Horses have four legs, Bucephalus has four legs ∴ Bucephalus is a horse.
December 13, 2006 7:47 PM Subscribe
I am looking for a concise or idiomatic term that refers to a correct conclusion which is attained through some sort of invalid reasoning. Is there a debate or logic term for this phenomenon?
Sorry, answered too quickly: "Erase the tape, Rosemary!"
posted by rob511 at 8:12 PM on December 13, 2006
posted by rob511 at 8:12 PM on December 13, 2006
I think I'd go with "unproven truth" or some variation on that. But there's no standard term for it that I've ever heard of.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 8:16 PM on December 13, 2006
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 8:16 PM on December 13, 2006
A lucky guess.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:40 PM on December 13, 2006
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:40 PM on December 13, 2006
The only way I've heard this described is that the answer is "true but invalid," meaning that the answer is in fact true in reality, but it was reached by invalid reasoning.
posted by milarepa at 8:46 PM on December 13, 2006
posted by milarepa at 8:46 PM on December 13, 2006
The term "invalid reasoning" is getting into oxymoron territory. This is akin to a stopped clock displaying the correct time, or a psychic solving a crime--which they do from time to time, thanks to the law of probability.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:48 PM on December 13, 2006
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:48 PM on December 13, 2006
Response by poster: Rob511 & Myself: Both of those fallacy sites would be a lot more fun to read if they had good concrete examples of each fallacy.
The only things I can find on either of them that even refer to what I'm talking about are the "Bad Reasons Fallacy" and the "Fallacy Fallacy", but the actual fallacy is that invalid reasoning somehow makes the conclusion false.
Steven C. Den Beste: I am not looking for a term for the true conclusion but more for the fallacious argument through which the logician stumbled upon the truth.
posted by aubilenon at 9:02 PM on December 13, 2006
The only things I can find on either of them that even refer to what I'm talking about are the "Bad Reasons Fallacy" and the "Fallacy Fallacy", but the actual fallacy is that invalid reasoning somehow makes the conclusion false.
Steven C. Den Beste: I am not looking for a term for the true conclusion but more for the fallacious argument through which the logician stumbled upon the truth.
posted by aubilenon at 9:02 PM on December 13, 2006
Let's be logical here. The fallacious argument had no more to do with the "logician" stumbling upon the truth than did the peanut butter sandwich he had for lunch.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:19 PM on December 13, 2006
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:19 PM on December 13, 2006
In fact, "irony" is as close to describing this as anything.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:22 PM on December 13, 2006
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:22 PM on December 13, 2006
That type of process when correct is a syllogism.
I've always called the fallacious version a sillygism, especially if the conclusion is wrong. But I guess that's not helpful either.
posted by Coaticass at 9:24 PM on December 13, 2006
I've always called the fallacious version a sillygism, especially if the conclusion is wrong. But I guess that's not helpful either.
posted by Coaticass at 9:24 PM on December 13, 2006
Response by poster: weapons-grade pandemonium: I don't really see what you're trying to get at regarding oxymorons and coincidental sandwiches, but I'm pretty sure it's not an answer to my question!
posted by aubilenon at 9:31 PM on December 13, 2006
posted by aubilenon at 9:31 PM on December 13, 2006
Response by poster: Coaticass: My example is a flawed syllogism (with a true conclusion!), but I'd be happier with a term that applied to other methods of screwed up argument too. My example is merely ... an example.
I like "sillygism" even though it's not the term I'm looking for!
posted by aubilenon at 9:33 PM on December 13, 2006
I like "sillygism" even though it's not the term I'm looking for!
posted by aubilenon at 9:33 PM on December 13, 2006
I'm forced to resort to Europanto:
fallasí, or
Dude, doch!
posted by rob511 at 9:34 PM on December 13, 2006
fallasí, or
Dude, doch!
posted by rob511 at 9:34 PM on December 13, 2006
The answer to your question has been provided: fallacious thinking. If you're looking for a shorter term for it than that, then you need to be more specific than "through some sort of invalid reasoning." There are other terms that apply to specific instances of invalid reasoning, and they're all there at the Fallacy Files in the 3rd answer. But since "some sort of invalid reasoning" is all you've given us, the best answer you can get is clearly "fallacious thinking."
We can say it again if you like. :)
posted by mediareport at 9:42 PM on December 13, 2006
We can say it again if you like. :)
posted by mediareport at 9:42 PM on December 13, 2006
What's wrong with "invalid reasoning"; were you looking for something more official? Seems both clear and broad. Poor argument?
