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."

Listen to the Dr. Bo Show!

Hello! I am social psychologist and author, Bo Bennett. In this podcast, I take a critical thinking-, reason-, and science-based approach to issues that matter. As of January 2020, this podcast is a collection of topics related to all of my books. Subscribe today and enjoy!

Visit Podcast Page

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