Appeal to the stone: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Duplicate word removed
Covidking (talk | contribs)
40 edits
No edit summary
Line 13: Line 13:


=== Dr. Samuel Johnson ===
=== Dr. Samuel Johnson ===
The creator of the appeal to the stone theory, Dr. Samuel Johnson, was born in [[Lichfield]], [[Staffordshire]], [[England]] in 1709 AD and was a innovator in the English language by creating the ''Dictionary of the English Language'' in 1755, the most important English dictionary at the time.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2017-09-18|title=Who was Samuel Johnson, what did he do, why is he so important?|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/samuel-johnson-google-doodle-who-was-he-dictionary-james-boswell-writer-publisher-wit-a7952616.html|access-date=2020-11-03|website=The Independent|language=en}}</ref> Dr. Samuel Johnson attended Oxford University for a brief period, but left due to an inability to afford the tuition. Dr. Samuel Johnson’s popularity soared after the publication of ‘Life of Johnson’ (published in 1791) by Scottish biographer and lawyer, [[James Boswell]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=BBC - History - Samuel Johnson|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/johnson_samuel.shtml|access-date=2020-11-03|website=www.bbc.co.uk|language=en-GB}}</ref> In this book Boswell introduced the famous story where they both agreed that the theory of subjective idealism was false but could not prove it with evidence. Dr. Samuel Johnson died in [[London]], [[England]] on the 13 December 1784 and was buried in [[Westminster Abbey]]. <ref>{{Citation|last=Johnson|first=Samuel|title=ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511702617.006|work=The History of the Yorubas|pages=3–14|place=Cambridge|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-511-70261-7|access-date=2020-11-19}}</ref>
The creator of the appeal to the stone theory, Dr. Samuel Johnson, was born in [[Lichfield]], [[Staffordshire]], [[England]] in 1709 AD and was an English critic, biographer, essayist, poet, and lexicographer.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Samuel Johnson {{!}} Biography, Dictionary, Quotes, & Facts|url=https://www.britannica.com/biography/Samuel-Johnson|access-date=2020-11-19|website=Encyclopedia Britannica|language=en}}</ref> Dr. Samuel Johnson was an innovator in the English language by creating the ''Dictionary of the English Language'' in 1755, the most important English dictionary at the time.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2017-09-18|title=Who was Samuel Johnson, what did he do, why is he so important?|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/samuel-johnson-google-doodle-who-was-he-dictionary-james-boswell-writer-publisher-wit-a7952616.html|access-date=2020-11-03|website=The Independent|language=en}}</ref> Dr. Samuel Johnson attended Oxford University for a brief period, but left due to an inability to afford the tuition. Dr. Samuel Johnson’s popularity soared after the publication of ‘Life of Johnson’ (published in 1791) by Scottish biographer and lawyer, [[James Boswell]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=BBC - History - Samuel Johnson|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/johnson_samuel.shtml|access-date=2020-11-03|website=www.bbc.co.uk|language=en-GB}}</ref> In this book Boswell introduced the famous story where they both agreed that the theory of subjective idealism was false but could not prove it with evidence. Dr. Samuel Johnson died in [[London]], [[England]] on the 13 December 1784 and was buried in [[Westminster Abbey]]. <ref>{{Citation|last=Johnson|first=Samuel|title=ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511702617.006|work=The History of the Yorubas|pages=3–14|place=Cambridge|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-511-70261-7|access-date=2020-11-19}}</ref>




