Question

...
Jason Mathias

Can this be multiple fallacies, if so which ones?

"The mere act of creation is intentional, or it would not be called creation."

asked on Saturday, Apr 18, 2020 12:49:49 PM by Jason Mathias

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."

Reason: Books I & II

This book is based on the first five years of The Dr. Bo Show, where Bo takes a critical thinking-, reason-, and science-based approach to issues that matter with the goal of educating and entertaining. Every chapter in the book explores a different aspect of reason by using a real-world issue or example.

Part one is about how science works even when the public thinks it doesn't. Part two will certainly ruffle some feathers by offering a reason- and science-based perspective on issues where political correctness has gone awry. Part three provides some data-driven advice for your health and well-being. Part four looks at human behavior and how we can better navigate our social worlds. In part five we put on our skeptical goggles and critically examine a few commonly-held beliefs. In the final section, we look at a few ways how we all can make the world a better place.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
1

Whomever said this doesn't quite understand how words work : ) I see some Homunculus Fallacy in this statement. We define a word then the word takes on a meaning. This statement suggests the definition was a result of the word itself, which of course, had to already have meaning for this statement to make any sense.

Is intention a necessary component of creation? Can I create a sculpture (intentionally) and create a mess as a result (unintentionally - as in a byproduct)? Or would that be Equivocation on my part since the two acts are different in that one is intentional? Honestly, I do not know enough about the term, but I wouldn't have a problem with the claim that "creation" implies (or even requires) intention. I guess the only issue I would have is the word "creation" is often used poetically when referring to the beginning of the universe (e.g., I recall Neil DeGrass Tyson using this term - a well-known agnostic).
answered on Saturday, Apr 18, 2020 02:12:08 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
0
Asterion writes:

Coming from a background in goal oriented requirements engineering and leaning on cognitive science and also psychology, an interesting factoid is that the only goals we humans appear to require to interact successfully with the world include simply: achieve, maintain, cease and avoid.

The thing to note is that two of these have atomicity and the other two durance.   Durance is cute since its the archaic form of endurance or duration.  So, the atomic are achieve and cease while maintain and avoid are enduring.   They can simply be seen to relate to states of a system.

So, given  psychology behind   the concept of agency in this view of the world, it should be noted that there is the notion of Intention as a concept in that model.   This is, however, we humans using anthropomorphism to happily project human like desire onto agents, entities and systems.   A practical rather than irrational endeavour - I hope.

What then is the act of creation?  It is atomically achievement of a state.  But it might also be a state change from one state to another.  What makes one state change creation and another state change not?  A point of view? Sure.  But if the core problem is the anthropomorphism of the mechanism then what is the fallacy?  Or, if creation is the observation of an "interesting" state change in a runaway process then the act of anthropomorphism of that state change is what type of fallacy?  Is it a fallacy if we acknowledge the non-anthropomorphic process as the creator of the state change?

The idea of the big bang itself alludes to a state change of nothing and then something, but more and more we are finding our definitions of nothing flawed and we get back to a runaway process that we don't fully understand and on such a grand scales of both space and time.  Plenty of Equivocation to be had, yes.

posted on Tuesday, Apr 21, 2020 09:19:25 AM
...
TrappedPrior (RotE)
0

Could be a Definist Fallacy, since this use of "creation" is unorthodox and unsupported by the speaker. 

answered on Saturday, Apr 18, 2020 02:48:06 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE)

TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
DrBill
0

If humans create, intentionally or otherwise, we start with something and use it to make something else.

Supposing there was nothing before there was everything, some humans insist there had to have been an agency to create everything from nothing.  The meaning of this kind of "creation" differs imo from the everyday meaning and is Equivocation 

It is also Anthropomorphism by which our own experience implies a universal truth.

Reaching, a little, the Anthropomorphism is also a kind of non-sequitur, in that the creation of anything from nothing is outside anyone's experience, so our skills are irrelevant.
answered on Monday, Apr 20, 2020 10:57:01 AM by DrBill

DrBill Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
DrBill
0

This statement does not define the term "creation". There are many views on the subject of creation (creation ex nihilo, creation ex libris, creation from chaos, transmission from the realm of forms, etc...). As the term creation is undefined, we cannot make a clear judgment as to the validity of this statement.

answered on Friday, Apr 24, 2020 11:42:57 AM by DrBill

DrBill Suggested These Categories

Comments