Difference without distinction

mchasewalker writes:

I would, and have, argued that the obsolete classification of race has been scientifically discredited, and therefore "racism'' can only be determined to be a stubborn residual superstition or prejudice that a person's skin color, philology, or nationality somehow qualifies them as a separate "race". A claim that is factually false and inherently ignorant. 

In fact, there is no such thing as a Black, Asian, Jewish, Caucasian, Hispanic, Native American, or "other" race - superior, inferior, or otherwise.  The more up-to-date and accurate description is ethnicity, while racism itself is basically a  pseudo-scientific hold-over from our nescient past. 

The perpetuation of the falsified classification of race is on par with other ancient superstitions, beliefs, and practices in phrenology,  creationism, ritualistic murder, blood sacrifice, haruspicy, astrology, soothsaying, and 19th-century spiritualism. 

So the claim, 'all white people are racist' can be readily dismissed prima facie. Since the previous classification of a race does not exist, racism is just a more specific expression of ignorance.   

Therefore the claim 'All white people are racist' would be tantamount to asserting all white people are ignorant. While it is more accurate to say all white people are ignorant of something, it is just as viable to claim all human beings are ignorant of something. 

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

Yes, you've parsed my logic correctly. Effectively a certain word (representing a category) has requirements that need to be satisfied in order to admit new members (something that can be described by that word), and what woke people often do is redraw the boundaries until the category contains members that have little/nothing in common with one another.

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

Rejecting the argument that all white people are racist because not all white people are equally racist is an example of the argument of the beard  (this does not mean the statement is correct, only your argument is a fallacy).

You didn't parse the argument correctly.

It wasn't "all S is P is false because not all S are equally P"; if that were the case then it would indeed be a fallacious argument because the two statements (as connected by that 'because') wouldn't imply each other.

For instance - John and Jack are both racist; John is a KKK member while Jack is a very right-wing Republican. They both make comments about 'the blacks' and blame black people for their oppression. Nonetheless, only John goes out and marches in white nationalist rallies and even tried to get a lynching going last week. Jack is  less  racist, but still holds discriminatory views, so he is still  racist overall.

Then there's Jill, who votes Democratic, has a black partner and supports police reform. You could argue that she's "still white", but how relevant is this information compared to her actions as a person? She doesn't hold racist views, so where does she fit in the discussion?

The argument in the OP is that racial attitudes exist on a continuum from, say, 'extremely racist' to 'not racist.' These are two poles of the continuum, and between them exist a spectrum of states, from 'racist' to 'less racist'. If a white person exists on the spectrum and isn't really racist, then eventually it makes less sense to use the same word to describe them, since they will eventually pass the threshold for not being racist.

It's like saying "all toast is burnt" because it is placed in the toaster, whether it was put in for ~20 seconds or 20 minutes. As Dr Bo points out, this is how words lose their meaning.

A lot of your arguments above also fall in the fallacy of division as well, an individual white person being anti-racist does not mean that white people as a group are not racist.  Individuals can have characteristics that the group they are part of does not possess.

This doesn't make any sense.

P1) All white people are racist.

P2) Bob is white.

P3) Bob is anti-racist

...it doesn't work, because P3 contradicts P1. If you're saying all then it means...'all'. The 'fallacy of division' doesn't apply here. All S is P means each and every single one.

GoblinCookie writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

The statement, "All White People" are racist is meant as a strawman, an example of an argument that is clearly wrong.  I am not arguing the argument is not wrong, I am arguing the statement is not logically fallacious (logically sound does not mean correct).  You have provided the reason why it is wrong, if you can find just one example of a white person that isn't racist then the statement is wrong.  That is why *All* X is Y statements tend to be rhetorically powerful but usually wrong.  A better statement would be just White People are Racist. 

When I say"the toast is burnt" or "X person is racist" I did not define how wide my spectrum was when I said it, basically I am making an absolute statement that could be logically applied to any amount of racism or combustion.  This is why Difference without Distinction is not a fallacy, because it means you would be able arbitrarily move goalposts on anything by interpreting a general word to mean only it's most extreme example, basically a form of the argument of the beard.

There is a way that All White People Are Racist can be correct however.  That is if we are not talking about individual white people at all but classes, strata or groups of white people (ie Peoples).  That white people as a group subdivides directly into individual white people is an assumption.

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To GoblinCookie]

The statement, "All White People" are racist is meant as a strawman, an example of an argument that is clearly wrong.  I am not arguing the argument is not wrong, I am arguing the statement is not logically fallacious (logically sound does not mean correct).  You have provided the reason why it is wrong, if you can find just one example of a white person that isn't racist then the statement is wrong.  That is why *All* X is Y statements tend to be rhetorically powerful but usually wrong.  A better statement would be just White People are Racist. 

Statements on their own are not fallacious unless part of an implicit/explicit argument, and that's exactly what we're discussing here. See Dr Bo's reply to my OP for a deconstruction of the thought process behind the phrase.

