Word games #2) Fallacies in Symbol Replacement

In summary, the conversation is about identifying and understanding logical fallacies, specifically the fallacy of symbol replacement. This occurs when different meanings are assigned to the same symbol and then equated in a syllogism. The conversation provides examples of fallacious arguments and discusses how imprecise definitions can lead to these fallacies. It also raises the question of whether diversity alone can solve issues of inequality, and acknowledges the complexity of the issue. Overall, the conversation highlights the importance of considering all factors and avoiding equivocation when making logical arguments.
  • #1
Dissident Dan
238
2
This is the first thread in what may or may not be a series, depending on logical topics that I think need to be addressed.
I want people to understand the fallacies of certain "word games" so they can stop wasting time with fallacioius arguments.

Let's start with what I call symbol replacement. There is probably some official philosophical term, but this is a nice, simple description.


  1. A fallacy occurs when you have multiple different things associated with the same symbol, and then equate the two. This is usually done in a syllogism. A syllogism is the following logical construct: A implies B, and B implies C, so A implies B. The notation would be (A->B /\ B->C)->(A->C).
    [/list=1]

    Let me use some examples of fallacious arguments to demonstrate. In these examples, do not concern yourself with the truth of the premises, but with whether or not the conclusion logically follows from the premises.

    1. Premises
      1) Johnny is not objective in his reporting.
      2) All that exists exists objectively.
      Conclusion
      Therefore, Johnny does not exist.
      [/list=1]

      Now what is wrong with this argument? It appears valid. However, there is a problem with the word "objective." "Objective" has a different meaning for Premise 1 from what it means in Premise 2. Therefore, you cannot connect the two statements through this word, "objective." Therefore, you cannot draw the given conclusion from these premises.

      • Premises
        1) If you are a female with big breasts and a thin waist, then you are hot.
        2) If you are hot, then you do not need to put on a coat.
        Conclusion
        If you are a female with big breasts and a thin waist, then you do not need to put on a coat.
        [/list=2]

        Here, we have a seemingly valid argument by looking at the relationship between the different symbols (words). However, the same symbol is used to refer to two different concepts, so this symbol cannot be used to make the connection between the two premises.
        In the first, "hot" means "sexually attractive."
        In the second, "hot" means "high in average kinetic energy."

        So, this is actually not an (A->B /\ B->C) set of premises, but an (A->B /\ C->D) set of premises.

        Obviously, woman can be sexy and still require a coat, even if you agree with the premises.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
So you are saying the main problem with logical propositions are in the imprecise defenitions of those things, I agree that seems to be the main problem.
Within each try there were two outcomes.
I saw this picket sign that read "diversity is a factor because racism is a factor",
trying to avoid the politics of it,
it is illogical to assume that racism(in the broad sense of believing one's own group to be superior to others in some aspect) and irrational based discrimination are the primary causes that lead to inequality(of income or social postion). It is illogical to assume that adhereing to diversity alone as a factor in admission to something would bring about a long term countering affect to discrimination and so lead to a perfect correction of inequality, and won't there always be inequality among groups? If there wasn't would we still call them groups?
Basically, what are all the factors? How can a sound solution be reached while only considering one unquantified factor? And then only one unquantified factor in the solution? Where's the whole equation?
And, at what point does diversity
based on skin tone or webbed feet or long noses become more discriminating and an ineffective solution? Anyway it's entirely too complex to reduce to a picket sign.
 
  • #3
Dan, FYI the fallacy in your post in the Fallacy of Equivocation. It is one of the most rampant ones at PF's Philosophy forum. For many, many examples, see Lifegazer's thread entitled Relativity.
 
  • #4
Originally posted by Dissident Dan
This is the first thread in what may or may not be a series, depending on logical topics that I think need to be addressed.
I want people to understand the fallacies of certain "word games" so they can stop wasting time with fallacioius arguments.

Let's start with what I call symbol replacement. There is probably some official philosophical term, but this is a nice, simple description.


