Self-refuting idea

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of the series on

Logic and rhetoric

Icon logic.svg
Key articles
General logic
Bad logic

A self-refuting idea is a type of claim where the terms contradict the conclusion if applied correctly. It is sometimes known as a stolen concept fallacy, a term originally coined by Ayn Rand. It is also known as an own goal (borrowed from the mishap in sports when one scores for the opposition), unforced error (again from sports), shooting oneself in the foot (perhaps from the behavior of the inept gun fighter), friendly fire (warfare).

Contents

[edit] Forms

Self-refuting ideas are relatively common among those who don't consider the assumptions they're making or what those assumptions actually mean; the result is an argument that undermines itself. This is particularly common when the person making the claim is cherry picking, since they may not bother to check if they things they're picking even are cherries.

However, a claim of self-refutation may be based on semantics or a straw man. The common Objectivist example of the Stolen Concept is Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's statement "all property is theft;" it is argued that this is self-negating, as theft requires a concept of lawful property. This ignores the author's intended definition of the two terms – Proudhon referred to landowners or capitalists, believing they "stole" profits from workers. [1] It is important to distinguish this from ad hoc attempts to rescue a self-refuting idea by adding terms to it after the fact.

One ought to be aware of the principle of charity, to take the most reasonable interpretation of one's opponent's words. An argument may be formed as a deliberate oxymoron, as a striking way of saying something, or other metaphor, and is not to be taken literally.

And one must distinguish between a self-refuting idea and the quite useful reductio ad absurdum, where one begins with the assumptions that one is trying to refute and shows that they result in a contradiction or other unwelcome conclusion.

Some axioms are self-refuting, and are held to be true in spite of this; for example, the claim "everything is subjective" would require the statement itself be objectively true and is thus self-negating; any attempt to rescue it using logic would fall prey to special pleading by demanding one arbitrary exemption to the claim. Similarly the attempt at proving the existence of God by positing that everything must have a cause, while making one special exemption (namely, God) to the need for a cause.

A literary term is for a species of irony, unintentional apophasis. Intentional apophasis is to bring up of a subject with the pretense of not mentioning it, such as "I will not dwell on my opponent's atheism". Unintentional apophasis is rather to bring up a subject which is best left alone. In Shakespeare's Hamlet, the Queen says, "The lady dost protest too much, methinks," thereby herself protesting too much.

[edit] Examples

  • Anti-science groups will often use scientific theories or methods which assume some of the things they're trying to refute; perpetual motion claims are often based on the idea that quantum physics can be used to defeat the laws of thermodynamics, even though these laws are actually assumptions of quantum theory.
  • The concepts of divine omnipotence and omniscience present a battery of methods to defeat them; an all-powerful being should be able to do things that interfere with their own ability to apply that power, or that a being stated to be both omnipotent and omniscient would be unable to do anything but the things it had foreseen itself doing and would therefore have no real power at all.

[edit] See also

[edit] Footnotes

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support