When I say"the toast is burnt" or "X person is racist" I did not define how wide my spectrum was when I said it, basically I am making an absolute statement that could be logically applied to any amount of racism or combustion.  This is why Difference without Distinction is not a fallacy, because it means you would be able arbitrarily move goalposts on anything by interpreting a general word to mean only it's most extreme example, basically a form of the argument of the beard.

No, the Continuum Fallacy occurs when it is argued that because there is no binary/clear distinction between two states on a continuum that there is no distinction at all. That is not what is argued when someone claims that not all whites are racist. It is being argued that the "all" statement is false because the predicate does not apply to all members of the subject set. If Every S is P, then all members of S must bear P - if not, then it is not a correct statement. You are quick to mention moving of the goalposts, yet that is exactly what is done here when someone stretches a word to cover not just extreme examples, but also non-examples, by attempting to change the parameters of the word such that it loses meaning.

There is a way that All White People Are Racist can be correct however.  That is if we are not talking about individual white people at all but classes, strata or groups of white people (ie Peoples).  That white people as a group subdivides directly into individual white people is an assumption.

This still doesn't make sense.

Every S is P. 

Jane is S.

Jane is not P

"But the group doesn't divide into the individual"

Except you used an "every" statement, which in logic, refers to every member. It would be more accurate to simply say "some white people are racist" or "historically, whites have perpetrated oppression against blacks in America." This allows you to generalise without being sweeping.

Another example: "Men sometimes behave in ways that are predatory or harassing towards women."

This is an accurate generalisation of male behaviour, which isn't sweeping ("all men are harassers").

GoblinCookie writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

Remember that nobody is arguing here that All White People are Racist.  I am arguing that the statement is not fallacious, it is factually wrong but not a fallacy.  If we rephrased it to All White Peoples are Racist, then the statement is a lot stronger however. 

The reason that the converse of distinction without a difference is not a genuine fallacy is because since language is ultimately finite almost every statement would become it.  There are always any number of differences without distinction, because there are near-infinite distinctions and only finite words to describe them all. 

No an every/all statement does not necessarily refer to the individuals.  You can make an Every Statement about a group's component groups without ever making it about the individuals that make up those component groups.  An every statement can be true of all smaller groups that make up a larger group while some individuals that make up the smaller groups are exceptional.  We are only in trouble if any of the subgroups do not fit the bill. 

Person (the singular) has three plurals.  As I understand the meanings are as follows.

People: A group of person.
Peoples: A group of groups of people.
Persons: A group of dis-unified individual person (a classification group not a concrete one)

The thing is we still don't have enough words.  Because there is no requirement that the groups that make up a peoples group not themselves be peoples groups.  There is no reason the chain has to have only three layers, it can have more than three.  At this point we have to refer to differences without distinctions, simply because we ran out of words to describe the complexity of the structure.

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To GoblinCookie]

Remember that nobody is arguing here that All White People are Racist.  I am arguing that the statement is not fallacious, it is factually wrong but not a fallacy.  If we rephrased it to All White Peoples are Racist, then the statement is a lot stronger however.

I gave it as an example in the OP, and said it was fallacious because it attempts to generalise behaviour under the same category, whether it is an example or non-example. 

The reason that the converse of distinction without a difference is not a genuine fallacy is because since language is ultimately finite almost every statement would become it.  There are always any number of differences without distinction, because there are near-infinite distinctions and only finite words to describe them all. 

There are many distinctions - some are infinitesimally small and barely noticeable, but others are large - and when sufficiently different from another state, at some point, the states should change. There are many less-than-1-degree differences between 0C and 100C, but at a point, you move from freezing to cool, to warm, to hot, to boiling. Just because there are finite words does not mean that there can be no distinctions made at all, but perhaps that not every distinction is significant enough to cross the threshold out of one state into another.

If the speed limit in a road is 30, and I drive at 15, I'm still under it. I'm also under it if I drive 15.4 mph, 15.5, 15.6...but eventually I will pass it.

No an every/all statement does not necessarily refer to the individuals.  You can make an Every Statement about a group's component groups without ever making it about the individuals that make up those component groups.  An every statement can be true of all smaller groups that make up a larger group while some individuals that make up the smaller groups are exceptional.  We are only in trouble if any of the subgroups do not fit the bill. 

This still does not make any sense. If you wanted to refer to groups, then what is the use of the 'all'? 'All' implies every member of a set that is genuinely not empty. If one wanted to refer to blocks, they would simply say the name of the group - e.g. "black voters", not "all black voters".

The thing is we still don't have enough words.  Because there is no requirement that the groups that make up a peoples group not themselves be peoples groups.  There is no reason the chain has to have only three layers, it can have more than three.  At this point we have to refer to differences without distinctions, simply because we ran out of words to describe the complexity of the structure.

I'm not seeing how the argument follows. There are finite words, therefore stretching the meaning of one to cover non-examples of behaviour is reasonable...?
 

