arbitrary". "I [RationalCop] do not exist." is not arbitrary; it is false. But it is still a non sequitur; which is the fallacy of not providing a justification or providing a justification which does not fit the case.

... let me offer a better example of a stolen concept. Suppose you say, "All reality, including my existence, is but an illusion." The concept "illusion" gains meaning only in contrast to that which is real. If nothing is real, there is no way to arrive at or form the concept "illusion". Thus, the concept "illusion" is stolen in an attempt to deny the very thing on which it depends: reality. That is the fallacy of the stolen concept.

"reality", "existence", "illusion" and the other words in that sentence are all meaningful words -- they stand for valid concepts. That someone utters or believes the sentence does not change that fact. So no definitional fallacy has occurred.

The sentence is false. So the assertion of it implies that some fallacy has occurred. Which fallacy depends on the circumstances.

You have described some of the circumstances -- the ones which you think are sufficient for the fallacy, FSC, to have occurred. But you have not said what is the genus of FSC. Nor have you shown that it is actually a fallacy, i.e. that it introduces a falsehood (or meaninglessness) which would not otherwise exist.

Once [FSC] is identified, the statement that contains it may be rejected. Whether or not one wishes to engage in additional analysis or discussion with the speaker depends on the context and on one's purpose.

Once a CONTRADICTION has been identified in some OTHER person's argument, one may reasonably choose to ignore the argument.

But if you arrive at a contradiction in your own thinking (or if you have already internalized another person argument which reaches a contradiction), then you NEED to find out what your error was so that you can avoid repeating it in the future. This means determining for each step: whether its justification is valid or fallacious, and whether the step is true or false.

Knowledge of the stolen concept fallacy does not deter me from additional thinking or analysis; in fact, by clearing up the conceptual confusion induced by this fallacy, time and mental energy is freed to do more analysis than might otherwise be possible.

Please give an example of a case where "knowing" that something is FSC has helped you more than just knowing that a contradiction has occurred.

[RationalBiker]

Yes, I forgot definition of "arbitrary". "I [RationalCop] do not exist." is not arbitrary; it is false. But it is still a non sequitur; which is the fallacy of not providing a justification or providing a justification which does not fit the case.

So, is your argument that since the fallacy of non-sequitur was identified before the fallacy of the stolen concept that it "overrides" the FSC? Or is it your position that it is more pertinent in identifying the falsehood of the assertion? Both fallacies can fit the bill, but one more specifically identifies why the statement can NOT be true.

The fallacy of the stolen concept more specifically identifies why that statement can not be true. One can make a statement without further justification, making it non-sequitur, and it can still be a true statement. However, one cannot make a true statement which subsumes a concept which it is denying.

[AisA]

"reality", "existence", "illusion" and the other words in that sentence are all meaningful words -- they stand for valid concepts. That someone utters or believes the sentence does not change that fact. So no definitional fallacy has occurred.

The sentence is false. So the assertion of it implies that some fallacy has occurred. Which fallacy depends on the circumstances.

You have described some of the circumstances -- the ones which you think are sufficient for the fallacy, FSC, to have occurred. But you have not said what is the genus of FSC. Nor have you shown that it is actually a fallacy, i.e. that it introduces a falsehood (or meaninglessness) which would not otherwise exist.

Amazing. You have been shown numerous examples of a particular form of argument: the attempt to invalidate or render meaningless one concept (reality, for example) by using another concept (illusion, for example), where the validity of the second concept depends crucially on the first concept. It is, in fact, a common form of argument. You have been shown how this form of argument produces false, meaningless statements. You have agreed that the statements produced by this form of argument are false and meaningless. But you claim that we have not shown that this form of argument "introduces a falsehood or meaninglessness".

That is like agreeing that 1 + 1 = 2, but claiming we have not shown that 1 + 1 = 2

Look, jrs, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but at this point you are simply refusing to acknowledge the obvious.

[Inspector]

I had a question:

I didn’t think that the non-sequitur fallacy could identify a statement as false, merely as arbitrary. i.e. it simply means that the statement being asserted hasn’t been proven, rather than that it has been proven false.

Whereas a fallacy like Stolen Concept would mean that the statement was actually false.

If so, then Jrs’ assertion that a statement could be false merely on the grounds of non-sequitur would be inaccurate. It could only be identified as false by some other fallacy.

Is that correct?

[AisA]

Good point. A non sequitur does not prove the conclusion false; it merely identifies the fact that it does not follow from the premises provided.

Here is the classic example: If I am in Miami, I am in the United States. But I am not in Miami. Therefore, I am not in the United States. In this example it may well be true that you are not in the United States, but one cannot conclude that from the facts provided; the conclusion has not been proven false, it simply doesn't follow from the information provided.

[Inspector]

Good point. A non sequitur does not prove the conclusion false; it merely identifies the fact that it does not follow from the premises provided.

If that is true, then Jrs' statement that the syllogism is false is in contradiction with his claim that no fallacy besides non-sequitur is in play.

[dondigitalia]

Is this ever going to turn into a debate?

[jrs]

Any set of requirements that includes the notion that a non-Objectivist must approve of a fallacy before we are entitled to describe it as such is, at a minimum, arbitrary and preposterous.

