What is the Etymological Fallacy?
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 07. 2024
- An explanation of the etymological fallacy, a fallacy for the interpretation of terms in an argument and how you can avoid it with the philosophical principle of charity.
Sponsors: NBA_Ruby, Antybodi, Federico Galvão, Mike Gloudemans, Andrew Sullivan, Eugene SY, Tyler James, Antoinemp1, Dennis Sexton, Joao Sa, Joshua Furman, Multitude, Ploney, Avatar, Diéssica, GhostlyYorick, Hendrick McDonald, horace chan, Will DeRousse, Star Gazer, Paul Linkogle, Julian Seidl, Doǧan Çetin, and Daniel West. Thanks for your support on Patreon! If you want to become a patron, follow this link: / carneades
Here are some videos you might enjoy:
The 100 Days of Logic ( • 100 Days of Logic (Full) )
History of Philosophy ( • Four Weeks of Famous P... )
Ancient Philosophers & Zeno’s Paradoxes ( • Schools of Ancient Gre... )
ExPhi Experimental Philosophy ( / @experimentalphilosoph... )
Map of Philosophy ( • The Map Of Philosophy )
More videos with Carneades ( / @carneadesofcyrene )
Philosophy by Topic:
Epistemology: • Epistemology
Metaphysics: • Metaphysics
Political Philosophy: • Political Philosophy
Philosophy of Religion: • Philosophy of Religion
Ancient Philosophy: • Ancient Philosophy
Philosophy of Science: • Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Language: • Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of Art/Aesthetics: • Philosophy of Art (Aes...
Buy stuff with Zazzle: www.zazzle.com/store/carneade...
Follow us on Twitter: @CarneadesCyrene / carneadescyrene
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Collier-MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Dictionary of Continental Philosophy, and more! (#fallacy #philosophy)
I feel like my whole life is a battle against etymological fallacy.
I checked out the other videos for moron that, but I couldn't find moron that.
Lmao this comment is gold
I feel like ive encountered this in debates about trans issues, the terms "man" and "woman" can refer to sex or gender, and gender doesn't necessarily refer to biological sex, so when the terms are used in reference to trans people, they confuse the arguments and muddles the conversation.
Conversations can be challenging when there is a disagreement on the language used as well as the content. I find it can be useful in such situations to find or develop overly specific and non-controversial terms to use (born biologically male, trans male, cis male, etc.). Then, if you want, you can use those terms to frame out and discuss the more controversial one, (i.e. which of these terms should the term "man" apply to?) It may not resolve your disagreement, but it can help you not talk past each other and at least understand where your real disagreements lie.
you just summed up Ben Shapiro's entire career
I think it's worse than that. When your interlocutor refuses to commit to any definition of gender what-so-ever, no charitable conclusion remains available.
@@chrisstott3508 On the other hand, asking for definitions comes with its own set of problems. If one party insists that a definition must conform to the classical theory of concept (i.e. delineating a concept/category by a set of necessary and sufficient conditions) then they've snuck in a bunch of implicit assumptions that the other part might disagree with. E.g. maybe the other party thinks gender is a concept that can only be properly defined using something like Wittgenstein's theory of family resemblance, or prototype theory.
@@deadeaded And yet, they won't offer that kind of definition either...
Ethimological phallacies are frequent from where I'm from (Italy), especially in Philosophy and among Classical Liceum attenders, and are still today a predominant part of Political argumentation
Teaching Discipline Good Teaching 🙏🏽
I prefer the name 'Socrates Fallacy' because he is still the gold standard for getting definitions of terms right (despite Wittgenstein et al)
I don't know if it's etymological or equivocal, but there are times when I see a person define a word but use it in a way that doesn't match.
It seems they have a practical understanding of the semantics, but lack the ability to think critically or translate between theoretical and practical.
(They may just be compartmentalising.)
Compartmentalizing, or willfully misunderstanding
The question is whether the definition is central to their argument. If they need one definition for one premise to make sense, and a different definition for another premise to make sense, it is equivocation.
