|
The fallacy of suppressed correlative is a type of argument that tries to redefine a correlative (one of two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, i.e. making one alternative impossible. This has also been known as the fallacy of lost contrast and the fallacy of the suppressed relative. ==Description== A conceptual example: :Person 1: "All things are either X or not X." ''(The correlatives: X–not X.)'' :Person 2: "I define X such that all things that you claim are not X are included in X." ''(The suppressed correlative: not X.)'' Alternatively Person 2 can redefine X in way that instead concludes all things are not X. A simple example based on one by Alexander Bain: :Person 1: "Things are either mysterious or not mysterious. Exactly when an earthquake will strike is still a mystery, but how blood circulates in the body is not." :Person 2: "''Everything'' is mysterious. There are still things to be learned about how blood circulates." Regardless of whether Person 2's statement about blood circulation is true or not, the redefinition of "mysterious" is so broad that it omits significant contrast in the level of scientific understanding between earthquakes and blood circulation. Bain argues that if we hold the origin of the universe as equally mysterious against simple equations such as 3×4=12, it seems unimaginable what kind of concepts would be described as ''non''-mysterious. Through redefinition "mysterious" has lost any useful meaning, he says. The redefinition is not always so obvious. At first glance it might appear reasonable to define brakes as "a method to quickly stop a vehicle"; however, this permits all vehicles to be described as having brakes. Any car could be driven into a sturdy barrier to stop it, but to therefore say the car has brakes seems absurd. This type of fallacy is often used in conjunction with one of the fallacies of definition. It is an informal fallacy.〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Suppressed correlative」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|