Line 24: Line 24:
Appeal to the Stone also ties closely into the theory of [[Irrelevant conclusion|irrelevant conclusions]] also known as ''ignoratio elenchi'' (Latin for <nowiki>''ignoring refutation''</nowiki>). Fallacies of irrelevance begin with an original premise, follows an irrelevant argument, and ultimately leads to a wrong conclusion.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Walton|first=Douglas|date=2004-01-01|title=Classification of Fallacies of Relevance|url=http://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/2133|journal=Informal Logic|volume=24|issue=1|doi=10.22329/il.v24i1.2133|issn=0824-2577}}</ref> Irrelevant conclusions requires a correct conclusion and an incorrect conclusion.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Walton|first=Douglas|date=2003-10-17|title=Relevance in Argumentation|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781410609441|doi=10.4324/9781410609441}}</ref> The lack of ability to elaborate upon the conclusion is the distinguishing factor between an irrelevant conclusion and an appeal to the stone.
Appeal to the Stone also ties closely into the theory of [[Irrelevant conclusion|irrelevant conclusions]] also known as ''ignoratio elenchi'' (Latin for <nowiki>''ignoring refutation''</nowiki>). Fallacies of irrelevance begin with an original premise, follows an irrelevant argument, and ultimately leads to a wrong conclusion.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Walton|first=Douglas|date=2004-01-01|title=Classification of Fallacies of Relevance|url=http://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/2133|journal=Informal Logic|volume=24|issue=1|doi=10.22329/il.v24i1.2133|issn=0824-2577}}</ref> Irrelevant conclusions requires a correct conclusion and an incorrect conclusion.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Walton|first=Douglas|date=2003-10-17|title=Relevance in Argumentation|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781410609441|doi=10.4324/9781410609441}}</ref> The lack of ability to elaborate upon the conclusion is the distinguishing factor between an irrelevant conclusion and an appeal to the stone.


=== Reductio Ad Absurdum ===
=== Inductive Reasoning ===
Appeal to the Stone shares similarities in structure to [[Reductio ad absurdum|''Reductio Ad Absurdum'']] (Latin for “reduction to absurdity”) which states that an arguments assumptions or methods will lead to absurd conclusions.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Odintsov|first=S. P.|date=2003-11-23|title=“Reductio ad absurdum” and Łukasiewicz’s modalities|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/llp.2003.008|journal=Logic and Logical Philosophy|volume=11|issue=0|doi=10.12775/llp.2003.008|issn=1425-3305}}</ref> Although appeal to the stone does not explicitly state that an initial statement is absurd, a refutation of the initial claim often times presumes that that the initial claim is incorrect or absurd. ''Reductio Ad Absurdum'' makes the assertion that if an initial claim is true, then some other absurd conclusion must also be true.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Rescher|first=Nicholas|date=2017|title=Reductio ad absurdum|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.24894/hwph.3487|access-date=2020-11-19|website=Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie online}}</ref>
Appeal to the Stone utilizes inductive reasoning to derive its argument. Formal fallacies use deductive reasoning and formal properties to structure an argument and inductive arguments do not use this structure. Inductive reasoning is reasoning with uncertain conclusions because of inferences made about a specific situation, object, or event.<ref>{{Cite journal|date=2001-01-01|editor-last=Feeney|editor-first=Aidan|editor2-last=Heit|editor2-first=Evan|title=Inductive Reasoning|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511619304|doi=10.1017/cbo9780511619304}}</ref> In the context of Appeal to the Stone, inductive reasoning is asserted against an initial claim without further elaboration. Inductive arguments can be affected by the acquisition of new information or evidence that can debunk an inductive assumption.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Deductive and Inductive Arguments {{!}} Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy|url=https://iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/|access-date=2020-11-19|language=en-US}}</ref>


== Example ==
== Example ==
[[File:Process of Appeal to the Stone.jpg|thumb|351x351px|The Appeal to the Stone argument follow 4 steps. An initial claim, a refutation, a questioning of the refutation, and a dismissal of the refutation.]]
[[File:Process of Appeal to the Stone.jpg|thumb|351x351px|The Appeal to the Stone argument follow 4 steps. An initial claim, a refutation, a questioning of the refutation, and a dismissal of the refutation.]]
: Below is an example of an argument employing an ''Appeal to the Stone'':
: Below is an example of an argument employing an ''Appeal to the Stone'' :
:Speaker A: [[Vaccination|Vaccines]] help the immune system and prevent the spread of disease.
:Speaker A: [[Vaccination|Vaccines]] help the immune system and prevent the spread of disease.
:Speaker B: [[Vaccine hesitancy|That is not true]].
:Speaker B: [[Vaccine hesitancy|That is not true]].
:Speaker A: Why is not true?
:Speaker A: Why is not true?
:Speaker B: It is obviously not correct. <br />
:Speaker B: It is obviously not correct. <br />
:In this example, Speaker B has refuted Speaker A’s claim without providing any evidence to support their refutation.
:In this example, Speaker B has refuted Speaker A’s claim without providing any evidence to support their refutation.
Line 45: Line 45:


