If you stop to think about it, you have no real knowledge of the meaning of about 80% of the words you use daily in your vocabulary. You only know a brief outline, a vague explanation that doesn’t really serve to define them properly.
For example, I believe that most of you don’t actually know the meaning of the word “essence.” You know a rough idea of it, but nothing meaningful enough to allow you to define it precisely.
For example, I believe that most of you don’t actually know the meaning of the word “essence.” You know a rough idea of it, but nothing meaningful enough to allow you to define it precisely.
Oko†Channel!
Biosphere – Houses on the Hill
Contemplate our own stupidity as we listen to this song.
You’ll be frightened by the extent of it.
You’ll be frightened by the extent of it.
меньше чем три <3
Maybe I should actually do something deliberate towards finding a girlfriend cause I feel like I am somehow running out of time
I hope you stay alone for life, bro. You deserve it. All that gooning and the refusal to admit the damage it does to you… for your sins, you must pay, and the just price is lifelong loneliness. Every time you gooned and wore it as a quirky part of your wholesome persona, I hope it became a deep, unending solitude, leaving you incapable of ever hugging someone in real life.
😭2
I read that analogies are essentially fallacies… so are analogies always fallacies? That sounds weird. People use analogies all the time!
Lucas(rururu)
why?
If you look it up, you’ll find that only “false analogies” are considered fallacies. But the point here is stricter and more philosophical: strictly speaking, analogies are fallacious by nature. Philosophically speaking, the issue with analogies is pretty simple: they rely on partial similarities, while strong conclusions require necessity.
An analogy basically says, “A is like B in some ways, so A must also be like B in this other way.”
The problem is that this leap is never logically guaranteed. Just because two things share some traits doesn’t mean they share the one that actually matters.
From a strict logical point of view, that alone is enough to say it’s not a valid deduction. This goes against holism, which needs to be taken into account for a deduction to be valid.
An analogy basically says, “A is like B in some ways, so A must also be like B in this other way.”
The problem is that this leap is never logically guaranteed. Just because two things share some traits doesn’t mean they share the one that actually matters.
From a strict logical point of view, that alone is enough to say it’s not a valid deduction. This goes against holism, which needs to be taken into account for a deduction to be valid.
Oko†Channel!
If you look it up, you’ll find that only “false analogies” are considered fallacies. But the point here is stricter and more philosophical: strictly speaking, analogies are fallacious by nature. Philosophically speaking, the issue with analogies is pretty…
A valid deduction is simple.
Premise 1: S is better than K.
Premise 2: K is slightly worse than S.
Conclusion: Therefore, S is better than K.
There is no possible scenario in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false, because the conclusion is already contained in the premises. The relation is explicit and necessary. With analogies, however, this necessity is missing. An analogical argument usually looks like this:
S is better than K in some respect, so K must also be better than S in other respects.
The problem is that those “other respects” were never stated as premises, they are merely assumed. And just because something “must” be true does not make it a valid conclusion.
Since these additional similarities are not established, the conclusion lacks a necessary foundation, and the inference becomes logically invalid.
Premise 1: S is better than K.
Premise 2: K is slightly worse than S.
Conclusion: Therefore, S is better than K.
There is no possible scenario in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false, because the conclusion is already contained in the premises. The relation is explicit and necessary. With analogies, however, this necessity is missing. An analogical argument usually looks like this:
S is better than K in some respect, so K must also be better than S in other respects.
The problem is that those “other respects” were never stated as premises, they are merely assumed. And just because something “must” be true does not make it a valid conclusion.
The sun may rise tomorrow, but that does not prove that it will rise tomorrow.
Since these additional similarities are not established, the conclusion lacks a necessary foundation, and the inference becomes logically invalid.
❤1