Hi Rick,
RICK:
I believe you have bought into the (very common) rhetorical fallacy often
referred to as "the fallacy of self-inclusion".
Rhetorical fallacy? An oxymoron. Rhetoricians don�t hesitate to use
fallacious logic if it serves their purpose. What I�ve �bought into� as you
put it is the logical fallacy of self-contradiction.
RICK:
In a nutshell, the fallacy is the uinsupported assertion that rules must
address themselves. There is nothing (logically) wrong with saying
"there are no absolutes" because what the statement really means is
"there are no absolutes other than the fact that there are no
absolutes"....
In other words, �there are no absolutes� is a proposition that means
something other than the proposition. Since when are guess-what-I-
mean propositions valid? Maybe you can get away with that in rhetoric
(skill in using language persuasively, i.e. slick) but not logic (valid
reasoning).
RICK:
. . . or with your other example "all truths other than this one depend on
context and this truth applies to all contexts"....
In other words, �all truths are relative except this one which is absolute
and applies to all contexts except this one.� Cool.
RICK:
Unfortunately I'm bit rushed now, otherwise I'd elaborate more. I
recommend that you consult a book on rhetoric or everyday
argumentation for more on the fallacy of self-inclusion.
Unfortunately, I�m also a bit rushed, otherwise I�d further elaborate. I
recommend that you consult a book on logic or critical thinking for
more on the fallacy of self-contradiction.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
