Here, I publish thought fallacies in anticipation of putting together an interactive presentation with a list of thought fallacies. The first thought fallacy is The Switcheroo in meaning of terms.
Switcheroo for the soundbyte generation:
1. Make a claim, often to objectivity.
2. Redefine the variables of the claim in a way no one actually uses the terms.
3. Reassert the claims while importing the original meanings, hoping that people do not notice that you have redefined them in a way as to make your argument invalid.
Example:
1. Being gay is objectively wrong.
2. What is objectively wrong is determined by our present studies of population genetics which suggests lower chances of survival of the population if there are lower rates of procreation due to homosexual activity. If studies show overpopulation, then being gay may be right according to the science, so it is relative to the population being studied but the science makes the determination objective.
3. Therefore being gay is objectively wrong.
In the example, objectively is defined in a way that most people would consider relativity. Objectivity usually means that something is wrong in all circumstances whatsoever. The reasserted claim attempts to reclaim that sense of the word objective, blinding you to the fact that it has been redefined.
A good example is the argument in Sam Harris's book about objective morality, The Moral Landscape.
-
The Moral Landscape
Book by Sam Harris
The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values is a book by Sam Harris. In it, he promotes a science of morality and argues that many thinkers have long confused the relationshi…
Here's how he does the switcheroo.
1. Morality is objective. (example, being gay is objectively wrong. Harris does not make this claim; it's just an example.)
2. Morality is a scientific determination of "which values lead to human flourishing".
(Notice: This is NOT what is often meant by morality. Most religious moralists consider whatever is their interpretation of their holy book to be what is right. Some consider extinction of humans to be best, not the flourishing of human life. He is switched the meaning of morality to something that is often not what is meant by morality. Morality also has as an integral part of it's meaning, the idea that it is not objective, it is uncertain, and therefore open to infinite arguments.)
Also, "a scientific determination" is NOT what is meant by 'objective'. Most people mean by objective, not that which is determined by science, but what is the case in any possible circumstances, in any world, sometimes determined by god, or determined by the universe and a gazillion other arbitrary and biased methods of their choosing.
3. We can attempt to determine objectively, according to the methods of science, which values lead humans to more pleasant experiences. (true enough)
4. Thus morality is objective. Here's the switcheroo. He has redefined objectivity as 'scientific determination' but when he reasserts, he attempts to import the usual meaning: right or wrong under any situation, independent of science or any other method. Objectively right. Objectively wrong.
More on this if the situation dictates. Done for now. Grain of salt people. And don't watch the Ferguson fiasco and get caught up in racial politics so the politicians can use you as a door mat.
Later friends.
DF Seldon