  1. A fallacy occurs when you have multiple different things associated with the same symbol, and then equate the two. This is usually done in a syllogism. A syllogism is the following logical construct: A implies B, and B implies C, so A implies B. The notation would be (A->B /\ B->C)->(A->C).
    [/list=1]

    Let me use some examples of fallacious arguments to demonstrate. In these examples, do not concern yourself with the truth of the premises, but with whether or not the conclusion logically follows from the premises.

    1. Premises
      1) Johnny is not objective in his reporting.
      2) All that exists exists objectively.
      Conclusion
      Therefore, Johnny does not exist.
      [/list=1]

      Now what is wrong with this argument? It appears valid. However, there is a problem with the word "objective." "Objective" has a different meaning for Premise 1 from what it means in Premise 2. Therefore, you cannot connect the two statements through this word, "objective." Therefore, you cannot draw the given conclusion from these premises.

      • Premises
        1) If you are a female with s and a thin waist, then you are hot.
        2) If you are hot, then you do not need to put on a coat.
        Conclusion
        If you are a female with s and a thin waist, then you do not need to put on a coat.
        [/list=2]

        Here, we have a seemingly valid argument by looking at the relationship between the different symbols (words). However, the same symbol is used to refer to two different concepts, so this symbol cannot be used to make the connection between the two premises.
        In the first, "hot" means "sexually attractive."
        In the second, "hot" means "high in average kinetic energy."

        So, this is actually not an (A->B /\ B->C) set of premises, but an (A->B /\ C->D) set of premises.

        Obviously, woman can be sexy and still require a coat, even if you agree with the premises.


      • Very well posted, Dan. However, isn't this just a product of the misuse of language? Langauge (as many of the posters here know) is logically flawed at it's very heart (definitions) and is thus not the perfect way of conveying logical reasoning. However, it's all we've got. To add to this, it is much further limited by being in written form - with almost no indication of the tone, undertones, nuances, emotions, convictions, etc that the person would have expressed if they had been speaking to you verbally.
 
  • #5


Originally posted by Mentat
However, isn't this just a product of the misuse of language?

Yes; all the informal fallacies are misuses of language.

Langauge (as many of the posters here know) is logically flawed at it's very heart (definitions) and is thus not the perfect way of conveying logical reasoning.

In your quote above, you are touching on some insurmountable difficulties in communicatio. But what Dan is talking about is when the same word is used to denote two completely different concepts, and then he gives examples of when those different concepts are swapped mid-argument.
 
  • #6


Originally posted by Tom
In your quote above, you are touching on some insurmountable difficulties in communicatio. But what Dan is talking about is when the same word is used to denote two completely different concepts, and then he gives examples of when those different concepts are swapped mid-argument.

Yes, I know, however this could be a side-affect of our use of language. After all, if we communicated thoughts directly, we would never have such mix-ups, would we?
 
  • #7


Originally posted by Mentat
After all, if we communicated thoughts directly, we would never have such mix-ups, would we?

Sure, and it could also be avoided by not allowing any word to have more than one meaning. But the latter is impossible in pracitce, and the former is impossible even in principle. So, Dan here is trying to admonish everyone to do something that is possible: be more careful.
 

1) What is "Symbol mix-up" in word games?

"Symbol mix-up" is a type of word game where players are given a set of symbols that represent letters of the alphabet. The players must rearrange the symbols to form words or phrases.

2) How is "Symbol mix-up" played?

The game starts with a set of symbols that represent letters of the alphabet. The players must use these symbols to form words or phrases. The first player to correctly form a word or phrase wins.

3) What skills does "Symbol mix-up" help develop?

"Symbol mix-up" helps develop skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking, and vocabulary. Players have to use their reasoning skills to rearrange the symbols and come up with words or phrases.

4) Can "Symbol mix-up" be played alone?

Yes, "Symbol mix-up" can be played alone. Players can set a timer and try to form as many words or phrases as they can within a certain time limit.

5) Are there variations of "Symbol mix-up"?

Yes, there are variations of "Symbol mix-up" such as using different sets of symbols or allowing players to use symbols to represent sounds or syllables instead of letters. These variations can add new challenges and make the game more interesting.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Engineering and Comp Sci Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
827
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
10K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
Replies
28
Views
11K
Back
Top