1 00:00:00,012 --> 00:00:04,890 In the last lecture we looked at one of the main fallacies of vacuity. 2 00:00:04,890 --> 00:00:10,034 That was begging the question. Recall that an argument begs the question 3 00:00:10,034 --> 00:00:15,918 whenever your justification for believing the premises are your justification for 4 00:00:15,918 --> 00:00:19,515 believing that the premises imply the conclusion. 5 00:00:19,515 --> 00:00:24,842 Depends on your already having a good reason to believe the conclusion. 6 00:00:24,842 --> 00:00:28,664 You have to already be justified in believing the conclusion in order to be 7 00:00:28,664 --> 00:00:32,629 justified in believing the premises, or believing that the argument from the 8 00:00:32,629 --> 00:00:36,806 premises to the conclusion is any good. And if that's the case, then the argument 9 00:00:36,806 --> 00:00:40,400 begs the question. But that's not only fallacy of acuity 10 00:00:40,400 --> 00:00:43,716 there is. There's another fallacy of acuity I want 11 00:00:43,716 --> 00:00:47,203 to talk about today. And that's what we're going to call 12 00:00:47,203 --> 00:00:50,738 circularity. An argument is circular just in case the 13 00:00:50,738 --> 00:00:55,832 conclusion of the argument appears as one of the premises of the argument. 14 00:00:55,832 --> 00:00:59,020 Now I know, you might think well wait a second. 15 00:00:59,020 --> 00:01:04,259 How could anyone be fool enough to make an argument that's circular or to fall 16 00:01:04,259 --> 00:01:09,321 for an argument that's circular. I mean, if the conclusion itself appears 17 00:01:09,321 --> 00:01:12,914 as one of the premises of the argument, Argument. 18 00:01:12,914 --> 00:01:18,359 Then isn't that an obvious problem. The argument isn't really doing any work. 19 00:01:18,359 --> 00:01:23,988 It's not getting you anywhere because the conclusion that you're trying to reach 20 00:01:23,988 --> 00:01:29,121 was already in there among your premises. So how could anyone be guilty of 21 00:01:29,121 --> 00:01:34,984 circularity in their reasoning? Normally people are guilty of circularity in their 22 00:01:34,984 --> 00:01:38,992 reasoning Because the circularity isn't obvious. 23 00:01:38,992 --> 00:01:44,332 And it's not obvious because the appearance of a proposition as the 24 00:01:44,332 --> 00:01:50,122 conclusion of the reasoning is far away spatially or temporally from its 25 00:01:50,122 --> 00:01:56,102 appearance as a premise in the reasoning. Let me give you an example of that 26 00:01:56,102 --> 00:02:02,360 distance to try to illustrate how Naturally it would be for someone to fall 27 00:02:02,360 --> 00:02:07,097 for circular reasoning. So suppose I argue as follows. 28 00:02:07,097 --> 00:02:13,508 The only way that we can protect ourselves from violent criminal offenders 29 00:02:13,508 --> 00:02:19,460 is to execute them because If we don't execute them, we leave them alive, then 30 00:02:19,460 --> 00:02:24,704 no matter where we put them, what prison cell we put them in or what distant 31 00:02:24,704 --> 00:02:30,027 island we put them on, they can escape, and the can come back and perpetrate 32 00:02:30,027 --> 00:02:33,772 violent criminal offensive yet again. Therefore. 33 00:02:33,772 --> 00:02:39,154 The only way to protect ourselves from violent criminal offenders, is to execute 34 00:02:39,154 --> 00:02:41,895 them. Now, notice the conclusion of that 35 00:02:41,895 --> 00:02:47,079 argument is the only way to protect ourselves from violent criminal offenders 36 00:02:47,079 --> 00:02:51,000 is to execute them. And what premise did I appeal to in 37 00:02:51,000 --> 00:02:55,537 reaching that conclusion? Well, one of the premises was this. 38 00:02:55,537 --> 00:03:00,797 If we leave them alive, then wherever we put them they could come back and 39 00:03:00,797 --> 00:03:04,374 perpetrate violent criminal offenses yet again. 