Many illogical fallacies employ quick judgements based on emotion to create conclusions in system 1 type decision-making. However, by having a sceptical mindset on one’s own conclusions and engaging in methodological thinking, one can avoid an illogical fallacy.<ref>{{Citation|last=Risen|first=Jane|title=Informal Logical Fallacies|date=2006|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/CBO9780511804632A016/type/book_part|work=Critical Thinking in Psychology|pages=110–130|editor-last=Sternberg|editor-first=Robert J.|place=Cambridge|publisher=Cambridge University Press|doi=10.1017/cbo9780511804632.008|isbn=978-0-511-80463-2|access-date=2020-11-03|last2=Gilovich|first2=Thomas|editor2-last=Roediger III|editor2-first=Henry L.|editor3-last=Halpern|editor3-first=Diane F.}}</ref>
Many illogical fallacies employ quick judgements based on emotion to create conclusions in system 1 type decision-making. However, by having a sceptical mindset on one’s own conclusions and engaging in methodological thinking, one can avoid an illogical fallacy.<ref>{{Citation|last=Risen|first=Jane|title=Informal Logical Fallacies|date=2006|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/CBO9780511804632A016/type/book_part|work=Critical Thinking in Psychology|pages=110–130|editor-last=Sternberg|editor-first=Robert J.|place=Cambridge|publisher=Cambridge University Press|doi=10.1017/cbo9780511804632.008|isbn=978-0-511-80463-2|access-date=2020-11-03|last2=Gilovich|first2=Thomas|editor2-last=Roediger III|editor2-first=Henry L.|editor3-last=Halpern|editor3-first=Diane F.}}</ref>

== Similar Theories ==

=== Reductio Ad Absurdum ===
Appeal to the Stone shares similarities in structure to [[Reductio ad absurdum|''Reductio Ad Absurdum'']] (Latin for “reduction to absurdity”) which states that an arguments assumptions or methods will lead to absurd conclusions.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Odintsov|first=S. P.|date=2003-11-23|title=“Reductio ad absurdum” and Łukasiewicz’s modalities|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/llp.2003.008|journal=Logic and Logical Philosophy|volume=11|issue=0|doi=10.12775/llp.2003.008|issn=1425-3305}}</ref> Although appeal to the stone does not explicitly state that an initial statement is absurd, a refutation of the initial claim often times presumes that that the initial claim is incorrect or absurd. ''Reductio Ad Absurdum'' makes the assertion that if an initial claim is true, then some other absurd conclusion must also be true.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Rescher|first=Nicholas|date=2017|title=Reductio ad absurdum|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.24894/hwph.3487|access-date=2020-11-19|website=Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie online}}</ref>

=== Begging the Question ===
Begging the Question, also called ''petitio principii'', is a conclusion based on an assumption that requires further proof or elaboration to be validated.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Garner|first=Bryan A.|date=2016|title=Garner’s Modern English Usage|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780190491482.001.0001|journal=Oxford Reference|doi=10.1093/acref/9780190491482.001.0001}}</ref> Begging the question, is more formally synonymous with “ignoring a question under the assumption it has already been answered.” Begging the question often creates further questioning and colloquial use of this theory has been repurposed to mean “a question that begs to be answered”.<ref>{{Citation|last=Griffith|first=Bryant|title=What Does it Mean to Question?|date=2016|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-642-2_3|work=NextGeners|pages=53–83|place=Rotterdam|publisher=SensePublishers|isbn=978-94-6300-642-2|access-date=2020-11-19}}</ref>


== See also ==
== See also ==

Revision as of 22:17, 19 November 2020

Appeal to the stone, also known as ‘argumentum ad lapidem’, is a logical fallacy that dismisses an argument as untrue or absurd and proves this assertion by stating that the argument is absurd. This theory is closely tied to proof by assertion because of the lack of evidence behind the statement and its attempt to be persuasive without providing any evidence.

Appeal to the Stone is a type of informal fallacy within the realm of logical fallacies. This means that appeals to the stone relies on inductive reasoning in an argument to justify an assertion. The assertion relies entirely on the content of the argument and does not examine the form or structure of it.

