| Socratic Fallacy |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Fallacies of Ambiguity
>
Socratic Fallacy
|
Socratic FallacyThe Socratic fallacy 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 Socratic fallacy occurs when a false claim is made that terms are required to be defined before examples of those terms can be given. This is not to say that it isn't vital that everyone is using the same definition of a given term. Examples of the Socratic Fallacy
The problem is one of circularity. We have to know enough to give a comprehensive definition before we can know anything. We know in part. Often, we don't know enough to really define a matter, but God reveals by degrees in unfolding revelation. This is true of natural things and of spiritual things. If we apply this logic to everything, then we can't talk about anything until we know everything about everything. However, when challenged, Sandy is likely to commit a special pleading fallacy to make exceptions for the things that he knows something about. Not the Socratic Fallacy
It's vital to know what an assumption is since college classes are often creating another broad definition for the word that includes testable, verifiable things. They mix the unverifiable assumptions that are true assumptions with tested and testable things, and then they imply that there is no difference. You will find an explanation of the problem with assumptions here, using an example from Berkeley.
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 Defining Terms Too Broadly Defining Terms Too Narrowly Failure to Elucidate Persuasive Definition Composition / Exception Fallacy Division Etymological Fallacy Nominalization 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 |