40 00:03:04,374 --> 00:03:09,769 But what reason did I give you to believe that? What reason did I give you to 41 00:03:09,769 --> 00:03:14,757 believe the claim that if we leave them alive, then they could come back and 42 00:03:14,757 --> 00:03:19,744 perpetrate violent criminal offenses again? It looks like the only thing I 43 00:03:19,744 --> 00:03:24,682 said that could possibly give you a reason for believing that was the first 44 00:03:24,682 --> 00:03:29,768 statement that I made namely, the only way to protect ourselves from violent 45 00:03:29,768 --> 00:03:36,815 criminal offenders is to execute them. But that was the conclusion that I was 46 00:03:36,815 --> 00:03:40,689 arguing for. So it looks as if, I argued for that 47 00:03:40,689 --> 00:03:46,731 conclusion by appeal to a premise, and the only reason I gave you to believe 48 00:03:46,731 --> 00:03:52,086 that premise, was that very same statement that I was arguing for. 49 00:03:52,086 --> 00:03:57,862 In other words the conclusion appears as the premise, of an argument. 50 00:03:57,862 --> 00:04:03,465 For another premise which is itself the premise of an argument for the 51 00:04:03,465 --> 00:04:07,826 conclusion. That's circularity where the conclusion 52 00:04:07,826 --> 00:04:14,207 that you're arguing for appears as one of the premises in your argument for that 53 00:04:14,207 --> 00:04:17,777 conclusion. And that's a kind of circularity that 54 00:04:17,777 --> 00:04:21,762 people can fall for. Because the appearance of the proposition 55 00:04:21,762 --> 00:04:25,562 as a conclusion is distant from its appearance as a premise. 56 00:04:25,562 --> 00:04:30,437 They're separated by another premise. In addition to begging the question in 57 00:04:30,437 --> 00:04:33,952 circularity. There's another kind of fallacy of acuity 58 00:04:33,952 --> 00:04:39,248 that we're going to call self sealing. An argument is self-sealing, or as we'll 59 00:04:39,248 --> 00:04:44,076 sometimes say, as self-sealer. Just in case it's irrefutable by any 60 00:04:44,076 --> 00:04:48,355 possible evidence. There's no evidence that you could bring 61 00:04:48,355 --> 00:04:51,982 forward to show that the argument is unsuccessful. 62 00:04:51,982 --> 00:04:56,172 Let me give you an example of a self-sealing argument. 63 00:04:56,172 --> 00:05:01,904 Suppose I say other people have lived to be 100 years old and you might too. 64 00:05:01,904 --> 00:05:05,112 Okay. Now, even though that sounds like a 65 00:05:05,112 --> 00:05:10,993 conjunction, I was saying other people have lived to be 100 years old and you 66 00:05:10,993 --> 00:05:17,110 might too. Really, although it sounded like a conjunction, it was an insinuated 67 00:05:17,110 --> 00:05:20,248 argument. The idea was this. 68 00:05:20,248 --> 00:05:25,053 I first, bring up the fact, which admittedly is a fact, that other people 69 00:05:25,053 --> 00:05:29,566 have lived to be 100 years old. And then I suggest on the basis of that 70 00:05:29,566 --> 00:05:33,822 fact, I suggest as a conclusion to be inferred from that fact. 71 00:05:33,822 --> 00:05:37,481 That you might also live to be 100 years old. 72 00:05:37,481 --> 00:05:43,496 So that's an insinuated argument. Is that argument any good? Well, what 73 00:05:43,496 --> 00:05:49,822 evidence could you bring forward to show that that argument isn't any good. 74 00:05:49,822 --> 00:05:54,933 How could you bring forward evidence to show that it's not true that you might 75 00:05:54,933 --> 00:06:00,120 live to be 100 years old? Of course, if you don't live to be 100 years old, then 76 00:06:00,120 --> 00:06:05,281 I could say well, that just shows that you didn't actually live to be 100 years 77 00:06:05,281 --> 00:06:08,072 old. It didn't show that I was wrong when I 78 00:06:08,072 --> 00:06:13,184 said you might live to be 100 years old. It could still have been true that you 79 00:06:13,184 --> 00:06:18,350 might have lived to be 100 years old. Even though you didn't actually live to 80 00:06:18,350 --> 