History

Founding of the Theory

The name appeal to the stone spawned from an argument between Dr. Samuel Johnson and James Boswell over George Berkeley’s theory of subjective idealism (known previously as “immaterialism”). Subjective idealism states that reality is dependent on a person’s perceptions of the world and that material objects are intertwined with one’s perceptions of these material objects.[1] Dr. Samuel Johnson rejected Berkley’s argument that material things only exist in one’s own interpretation by striking his foot against a large stone and stated, “I refute it thus”.[2]

Dr. Samuel Johnson’s argument for appeal to the stone was to disprove subjective idealism by showing that by striking his foot against a large stone and observing his foot rebounded off of it, would prove the laws of subjective idealism were incorrect.[3] Dr. Samuel Jackson’s argument for appeal to the stone was to disprove subjective idealism by showing that by striking his foot against a large stone and observing his foot rebounded off it, would prove the laws of subjective idealism were incorrect.[4]

Photograph of Dr.Samuel Johnson.
Dr. Samuel Johnson. Founder of the Appeal to the Stone theory.

Dr. Samuel Johnson

The creator of the appeal to the stone theory, Dr. Samuel Johnson, was born in Lichfield, Staffordshire, England in 1709 AD and was an English critic, biographer, essayist, poet, and lexicographer.[5] Dr. Samuel Johnson was an innovator in the English language by creating the Dictionary of the English Language in 1755, the most important English dictionary at the time.[6] Dr. Samuel Johnson attended Oxford University for a brief period, but left due to an inability to afford the tuition. Dr. Samuel Johnson’s popularity soared after the publication of ‘Life of Johnson’ (published in 1791) by Scottish biographer and lawyer, James Boswell.[7] In this book Boswell introduced the famous story where they both agreed that the theory of subjective idealism was false but could not prove it with evidence. Dr. Samuel Johnson died in London, England on the 13 December 1784 and was buried in Westminster Abbey. [8]


Classification

Informal Logical Fallacies

Informal logical fallacies are misconceptions derived from faulty reasoning. Informal logical fallacies utilize inductive reasoning and thus can cause errors in reasoning by creating the illusion of a sound argument when it is not sound.[9]

Fallacy of Irrelevance

Appeal to the Stone also ties closely into the theory of irrelevant conclusions also known as ignoratio elenchi (Latin for ''ignoring refutation''). Fallacies of irrelevance begin with an original premise, follows an irrelevant argument, and ultimately leads to a wrong conclusion.[10] Irrelevant conclusions requires a correct conclusion and an incorrect conclusion.[11] The lack of ability to elaborate upon the conclusion is the distinguishing factor between an irrelevant conclusion and an appeal to the stone.

Inductive Reasoning

Appeal to the Stone utilizes inductive reasoning to derive its argument. Formal fallacies use deductive reasoning and formal properties to structure an argument and inductive arguments do not use this structure. Inductive reasoning is reasoning with uncertain conclusions because of inferences made about a specific situation, object, or event.[12] In the context of Appeal to the Stone, inductive reasoning is asserted against an initial claim without further elaboration. Inductive arguments can be affected by the acquisition of new information or evidence that can debunk an inductive assumption.[13]

Example

The Appeal to the Stone argument follow 4 steps. An initial claim, a refutation, a questioning of the refutation, and a dismissal of the refutation.
Below is an example of an argument employing an Appeal to the Stone :
Speaker A: Vaccines help the immune system and prevent the spread of disease.
Speaker B: That is not true.
Speaker A: Why is not true?
Speaker B: It is obviously not correct.
In this example, Speaker B has refuted Speaker A’s claim without providing any evidence to support their refutation.

Criticisms

Restricted Debate

In contrast to the burden of proof (philosophy), appeal to the stone does not allow for debate past the dismissal of the first claim. Therefore, the burden of proof is placed upon the person who made the initial statement to prove it is correct. However, when appeal to the stone is used to argue, there is a diminished ability for a person to create a rebuttal due to lack of elaboration on why there has been a disagreement.[14]

Two Systems Theory

The Two Systems theory, by Israeli psychologist Daniel Kahneman in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, explains the reasoning behind illogical fallacies. In the two systems theory, decision-making is categorized into system 1 and system 2. System 1 decision-making only uses quick and usually heuristic based interpretations to aid in low-engagement decisions. System 2 decision-making uses more deliberate and rational consideration when creating a conclusion.[15]

Many illogical fallacies employ quick judgements based on emotion to create conclusions in system 1 type decision-making. However, by having a sceptical mindset on one’s own conclusions and engaging in methodological thinking, one can avoid an illogical fallacy.[16]

