Question

...

Is this an example of a category error?

Materialism is the view that nothing but the material exists (roughly speaking, physical stuff, composed of particles). The idea of souls, spirits, disembodied consciousness is rejected outright.

In the argument against materialism, this was proposed.

1. Truth is immaterial
2. Therefore, materialism is false

What fallacy is this?

asked on Wednesday, Sep 01, 2021 03:50:20 PM by

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

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

Master the "Rules of Reason" for Making and Evaluating Claims

Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.

This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book. 

Take the Online Course

Answers

...
John Best
2

Read the conclusion by substituting material for false, i.e. the conclusion might read "Therefore, materialism is material".    So this would conclude a belief in material has the same properties as material.   So does a thought have physical properties in the same way material (like a car) does?   

But there's another aspect of this.....   again, based on truth being the opposite of false.   Perhaps there are two possible false equivocation fallacies.   Keeping the definitions of immaterial in mind, is we accept Merriam-Webster as truth, and the definitions are:
1  : of no substantial consequence : unimportant 
2  : not consisting of matter : incorporeal 

If we assume the premise 'Truth is immaterial' refers to definition 1, 'unimportant', then if we accept false as the opposite of true, then false becomes 'important', so the conclusion becomes 'Therefore materialism is important'.     So by this, fine, I accept that materialism is important, as a value system (materialism) can be important or unimportant.

Now if we assume 'immaterial' in the premise refers to definition 2, 'incorporeal', a similar flipping of the conclusion happens.   Namely materialism is corporeal.   By this definition, it circles back to the first sentences above equating a value system to something that exists in 'bodily form', physical.   

 

 

answered on Thursday, Sep 02, 2021 08:56:43 AM by John Best

John Best Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
Bo Bennett, PhD
1

Sorry, Jim. I answered from my phone on the road and could not post detail. I also might have misread the argument in haste. So here is a more detailed answer.

I initially said equivocation with the concept of "exists," because although a rock and "truth" both exist, they "exist" in very different ways. But that really isn't the argument here. I think we would need a materialist to argue this. The argument as it is laid out seems reasonable. I would guess the materialist would argue with premise #1 in that "truth" and other concepts are products of a human mind, which is ultimately the result of material interactions. Again, I am spitballing here. I am not sure how a materialist would respond.
answered on Wednesday, Sep 01, 2021 07:27:21 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
0
Mchasewalker writes:

 Yes, this is the monist view. The above-proposed argument against materialism is dualist as are most listed dictionary definitions.  ( see Mustangs, Monists and Meaning Dr. Michael Shermer)

posted on Thursday, Sep 02, 2021 11:05:31 AM
...
Mchasewalker
0

“To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true”.

Aristotle

By the above definition of metaphysical truth, the OP's proposed argument against materialism would have to be false.

false premise, equivocation, affirming the disjunct, etc.

answered on Thursday, Sep 02, 2021 10:47:48 AM by Mchasewalker

Mchasewalker Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
0
account no longer exists writes:

1. Truth is immaterial.

2. Therefore, materialism is false.

Here it seems like it defines some meta physical truth or maybe something being absolute it seems like ambiguity fallacy because it isn't clearly defined what they meant by truth metaphysical or a concrete truth about the world like electrons orbiting.

posted on Thursday, Sep 02, 2021 10:04:56 PM
...
0
account no longer exists writes:
[To Lynx Ssss]

I think the problem here is one of a category error.

Truth is immaterial, just in much the same way as the number 2 or the colour blue is immaterial. 

However, neither of these can exist independently, and are meaningless on their own, unless used to describe something else (which may be immaterial or physical).

Materialism deal with things that CAN exist entirely independent of anything else.

The argument against materialism is largely a religious one, where it is claimed that the "soul" or "spirit"  continues to survive after normal death. 

Now comes the crunch - these entities are alleged to exist independently, but are immaterial - in other words, composed of nothing, which is a logical contradiction.

Therefore, "materialism is false" is a false conclusion.

[ login to reply ] posted on Sunday, Sep 05, 2021 10:21:22 AM
...
0
account no longer exists writes:
[To Jim]

I think that soul and other things have no concrete proof but I think this is what op meant.

[ login to reply ] posted on Sunday, Sep 05, 2021 11:08:33 AM
...
0
Daniel writes:
[To Jim]

In Christianity only God is purely immaterial - souls, angels etc. are material compared to God. God is not immaterial because he is the opposite of material - He has no opposite - He is the uncreated who invented and brought forth time, space and matter - the material world. The spiritual (technically not entirely immaterial) world is a level above ours in terms of how refined it is, just as our physical world is a level above the software worlds we create in terms of its solidity.

When I use VR, I often find myself in much larger spaces than the one I am actually in, and I am able to traverse large distances in these worlds, sometimes at high speeds (if I'm in a racing or flying game.) Even though i have not moved, according to the rules of the software, its natural laws, I am entirely convinced I have changed location, and I act as if I have.  While I'm in that world, the real world disappears, it becomes the 'immaterial' of my virtual environment. Until I accidently punch the wall where I only see empty space in front of me.

Thus we have a human created analogue of the boundry between the material and spiritual/immaterial realms. One contains the other and they co-exist, even though they follow thier own separate rules. The difference between them does not negate one or the other.

 

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, Sep 06, 2021 06:32:16 AM
...
0
account no longer exists writes:
[To Daniel]

Well, I still maintain that "immaterial" is just another way of saying "composed of nothing", so for an independently existing entity (ie God), it simply seems like a logical contradiction.

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, Sep 06, 2021 07:55:50 AM
...
0
Daniel writes:

I think you are begging the question. That the immaterial cannot exist is based on the assumption that only the material can, which is just restating the same idea in another way. Your premise assumes the truth of your conclusion. 

posted on Monday, Sep 06, 2021 06:18:07 PM