Question

...
frankk

The real case behind the "4 wheels = car must be a ferrari" fallacy


Here's the actual case I have in mind, when I earlier asked the simpler version of the question, "A car has 4 wheels. Therefore it's a ferrari. What's the fallacy?"


What are the essential prerequisite elements that make vocalized speech? 

(Wrong answer from Famous Buddhist teacher): Placing the mind and keeping it connected are the prerequisite elements.

That's wrong. Placing the mind and keeping it connected are some prerequisite elements of vocalized speech, but they're just a subset, and not even the distinguishing feature or the most important of the essential prerequisite conditions to qualify for vocalized speech.

The correct answer is, "verbal thoughts, thoughts with linguistic labels, the thoughts you think before you say them out loud" 
are the essential prerequisite elements that make vocalized speech.

What this famous Buddhist teacher then does with that fallacious definition above, is use massive equivocation. Everywhere in the collection of thousands of scriptures in the Buddhist canon, he plugs in his version of "prerequisite conditions of vocal speech" when he wants to advance his agenda to redefine deep meditation to be a state where no thinking is possible.


Essentially it's just like the 4 wheels = ferrari example I give, where anywhere the scriptures requires the specific conditions to be a ferrari, he'll swap in his "four wheels" and then use the 4 wheels to say his honda civic meets the conditions for being a ferrari.

asked on Wednesday, Apr 21, 2021 11:51:51 AM by frankk

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

...
1
Prof M writes:

What's the question?

posted on Wednesday, Apr 21, 2021 02:00:31 PM
...
0
frankk writes:
[To Prof M]

same question as my earlier (different thread) question of "car has 4 wheels, therefore it's a ferrari".

Question being, "what is that fallacy called"?

The two answers so far to the ferrari question that would apply are:

1. jumping to conclusion

2. non sequitur

But both are little bit too broad, I'm thinking there may be a fallacy that's a little more specific.

So I gave the actual case that I'm dealing with. Equivocation is the main weapon they use, but it is depending on them establishing the fallacious new definition of "vocalization prerequisites."

 

[ login to reply ] posted on Wednesday, Apr 21, 2021 03:47:55 PM
...
0
Rationalissimo writes:
[To frankk]

Don't seem broad to me.

4 wheels, therefore ferrari = clear non sequitur. The fact that a Ferrari car has 4 wheels does not mean that if a car has 4 wheels, it is a Ferrari (this is also affirming the consequent).

[ login to reply ] posted on Wednesday, Apr 21, 2021 06:09:38 PM
...
0
Prof M writes:
[To frankk]

Oh. I missed your earlier post. Sorry.

[ login to reply ] posted on Wednesday, Apr 21, 2021 06:30:10 PM
...
0
frankk writes:

I think equivalence fallacy is a better fit.

 

posted on Wednesday, Apr 21, 2021 07:43:24 PM

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

...
richard smith
0

"A car has 4 wheels. Therefore it's a ferrari. "

A Holmesian fallacy (also Sherlock Holmes fallacy or process of elimination fallacy) is a logical fallacy that occurs when some explanation is believed to be true on the basis that alternate explanations are impossible, yet not all alternate explanations have been ruled out.

answered on Thursday, Apr 22, 2021 08:54:53 AM by richard smith

richard smith Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
1
frankk writes:

I can see some holmesian fallacy there. 

In my other question where I give the actual case I'm working on, (4 wheels = ferrari is a simplified version of actual case), it's really about stacking a few different fallacies in a way to use equivocation to redefine a word with a very specific meaning into a new word.

So essentially what the offender is saying is something similar to this:

Having 4 wheels is sufficient to say it's a ferrari.

Then in situations where the word 'ferrari' is used,

he substitutes 'honda civic' in there, with the reasoning it also has 4 wheels.

so honda civic = ferrari.

That would be false equivalence fallacy,

but really I think most of the answers people suggested also applies.

There's non sequitur, there's jumping to conclusion, there's holmsian, but I don't see affirming the consequent.

posted on Thursday, Apr 22, 2021 10:22:54 AM
...
0
richard smith writes:

I would say it depends on if he is just rejecting other options given to him or not. Could go either way.

posted on Thursday, Apr 22, 2021 10:33:18 AM