| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |
| knowledge:continuum_fallacy [18.07.26, 11:07:47] – [Continuum fallacy] sascha | knowledge:continuum_fallacy [18.07.26, 13:18:44] (current) – sascha |
|---|
| ===== Description ===== | ===== Description ===== |
| |
| If categories exist within a continuum and the boundaries between them are vague or inconsistent, it can be difficult to determine where one category ends and another begins. However, it only becomes a logical fallacy if one concludes from this that the categories do not exist or are irrelevant. | If categories lie along a continuum and the boundaries between them are blurred or inconsistent, it can be difficult to determine where one category ends and another begins. This becomes a fallacy if one concludes from this that the categories do not exist or are irrelevant. |
| |
| ==== Mitigation strategies ==== | To put it another way: since there is no clear boundary between A and B, they are not regarded as separate categories – even in a situation where it would make more sense to view them as such. |
| |
| In many cases, it may make sense to allow for a “gray area” in which one simply accepts that a clear-cut determination is not possible. However, this can in turn lead to the problem of having to define the boundaries of this gray area. In this case, the problem has simply been shifted. | ==== More than two categories ==== |
| |
| If a clear cutoff point is necessary, it can be established through an official authority. An example of this approach is defining the [[wp>Age of majority|age of majority]] as of a //specific date// (in most Western countries, the 18th birthday). However, this too can lead to problems if the rule does not account for all special cases and exceptions (<span maniculus "see also">[[generalization:accident_fallacy|Accident fallacy]]</span>). | There may be further meaningful subdivisions between two variations on a continuum: for example, between //white// and //red// lies //pink//, and there are numerous other shades such as //fuchsia//, //old rose// and so on, which may only be meaningful in certain contexts. |
| |
| ==== Limitations ==== | Similarly, in other contexts too, there may be more than exactly two categories, between which there are continua that make it difficult to distinguish between them. |
| |
| Between two variations on a continuum, there may be further meaningful subdivisions: between white and red there is pink – and dozens of other shades, such as fuchsia, old rose, etc., which may only make sense in certain contexts (<span maniculus "see also">[[relevancy/false_dilemma|False dilemma]]</span>). | ==== False dilemma ==== |
| | |
| | The term “[[relevancy:false_dilemma|false dilemma]]” refers to a situation in which there only seems to be a limited number of choices (typically exactly two), even though there are in fact more options available. |
| | |
| | At least in certain cases, this therefore describes the complementary mistake to the continuum fallacy: whereas the latter //dissolves// categories, the “[[relevancy:false_dilemma|false dilemma]]” constructs them artificially. |
| | |
| | ==== Mitigation strategies ==== |
| | |
| | In many cases, it may be sensible to allow for a “grey area” in which one simply accepts that it is not possible to establish a clear distinction. However, this can in turn give rise to the problem of having to define the boundaries of this //grey area//. In such cases, the problem has simply been shifted. |
| | |
| | If a clear boundary is required, it can be set by an authority. An example of this approach is setting the [[wp>Age of majority|age of majority]] as a specific date (in most Western countries, the 18th birthday). However, this too can lead to problems if the rule does not account for all special cases and exceptions (see also: <span maniculus "go to:">[[generalization:accident_fallacy|Accident fallacy]]</span>). |
| |
| ===== More examples ===== | ===== More examples ===== |
| |
| Although the standard examples of this fallacy usually seem rather trivial and inconsequential, similar instances are not exactly rare in public discourse and are often the subject of heated debate. This is particularly true when it is the discussion is about finding the boundaries that define the threshold between categories. | Although the standard examples for this fallacy seem rather trivial and of little significance, similar patterns are by no means rare in public debate and are often the subject of heated discussion. This is particularly the case when it is necessary to establish boundaries that define the transition. |
| |
| ==== Different degrees of “scientificness” ==== | ==== Different degrees of “scientificness” ==== |
| > <s invalid "Fallacious conclusion based on a continuum fallacy.">That is why //my// theory is just as good as those of the sciences.</s> | > <s invalid "Fallacious conclusion based on a continuum fallacy.">That is why //my// theory is just as good as those of the sciences.</s> |
| |
| It is true that a significant part of scientific work consists of continually questioning even established positions and never assuming that any field of knowledge has been “fully explored”. It is precisely through this questioning that science has continued to develop and can today, in most cases, offer reasonably good explanatory models for many phenomena – but never “perfect” ones. | It is true that an essential part of scientific work involves constantly questioning established views and never assuming that a field of knowledge has been “fully explored”. It is precisely through this process of questioning that science has continued to develop and is now, in most cases, able to offer //reasonably good// explanatory models for many phenomena, though indeed never “perfect” ones. |
| |
| There really isn’t much to object to when new theories are put forward by people outside the scientific community – even if some scientists do indeed often seem to struggle with this. In fact, there are many examples of outsiders triggering important advances in the sciences. | In principle, there is also little to object when new theories are put forward from outside the scientific community – even if this idea is sometimes difficult for //some// scientists to embrace. Indeed, there are many examples of outsiders bringing about significant advances in the sciences. |