Similar Theories

Reductio Ad Absurdum

Appeal to the Stone shares similarities in structure to Reductio Ad Absurdum (Latin for “reduction to absurdity”) which states that an arguments assumptions or methods will lead to absurd conclusions.[17] Although appeal to the stone does not explicitly state that an initial statement is absurd, a refutation of the initial claim often times presumes that that the initial claim is incorrect or absurd. Reductio Ad Absurdum makes the assertion that if an initial claim is true, then some other absurd conclusion must also be true.[18]

Begging the Question

Begging the Question, also called petitio principii, is a conclusion based on an assumption that requires further proof or elaboration to be validated.[19] Begging the question, is more formally synonymous with “ignoring a question under the assumption it has already been answered.” Begging the question often creates further questioning and colloquial use of this theory has been repurposed to mean “a question that begs to be answered”.[20]

See also

References

  1. ^ "Subjective idealism | philosophy". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2020-11-03.
  2. ^ Patey, Douglas Lane (January 1986). "Johnson's Refutation of Berkeley: Kicking the Stone Again". Journal of the History of Ideas. 47 (1): 139. doi:10.2307/2709600.
  3. ^ Hallett, H. F. (1947). "Dr. Johnson's Refutation of Bishop Berkeley". Mind. 56 (222): 132–147. ISSN 0026-4423.
  4. ^ Hallett, H. F. (1947). "Dr. Johnson's Refutation of Bishop Berkeley". Mind. 56 (222): 132–147. ISSN 0026-4423.
  5. ^ "Samuel Johnson | Biography, Dictionary, Quotes, & Facts". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2020-11-19.
  6. ^ "Who was Samuel Johnson, what did he do, why is he so important?". The Independent. 2017-09-18. Retrieved 2020-11-03.
  7. ^ "BBC - History - Samuel Johnson". www.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2020-11-03.
  8. ^ Johnson, Samuel, "ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY", The History of the Yorubas, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–14, ISBN 978-0-511-70261-7, retrieved 2020-11-19
  9. ^ Audi, Robert, ed. (2015). The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (3 ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139057509. ISBN 978-1-139-05750-9.
  10. ^ Walton, Douglas (2004-01-01). "Classification of Fallacies of Relevance". Informal Logic. 24 (1). doi:10.22329/il.v24i1.2133. ISSN 0824-2577.
  11. ^ Walton, Douglas (2003-10-17). "Relevance in Argumentation". doi:10.4324/9781410609441. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  12. ^ Feeney, Aidan; Heit, Evan, eds. (2001-01-01). "Inductive Reasoning". doi:10.1017/cbo9780511619304. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  13. ^ "Deductive and Inductive Arguments | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy". Retrieved 2020-11-19.
  14. ^ Hannibal, Martin; Mountford, Lisa (September 2017). "15. The Burden of Proof". Law Trove. doi:10.1093/he/9780198787679.003.0015.
  15. ^ Arvai, Joseph (November 2013). "Thinking, fast and slow, Daniel Kahneman, Farrar, Straus & Giroux". Journal of Risk Research. 16 (10): 1322–1324. doi:10.1080/13669877.2013.766389. ISSN 1366-9877.
  16. ^ Risen, Jane; Gilovich, Thomas (2006), Sternberg, Robert J.; Roediger III, Henry L.; Halpern, Diane F. (eds.), "Informal Logical Fallacies", Critical Thinking in Psychology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 110–130, doi:10.1017/cbo9780511804632.008, ISBN 978-0-511-80463-2, retrieved 2020-11-03
  17. ^ Odintsov, S. P. (2003-11-23). ""Reductio ad absurdum" and Łukasiewicz's modalities". Logic and Logical Philosophy. 11 (0). doi:10.12775/llp.2003.008. ISSN 1425-3305.
  18. ^ Rescher, Nicholas (2017). "Reductio ad absurdum". Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie online. Retrieved 2020-11-19.
  19. ^ Garner, Bryan A. (2016). "Garner's Modern English Usage". Oxford Reference. doi:10.1093/acref/9780190491482.001.0001.
  20. ^ Griffith, Bryant (2016), "What Does it Mean to Question?", NextGeners, Rotterdam: SensePublishers, pp. 53–83, ISBN 978-94-6300-642-2, retrieved 2020-11-19
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Appeal_to_the_stone&oldid=989595106"