The Etymology fallacy is usually a fallacy on the part of an interlocutor. If you interpret them as using one definition when they are using another, you might be committing this fallacy (though as noted, you would be forgiven if they have not clearly defined their terms).
Can the Academic institutions have a standard list of terms and their meanings?
Encyclopedias of particular disciplines often serve this purpose. The challenge is that these definitions change over time, and often are subject to disagreement. One thing we do with this series is try to provide such a list of terms for philosophy.
I thought you were taking a break?! Did the bill get passed?
I saw/heard this fallacy when somebody wants to invalid someone else's argument. They say "you don't know what X word/concept means" and they try to "win" or make you doubt of what you are saying
2.30 Τέχνη in modern Greek still means the same, it includes craftmanship.
generally I coin the term Etymological Fallacy in an opposite context, but the overall concept is the same. which is when someone informs the original meaning of a term tracing back to ancient language, as if that is supposed to be the true meaning of a word. This also makes the speaker sound smarter because of their etymological knowledge, even though the argument itself is completely pointless.
"Theory" is a word that seems to fall foul of this fallacy a lot. Creationists /etc isolate that word to attack the "theory" of evolution - they either simply misunderstand the word or intentionally misunderstand it.
Fallacy or rhetorical device?
Many fallacies are effective rhetorical devices. The goal of rhetoric is to convince your audience. The goal of Philosophy is to find truth. This is why Plato hated the sophists, he saw them as focused only on rhetoric, convincing people with no regard for truth.
Bit confused that you think this might be an 'or'. A fallacy which wasn't a rhetorical device would presumably be a fallacy deployed with no intent to persuade. Which could happen, occasionally, I guess...
Apologies. Would have deleted my initial question, but for the two thoughtful replies ["thoughtful" by its original definition, of course]
@@chrisstott3508
I get it. Not binary. I'm a gardener, not a philosopher or rhetorician
Ah shit, here we go again.
The problem is that if I am talking to a philosopher, and try to define terms, they will say "are words something that can be defined? Where is the exact point between "your hand" and not "your hand"? Do definitions even exist?". Drives me crazy.
You tell those people that there is no other way of having a discussion. Definitions are necessary. The world that we live in is a product of definitions, alongside other things ...
Not to stir the pot too much....from the perspective of an atheist, try this one on for size. Atheism is defined as the following: A lack of
belief/conviction, in or of, an alleged god/deity or alleged gods/deities, due to lack of empirical, demonstrative, and testable evidence and/or logical reason. It is important to include the adjective alleged to a god or group of them. Big difference in meaning on a philosophical standpoint. If a person could present empirical, demonstrable, testable evidence and or logical reason, an atheist might change the viewpoint, until then gods/deities are alleged by default. Philosophically speaking, I cannot draw a conclusion by any form of reasoning without premises, or any argument that is not sound or cogent. Moreover, I cannot have conviction unless I understand the reasoning.
now..
Hmm, my understanding of the etymological fallacy is different, but ultimately it's not important precisely because of the point made in the video - there's no point arguing over what a word means, just be very clear about which concepts you're using and don't equivocate.
Sadly, this basic conceptual hygiene is severely lacking in our current political climate.
Just use an analytical language like Arabic and stop being silly
There are issues of homographs in Arabic as well: www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17586801.2020.1798327
@@CarneadesOfCyrene That article talks about the writing system, not the words themselves, or rather the amount of effort spent on writing (i.e. Using punctuation or not bothering with it t). It's not a inherent structural issue.
not even lojban is immune from ambiguity
I’ve noticed that alot of Muslims still commit etymological fallacies when they argue for things like “Jesus was a Muslim” or what Islam is. They don’t use a modern definition of Muslim which would be a follower of Islam or someone who practices Islam, they use a historical definition of Muslim and say “a Muslim is simply someone who submits or submits to God”. So I’m not sure if there’s just a translation issue from Arabic to English or if Muslims are doing this intentionally in debates.