I did NOT say that a non-Objectivist must approve of it. What I said was "(2) it must not be an example of another fallacy, so it must appear to be a valid step to non-Objectivists;". The second clause was intended to try to make sure that the first clause was clear by repeating it in other language. I did not say that you had to get the approval of a non-Objectivist. I was saying that if you (like a non-Objectivist) ignored the FSC, it would seem to be valid.

In any case, each person, whether Objectivist or not, must judge the example for himself, if and when it is presented.

It is a form of argument that superficially appears to be valid, but which examination shows to be invalid -- and that makes it a fallacy.

That is not the definition of a fallacy.

Your objection to the stolen concept fallacy on the grounds that the speaker may be using different definitions is like saying that an ad hominem such as, "Candidate X is immoral, therefore his arguments are false", is not a fallacy because, after all, the speaker may have a different definition of "immoral" than we do.

Before evaluating another person's argument, you should translate it from his language into your own language. There is no reason to think that the person making the statement you mentioned intended to deprive "immoral" of its pejorative meaning. And even if he did, no attribute of "Candidate X" could validate or invalidate his arguments.

But that is just a side issue. The more important point here is that you are accepting that (once translated) the words in a person's argument have an objective meaning independent of his character or intentions. So the meaning of "reality" and "illusion" in "All reality, including my existence, is but an illusion." cannot be compromised by the fact that the person has asserted that sentence.

The fallacy of the stolen concept more specifically identifies why that statement can not be true. ... However, one cannot make a true statement which subsumes a concept which it is denying.

dondigitalia gave an counter-example in Post #18:

[The dogmatists] 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.

So if one takes "Faith is not a means of obtaining knowledge." on faith, then one has made "a true statement which subsumes a concept which it is denying". Right?

You have been shown numerous examples of a particular form of argument: the attempt to invalidate or render meaningless one concept (reality, for example) by using another concept (illusion, for example), where the validity of the second concept depends crucially on the first concept. It is, in fact, a common form of argument. You have been shown how this form of argument produces false, meaningless statements. You have agreed that the statements produced by this form of argument are false and meaningless. But you claim that we have not shown that this form of argument "introduces a falsehood or meaninglessness".

The devil is in the details which you are ignoring. A "form of argument" may not be the same as the justification of a step which could be either valid or fallacious. If you want to make your case, you MUST get more specific about the arguments which you use as examples.

If so, then Jrs' assertion that a statement could be false merely on the grounds of non-sequitur would be inaccurate. It could only be identified as false by some other fallacy.

I did NOT say that "I [RationalCop] do not exist." was false BECAUSE it is a non sequitur. To show that it is false, I would have to make a different argument:

1. RationalCop posted "I do not exist.". (observation)

2. Every action is the action of an entity. (corollary to the axiom of identity)

3. RationalCop is an entity. (apply 2 to 1)

4. Every entity exists. (corollary to definition of entity)

5. RationalCop exists. (apply 4 to 3)

6. "I [RationalCop] do not exist." is false. (apply definition of false to 5)

Is this ever going to turn into a debate?

No one has volunteered to be the exclusive proponent of FSC, so we are just continuing the general free-for-all from the older thread.

[RationalBiker]

dondigitalia gave an counter-example in Post #18:

Okay, while I may be wrong that the FSC cannot be used in an otherwise true statement, I find it interesting that you would use an example you "refuted" to refute my example. So do you accept that his example demonstrates the FSC in a true statement, or did you refute that it was an example of the FSC? If the latter is the case, you can't use it to counter my example.

1. RationalCop posted "I do not exist.". (observation)

2. Every action is the action of an entity. (corollary to the axiom of identity)

3. RationalCop is an entity. (apply 2 to 1)

4. Every entity exists. (corollary to definition of entity)

5. RationalCop exists. (apply 4 to 3)

6. "I [RationalCop]do not exist." is false. (apply definition of false to 5)

In other words, FSC.

[AisA]

It is a form of argument that superficially appears to be valid, but which examination shows to be invalid -- and that makes it a fallacy.

That is not the definition of a fallacy.

From "An Introduction to Logic" by H.W.B. Joseph, page 566: A fallacy is an argument which appears to be conclusive when it is not."

From "Logic, an Introduction" by Lionel Ruby, page 416: "A fallacy is an error in reasoning in an argument which claims to be valid."

What is your definition and why is it valid and those above invalid?

Before evaluating another person's argument, you should translate it from his language into your own language. There is no reason to think that the person making the statement you mentioned intended to deprive "immoral" of its pejorative meaning. And even if he did, no attribute of "Candidate X" could validate or invalidate his arguments.

But that is just a side issue. The more important point here is that you are accepting that (once translated) the words in a person's argument have an objective meaning independent of his character or intentions. So the meaning of "reality" and "illusion" in "All reality, including my existence, is but an illusion." cannot be compromised by the fact that the person has asserted that sentence.

If this is true, why would you argue against the fallacy of the stolen concept on the grounds that we do not know the speaker's definitions?

The devil is in the details which you are ignoring. A "form of argument" may not be the same as the justification of a step which could be either valid or fallacious. If you want to make your case, you MUST get more specific about the arguments which you use as examples.

So a form of argument that is inherently fallacious, i.e. an argument that produces nothing but fallacies, is not a fallacy, because it does not pass the special, additional jrs test of being "the same as the justification of a step which could be either valid or fallacious." And this additional jrs requirement is justified by what, exactly?