GoblinCookie writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

I gave it as an example in the OP, and said it was fallacious because it attempts to generalise behaviour under the same category, whether it is an example or non-example.  

It is not fallacious to generalize behavior.  It is only a fallacy is to assume that the general situation applies in every instance. 

There are many distinctions - some are infinitesimally small and barely noticeable, but others are large - and when sufficiently different from another state, at some point, the states should change. There are many less-than-1-degree differences between 0C and 100C, but at a point, you move from freezing to cool, to warm, to hot, to boiling. Just because there are finite words does not mean that there can be no distinctions made at all, but perhaps that not every distinction is significant enough to cross the threshold out of one state into another.

If the speed limit in a road is 30, and I drive at 15, I'm still under it. I'm also under it if I drive 15.4 mph, 15.5, 15.6...but eventually I will pass it. 

I never recalling claiming that distinctions cannot be made.  What I claimed is that there are always far more differences in anything than there can ever be words to describe.  The logical consequences of this is that Difference without Distinction is definitely *not* a fallacy because almost any statement concerning reality would end up being an example of it. 

How we often lack or are ignorant of the words for even quite substantial differences is part of how language is ideological.  If something contains internal contradictions, certain more specific words (if they even exist) are deliberately *not* used in order to hide those contradictions. 

This still does not make any sense. If you wanted to refer to groups, then what is the use of the 'all'? 'All' implies every member of a set that is genuinely not empty. If one wanted to refer to blocks, they would simply say the name of the group - e.g. "black voters", not "all black voters". 

They would not mention the name of the groups, because there are multiple groups and they are making an ALL statement that all the group's sub-groups are universally racist without exception, not that every individual member of those groups is. 

That is actually an example of how we do not have enough words for all differences.  What do we call Peoples of Peoples or Groups of Groups or Blocks or Blocks.  What do we call Groups of Groups made of groups.  At some point we run out of words and end up calling something the same things as it's components. 

At the point we have plurals of plurals.  The assumption that White People refers to White Persons directly, is a mere assumption.  White People could instead break down into say English White People, American White People, French White People and so on.  The ALL Statement can simply mean that the norm of all those Peoples is to be racist without ever referring to the individuals involved. 

I'm not seeing how the argument follows. There are finite words, therefore stretching the meaning of one to cover non-examples of behaviour is reasonable...? 

Racism is a belief not a behavior.  Nobody claimed you had to be do anything racist to be a racist, you could equally conclude someone is actually a racist because they willingly joined a group that is clearly racist. 

I was however not talking about racism there at all, I was talking about the actual topic of the question. 

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To GoblinCookie]

It is not fallacious to generalize behavior.  It is only a fallacy is to assume that the general situation applies in every instance. 

I am aware. Read the rest of that response. What else do I write to qualify the response?

I never recalling claiming that distinctions cannot be made.  What I claimed is that there are always far more differences in anything than there can ever be words to describe.  The logical consequences of this is that Difference without Distinction is definitely *not* a fallacy because almost any statement concerning reality would end up being an example of it. 

How we often lack or are ignorant of the words for even quite substantial differences is part of how language is ideological.  If something contains internal contradictions, certain more specific words (if they even exist) are deliberately *not* used in order to hide those contradictions. 

You said "there are infinitely many distinctions, yet only a finite number of words", which does not connect to the conclusion "difference without distinction is not a fallacy". That was the point of the room temperature example. Yes, there are infinitely many distinctions on the continuum between 0 and 100C, but it doesn't mean every one of those has to be given distinction - the problem arises when a word is applied to a non-example using the above logic ("well there are too many distinctions") - this ignores the magnitude and significance of such distinctions.

They would not mention the name of the groups, because there are multiple groups and they are making an ALL statement that all the group's sub-groups are universally racist without exception, not that every individual member of those groups is. 

This is playing with words. "All" refers to all set members. "All white people" refers to every member of the set "white people".

That is actually an example of how we do not have enough words for all differences.  What do we call Peoples of Peoples or Groups of Groups or Blocks or Blocks.  What do we call Groups of Groups made of groups.  At some point we run out of words and end up calling something the same things as it's components. 

These are still fundamentally the same thing. Peoples are still peoples, and groups are still groups, whether they divide nicely into subgroups or not. As such, this still does not connect to your conclusion that it is not fallacious to use an expanded meaning of a word to refer to non-members of the set.

Racism is a belief not a behavior.  Nobody claimed you had to be do anything racist to be a racist, you could equally conclude someone is actually a racist because they willingly joined a group that is clearly racist. 

I was however not talking about racism there at all, I was talking about the actual topic of the question. 

This is mostly semantics and doesn't affect the point that I'm making here, which is that it doesn't make sense to argue that the limits to the number of words we have means that relevant distinctions should not be made, because if we tried to cover the infinite distinctions with finite language - words - we would run out.