| Nominalization |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Fallacies of Ambiguity
>
Nominalization
|
Logical Fallacy of Nominalization, Misnomer, LabelingNominalization is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma. This is a fallacy that superimposes another level of fallacy on top or one or more of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. The logical fallacy of nominalization / misnomer / labeling occurs when a label is applied to something or someone without any proof that the person or the thing fits the label. It is a form of unsupported assertion. It can be used to impact behavior or to ridicule a person, idea, organization or other entity. It can be used to create a false impression about a person, idea, organization, or other entity. Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Nominalization, Misnomer, Labeling:
The word, theory, is a misnomer in this context. The implication is that the word, theory is defined as a scientific theory. A hypothesis cannot be called a theory when it violates scientific laws in the way that the Molecules-to-Man story does. In fact, since it requires many just-so stories to rescue the story from so many claims that are mutually exclusive to so many laws of science, the story is not even a scientific hypothesis, let alone a scientific theory.
Note that this is similar to the fallacy of persuasive definition. While all the detail of this statement might not be verbalized, some form of this philosophy can be found among those who call themselves Christian.
This is an example of turning an adjective into a noun. A person did a certain action. Actions do have their effects on our being, especially sexual actions. Then, the person labels himself as being his action. The result is that it is more difficult for the person who labels himself in this way to change the behavior. In his worldview, he is trapped and his behavior has become part of his very being in his mind. The same would apply to the following:
All of these enforce bondage to destructive self-image, which, in turn, impacts future behavior.
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionAmbiguity Barnum Effect Ambiguous Assertion Innuendo Sly Suggestion Syntactic Ambiguity Lexical Ambiguity Homonymy Shingle Speech Use-Mention Error Double Entendre Misuse of Etymology Garden Path Ambiguity Squinting Modifier Quantifier Shift Illicit Observation Metaphorical Ambiguity Euphemism Equivocation Redefinition Middle Puzzle Part Idiosyncratic Language Type-Token Ambiguity Misconditionalization Modal Scope Fallacy Scope Fallacy Ambiguous Middle Hypnotic Bait and Switch Definist Fallacy Defining a Word in Terms of Itself Socratic Fallacy Defining Terms Too Broadly Defining Terms Too Narrowly Failure to Elucidate Persuasive Definition Composition / Exception Fallacy Division Etymological Fallacy Inference from a Label Pigeonholing Fallacy Category Mistake Conjunction Fallacy Disjunction Fallacy Information Overload Proof by Verbosity Argument by Gibberish Confusing Contradiction with Contrariety Type-Token Ambiguity Conceptual Fallacy Mistaking an Entity for a Theory Butterfly Logic Process-Product Ambiguity Recently Viewed |