00:06:21,845 be 100 years old. So, what evidence could you possibly 81 00:06:21,845 --> 00:06:26,910 bring forward to show that it's not true that you might live to be 100 years old? 82 00:06:26,910 --> 00:06:31,946 What evidence could you possibly bring forward to show that the fact that other 83 00:06:31,946 --> 00:06:36,865 people have lived to be 100 years old doesn't support the claim that you might 84 00:06:36,865 --> 00:06:41,506 live to be 100 years old? This is an example of an argument that can't be 85 00:06:41,506 --> 00:06:46,455 refuted, can't be criticized by appeal to any evidence that you could bring 86 00:06:46,455 --> 00:06:51,844 forward, and because of that feature, the argument is one that we're going to call 87 00:06:51,844 --> 00:06:55,185 a self-sealer. Let me give you another example of a 88 00:06:55,185 --> 00:06:58,672 self-sealer. Suppose that I present you with a lot of 89 00:06:58,672 --> 00:07:03,327 evidence concerning the power of the automobile executives who live in 90 00:07:03,327 --> 00:07:04,912 Michigan. Right now. 91 00:07:04,912 --> 00:07:09,107 And I say on the basis of this evidence that the whole world, all if it's 92 00:07:09,107 --> 00:07:13,932 financial institutions, it's political institutions, and it's miliitary forces 93 00:07:13,932 --> 00:07:18,782 are controlled, secretly controlled, by a nefarious network of Michiganders. 94 00:07:18,782 --> 00:07:24,497 Now, you might wonder, well, aren't there some other people in the world, some 95 00:07:24,497 --> 00:07:29,632 non-Michiganders who have some say over the operation of our financial 96 00:07:29,632 --> 00:07:33,882 institutions, or Political institutions or our military forces. 97 00:07:33,882 --> 00:07:37,572 And I say, nope, nope. It's just that this network of powerful 98 00:07:37,572 --> 00:07:42,497 Michiganders is so covert, that they have planted evidence to the effect that there 99 00:07:42,497 --> 00:07:47,047 are some other non Michiganders who are responsible for some of the important 100 00:07:47,047 --> 00:07:51,867 things that happen in the world. But this evidence is all planted. 101 00:07:51,867 --> 00:07:57,232 This is all evidence that the Michiganders, have arranged for us to 102 00:07:57,232 --> 00:08:03,852 see, so that we'll be led off their path. In fact, it's these few Michiganders, who 103 00:08:03,852 --> 00:08:08,992 control all of the flow of money, and power and military force. 104 00:08:08,992 --> 00:08:12,252 In the world. Now, admittedly, you might be very 105 00:08:12,252 --> 00:08:16,771 skeptical about my contention. But, how are you going to refute me. 106 00:08:16,771 --> 00:08:21,537 How are you going to provide what I'm saying is false? Could you bring up 107 00:08:21,537 --> 00:08:26,474 evidence of some non-Michiganders who have some financial or political or 108 00:08:26,474 --> 00:08:31,487 military power? Well, if you do, I'll just say that evidence was planted by 109 00:08:31,487 --> 00:08:35,782 these powerful Michiganders. So my argument is a self-sealer. 110 00:08:35,782 --> 00:08:41,447 Because, no matter what evidence you offer to the contrary, I can counter your 111 00:08:41,447 --> 00:08:45,043 evidence. I can make some claim to the effect that 112 00:08:45,043 --> 00:08:49,586 the evidence that you've offered is misleading or irrelevant. 113 00:08:49,586 --> 00:08:53,319 That is another example of a self sealing argument. 114 00:08:53,319 --> 00:08:57,457 Now, let's consider some further examples of arguments. 115 00:08:57,457 --> 00:09:01,072 Which may or may not be self sealers. You decide. 116 00:09:01,072 --> 00:09:06,178 Finally, let me give you one more example of a self-sealing argument. 117 00:09:06,178 --> 00:09:12,047 The kind of self-sealing argument that I want to conclude by discussing is a kind 118 00:09:12,047 --> 00:09:18,002 of argument that commits both a falacy of accuity and also a falacy of ambiguity. 