kerosine is fuel…

red bull is fuel…

therefore kerosine is red bull…

This might seem like a fairly obvious mistake… and the reason it’s funny here is  due to this – but the same error is found (arguably) at the centre of a number of complicated and high level philosophical arguments… Let’s have a look…

What’s this?

This is the North Pole.

No, it’s not. Yes, it is.

No, it’s not. Yes, it is.

No, it isn’t. Yes, it is.

No, it isn’t. Yes, it is.

No, it’s not. Where’s the snow?

The Identity of Indiscernibles is a principle of analytic ontology first explicitly formulated by Wilhelm Gottfried Leibniz in his Discourse on Metaphysics, Section 9 (Loemker 1969: 308). It states that no two distinct things exactly resemble each other. This is often referred to as ‘Leibniz’s Law’ and is typically understood to mean that no two objects have exactly the same properties. The Identity of Indiscernibles is of interest because it raises questions about the factors which individuate qualitatively identical objects. Recent work on the interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests that the principle fails in the quantum domain (see French 2006). [from SEP]

Last night when I was out I ended up sitting across from a massive group of girls who were preening themselves and clucking like something out of an episode of family guy. It was like our city’s version of TOWIE.

Anyway as the night went on one girl calls her ‘mate’ an unrepeatable word alluding to her friend’s ‘unattractiveness’. The friend was clearly hurt by this remark and quickly pointed out that she had been brought several drinks this evening and that the girl with the extensive vocabulary had been unapproached all night.

to this the original girl said something meaning something like ‘yes dear, but that’s because I’m so stunning that everyone one in this establishment is intimidated by me…’. One of her other friends chuckled. The original insulted girl muttered under her breath that that would mean she must be the most attractive girl in the club – perhaps even the city. The implication was clear, even though it passed the person at whom it was directed uncomprehended. the whisperer was stating something that she thought was obviously ridiculous.

When someone says “that begs the question…” it usually means something like “well that makes me wonder about…”. For example:

Andy Murray only looks good on grass, which begs the question whether he can ever be ranked much higher than number 4 in the world…

Unfortunately for us, this doesn’t really have anything to do with what philosophers mean when they use these words together. When a philosopher suggests that a given argument is ‘begging the question’, they are claiming that it contains an assumption (probably implicit or hidden) in the premises that is necessary in arriving at the argument’s conclusion.

The Pan Dictionary of Philosophy defines ‘begging the question’ as

The procedure of taking for granted, in a statement or argument, precisely what is in dispute.

So an example might run something like this:

I know I am free. Whenever I have a tough decision to make I sit down, think about my options and opt for one on the courses of action.

This might not be the best example, but if we sort it all out it begins to look like this:

1. I make reasoned decisions.

C: These decisions are free.

But really what is happening here, is a bit more like this:

1. I make reasoned decisions.

2(implied). The fact I have this experience of weighing up options mean my decisions are free.

C: These decisions are free.

Now of course, 2 is exactly what philosophers would be looking to challenge if they were disputing that our writer has free will so, this is begging the question.

- What are you doing?

- What did you think we would burn?

- You can't burn books.

- No, absolutely not.

You want to freeze to death?

I'll go get some more.

I'll help you.

I'm going with them.

Okay, do you have a cafeteria or a lunchroom?

Just an employees' lounge with a few vending machines.

We're not gonna last long on M&M's and potato chips.

What about the garbage cans?

There's always something to eat in the garbage.
...
Friedrich Nietzsche?
We can't burn Nietzsche.

He was the most important thinker of the 19th century.

Please. He was a chauvinist pig in love with his sister.

He was not a chauvinist pig.

But he was in love with his sister.

Excuse me? You guys?

Yeah, there's a whole section on tax law down here that we can burn.

Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.

- G W Bush

I have a feeling President George Bush may rear his head more than once on this blog. This is a textbook example of a false dilemma. I’ll add a proper description soon.

Most sites of this nature are no better than textbooks on logic, but with this blog I will endeavour to provide ‘real’ examples of all the technical terms coined. Arguments are one of the least abstract applications of philosophy in real life. Everywhere you look people are trying to convince you of things, whether it’s what to buy or who to believe. We will try and expose the basic errors in reasoning regarded by many as common sense.