Question

...
John Best

Missed a fallacy - Nominal Fallacy.

So you can probably just use google I don't really need to do the explaining.

The, "Nominal Fallacy" aka the fallacy of description by words is a fallacy when it is confused that words explain things, when they really don't, and obviously this is very context-dependant.

It is neither mentioned in the list of logical fallacies, nor in the, "pseudo-logical fallacies".

Is it related to some other fallacy? Or is it even a fallacy?

asked on Thursday, Jan 13, 2022 02:34:34 PM by John Best

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments
...
0
John Best writes:

I would say No, this is outside the scope of a list of fallacies.    It's in philosophy.   I can never know exactly what you 'see' in your mind after the wavelength 700 nanometers impacts your retina.  But did you see red?   Yes.   

So, the "description by words" isn't a fallacy.   It's an intermediate between us and verifiable "reality".

If one writes " A leads to B, A happened, therefore B.   Do you agree? "   If they respond affirmatively, the probability we have communicated with sufficient fidelity is good enough to proceed.    So, imo, that's they aim in this field of logic & critical review, to validate premises, properly structured  such that the probability of validity of communication can be made high enough to 'run with'.  ;-)

It's the best we mere mortals can do?

 

posted on Friday, Jan 14, 2022 08:32:54 AM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Bo's Book Bundle

Get all EIGHT of Bo's printed books, all autographed*. Save over $50!

* This offer is for residents of United States and Canada only.

Get the Book Bundle

Answers

...
TrappedPrior (RotE)
0

Copy-pasting Dr Bo's criteria:

- It must be an error in reasoning not a factual error.


- It must be commonly applied to an argument either in the form of the argument or in the interpretation of the argument.


- It must be deceptive in that it often fools the average adult.

Well, it is an error in reasoning ("X is named, therefore X is explained.") And it can be deceptive (for instance, if someone asks why a person did something, and someone replies by saying "it's an instinct" - the behaviour hasn't actually been explained.)

But is it common? If it's too niche, it probably won't meet the criteria for inclusion.

answered on Thursday, Jan 13, 2022 10:11:05 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE)

TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories

Comments