119 00:09:18,002 --> 00:09:23,427 Consider the following arguement. Suppose, I, describe to you various 120 00:09:23,427 --> 00:09:29,072 events that happened, and I give you an explaination of why they happened. 121 00:09:29,072 --> 00:09:35,327 And then I conclude, by saying, you see, everything happens for a reason, and I've 122 00:09:35,327 --> 00:09:41,669 supported that conclusion, by describing cases in which one or another thing Did 123 00:09:41,669 --> 00:09:45,917 happen for a reason. So I conclude by saying, everything 124 00:09:45,917 --> 00:09:50,467 happens for a reason. Now, suppose I then proceed to draw the 125 00:09:50,467 --> 00:09:56,579 further conclusion about some events that are taking place right now, I say see we 126 00:09:56,579 --> 00:10:02,053 might not know why these events are happening or what purpose they serve. 127 00:10:02,053 --> 00:10:07,947 But everything happens for a reason. And in time The reason why these things 128 00:10:07,947 --> 00:10:13,402 are happening will be disclosed. Okay, now notice what's happened. 129 00:10:13,402 --> 00:10:18,267 First of all, I've inoculated myself from counter evidence. 130 00:10:18,267 --> 00:10:24,025 So if you present me with counter evidence, let's say a year from now We 131 00:10:24,025 --> 00:10:29,751 still haven't found out what purpose was served by the events that are taking 132 00:10:29,751 --> 00:10:32,328 place right now. I could say okay. 133 00:10:32,328 --> 00:10:38,238 So, we still don't know what the reason was but there was a reason and we'll find 134 00:10:38,238 --> 00:10:42,688 out eventually. Well, I've just inoculated myself against 135 00:10:42,688 --> 00:10:46,942 any future evidence. Right? Because no matter how long. 136 00:10:46,942 --> 00:10:51,592 We continue to wait. I could still stay, yep we haven't found 137 00:10:51,592 --> 00:10:55,418 out what the reason was yet, let's wait some more. 138 00:10:55,418 --> 00:10:59,810 So, that's one way in which the argument is a self sealer. 139 00:10:59,810 --> 00:11:05,331 It's a self sealer because I've inoculated myself against refutation by 140 00:11:05,331 --> 00:11:09,881 counter evidence. But that argument also commits a fallacy 141 00:11:09,881 --> 00:11:12,002 of ambiguity. Ambiguity. 142 00:11:12,002 --> 00:11:16,798 When I was arguing that everything happens for a reason, I was giving 143 00:11:16,798 --> 00:11:22,115 examples of events that happened, because something caused them to happen. 144 00:11:22,115 --> 00:11:26,989 And it might be true that everything that happens is caused to happen. 145 00:11:26,989 --> 00:11:30,281 There was some cause or other of its happening. 146 00:11:30,281 --> 00:11:35,902 But then, after I reach the conclusion that everything happens for a reason. 147 00:11:35,902 --> 00:11:41,921 I then reinterpret the term "reason" to mean everything happens in the service of 148 00:11:41,921 --> 00:11:46,288 some other purpose, in the service of some larger purpose. 149 00:11:46,288 --> 00:11:52,512 So now when I say everything happens for a reason, I don't mean everything happens 150 00:11:52,512 --> 00:11:56,329 Because there is some cause or other of its occurrence. 151 00:11:56,329 --> 00:12:00,889 I mean, everything happens in the service of some larger purpose. 152 00:12:00,889 --> 00:12:06,242 And that's a totally different claim. So, here's a case of an argument that is 153 00:12:06,242 --> 00:12:10,463 both a self-sealer Right, it's irrefutable by counter evidence. 154 00:12:10,463 --> 00:12:13,172 And it also commits a fallacy of ambiguity. 155 00:12:13,172 --> 00:12:17,875 Right, it trades on 2 different meanings of the term, happens for a reason. 156 00:12:17,875 --> 00:12:22,942 Right, things could happen for a reason because something causes them to happen. 157 00:12:22,942 --> 00:12:27,639 Or things could happen for a reason because they serve some larger purpose. 158 00:12:27,639 --> 00:12:30,380 And this argument trades on those 2 meanings.