| |
| However, one must also consider the possibility that a new theory – especially if it comes from outside the field and, perhaps even from someone who does not fully comprehend the complexity of the subject – is simply //utter nonsense//. This possibility represents, so to speak, the other end of the continuum. | On the other hand, however, one must also consider the possibility that a new theory – particularly if it comes from outside the discipline and perhaps from someone who cannot really appreciate the full complexity of the subject – is simply //utter nonsense.// This possibility represents, so to speak, the other end of the continuum. |
| |
| Based solely on the above, it is not possible to determine whether the position being taken falls more on the “scientific” or the “nonsensical” side of this continuum. However, if the speaker feels it necessary to resort to such rhetorical tricks to defend it, this does not immediately cast the position in a favorable light. | There is no clear dividing line on this continuum between “scientific perfection” and “pseudoscientific nonsense”, but that does not mean that a distinction is impossible or even arbitrary. |
| | |
| | On the basis of the statement above alone, it is also impossible to determine whether the position put forward lies closer to the “scientific” or the “nonsensical” end of the spectrum. However, if the speaker feels the need to resort to such rhetorical sleight of hand, this does not, at first glance, cast the position in a favourable light. |
| |
| ==== The political spectrum ==== | ==== The political spectrum ==== |
| |
| If one views the political spectrum as a continuum from left to right (which should be noted is highly simplistic methodand is not always the most useful one), one finds a few extremists of both orientations at both ends of the spectrum and the vast majority of the population in the middle between these two poles. | If one views the political spectrum as a continuum from left to right (which should be noted is highly simplistic method and is not always the most useful one), one finds a few extremists of both orientations at both ends of the spectrum and the vast majority of the population in the middle between these two poles. |
| |
| Since there are few clearly defined points at which specific labels (including “far-left,” “social democratic,” “social liberal,” “neoliberal,” “conservative,” “far-right,” etc.) begin and end, one might conclude that there can be no distinction at all – and simply label any stance that lies to the left of one’s own position as “radical left” (often as “communists” or “anarchists”), or alternatively anything to the right of oneself as “far-right” (with “Nazi” or “fascist” serving as intensifiers). | Since there are few clearly defined points at which specific labels (including “far-left,” “social democratic,” “social liberal,” “neoliberal,” “conservative,” “far-right,” etc.) begin and end, one might conclude that there can be no distinction at all – and simply label any stance that lies to the left of one’s own position as “radical left” (often as “communists” or “anarchists”), or alternatively anything to the right of oneself as “far-right” (with “Nazi” or “fascist” serving as intensifiers). |
| ==== Transition from a cell cluster to an embryo ==== | ==== Transition from a cell cluster to an embryo ==== |
| |
| A fertilized (human) egg cell divides and initially forms a group of cells, from which an embryo eventually develops. However, it is not possible to clearly determine //at what point// it is merely a “cell cluster” or when it becomes an embryo. | A fertilised (human) egg cell divides and initially forms a cluster of cells, from which an embryo eventually develops. However, it is not possible to determine precisely up to what stage this is merely a ‘cluster of cells’ or from what point onwards it is a human embryo. |
| |
| In this context, it becomes clear that the mere assumption that there is no clearly definable transition from one state to another does not necessarily imply that there is no such transition. | However, such a provision would be important for the legal (and moral!) assessment of [[wp>Abortion|abortions]]. Clearly, a //human embryo// is far more deserving of protection than a cellular structure that merely has the //potential// to develop into one. |
| |
| However, this question is of central importance to the moral and legal assessment of //abortions//. It is therefore important that this issue be discussed without prejudice. | However, as with the //age of majority//, the transition between the two categories can only be determined by social convention or legal provisions. In most countries where [[wp>Abortion|abortion]] is legal, this threshold is typically reached around the third month or twelfth week of pregnancy. Such provisions are just as arbitrary as those for the age of majority and are sometimes handled differently in other countries. |
| |
| ===== See also ===== | However, one commits a fallacy when one concludes, from the impossibility of pinpointing a precise moment of transition between these states, that //no such transition exists//. This fallacy can be found on both sides of the societal debate – whether one side sometimes attempts to define the beginning of human life as occurring at the moment of [[wp>Implantation (embryology)|nidation]] (the implantation of the fertilised egg in the womb), or, in some cases, even to the moment of fertilisation of that egg – or whether the other side seeks to deny human status to all unborn life, in extreme cases right up to the moment of birth. |
| |
| | Both are extreme positions, and one should not make the mistake of “[[rhetorics:red_herrings:ad_hominem:guilt_by_association:nutpicking|Nutpicking]]” by mistaking them for the majority views of the respective “other” side. This section is also not intended to offer a //solution// to this dispute, but merely to point out that the continuum fallacy contributes to driving both sides’ positions further apart than necessary – and making compromises seem more difficult than they need to be. |
| | |
| | ===== See also ===== |
| |
| * [[relevancy:false_dilemma|False dilemma]] | * [[relevancy:false_dilemma|False dilemma]] |