I like this page: [url=http://www.angelfire.com/ks2/fallacies/fallinf.htm]Erroneous methods of inference yielding convincing falsehoods[/url] though it may not quite fit the bill either, what with the falsehoods and all.
posted by Coaticass at 9:50 PM on December 13, 2006
I like this page: [url=http://www.angelfire.com/ks2/fallacies/fallinf.htm]Erroneous methods of inference yielding convincing falsehoods[/url] though it may not quite fit the bill either, what with the falsehoods and all.
posted by Coaticass at 9:50 PM on December 13, 2006
I don't really see what you're trying to get at regarding oxymorons and coincidental sandwiches, but I'm pretty sure it's not an answer to my question!
It has everything to do with answering your question, but you don't see that because you're hung by your own petard. You are assuming that the faulty logic had something to do with finding the solution when it didn't.
Imagine you're trying to find a stainless steel needle in a haystack, and you decide a magnet is the way to go. You happen to be ignorant of the fact that the needle is non-magnetic. While using the magnet, you step on the needle. Would you really think your decision to use the magnet had anything more to do with finding the needle than anything else you did that day?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:03 PM on December 13, 2006
It has everything to do with answering your question, but you don't see that because you're hung by your own petard. You are assuming that the faulty logic had something to do with finding the solution when it didn't.
Imagine you're trying to find a stainless steel needle in a haystack, and you decide a magnet is the way to go. You happen to be ignorant of the fact that the needle is non-magnetic. While using the magnet, you step on the needle. Would you really think your decision to use the magnet had anything more to do with finding the needle than anything else you did that day?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:03 PM on December 13, 2006
"Syllogism" is a term of art in logic which refers to something very specific. All (valid) syllogisms are logic, but not all logic is syllogism.
And in practice, syllogism is obsolete. It's not invalid, it's just too damned painful to use for anything nontrivial. Anything you could prove with syllogisms can be proved much more easily with other more advanced forms of logic.
Don't try to use the word "syllogism" generically to refer to all rigorous reasoning.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 11:22 PM on December 13, 2006
And in practice, syllogism is obsolete. It's not invalid, it's just too damned painful to use for anything nontrivial. Anything you could prove with syllogisms can be proved much more easily with other more advanced forms of logic.
Don't try to use the word "syllogism" generically to refer to all rigorous reasoning.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 11:22 PM on December 13, 2006
a. Apples are blue;
b. Therefore, all things are blue, including dreams;
c. Dreams are one variety of sky;
d. Therefore, the sky may be either blue or green;
e. Therefore, the sky is blue.
Where I come from, the term for these sorts of arguments is "bullshit".
posted by Meatbomb at 11:31 PM on December 13, 2006
b. Therefore, all things are blue, including dreams;
c. Dreams are one variety of sky;
d. Therefore, the sky may be either blue or green;
e. Therefore, the sky is blue.
Where I come from, the term for these sorts of arguments is "bullshit".
posted by Meatbomb at 11:31 PM on December 13, 2006
I don't see anything wrong with invalid correct conclusion
It's succinct, and quite clear in its meaning. but then perhaps I'm guilty of an invalid correct conclusion
posted by Neiltupper at 11:42 PM on December 13, 2006
It's succinct, and quite clear in its meaning. but then perhaps I'm guilty of an invalid correct conclusion
posted by Neiltupper at 11:42 PM on December 13, 2006
There are a lot of types of fallacious reasoning. No fallacious argument gives support to its conclusion. So, the argument you describe does not give support to its conclusion. The conclusion is true, but that's a coincidence. From the point of view of logic, the argument you give is just like this one:
Horses have four legs
Bucephalus has four legs
Therefore 3 + 3 = 6.
The conclusion is true but the premises don't lead to it, in the sense of giving it support, entailing it, or giving us a reason to believe it. The premises don't give us any reason to believe that conclusion.
The specific fallacy in this case is one that Aristotle identified when he first laid out the rules of logic. It's the fallacy of the undistributed middle term. That wikipedia article has some nice examples in it.
Now, maybe you aren't asking about whether the premises lead to or support the conclusion in the way logicians talk about. Maybe what you're asking is, what's the word for when a logically inappropriate train of thought leads our minds completely by coincidence, or because we are bad reasoners, to the truth? The word there might be "serendipity".
posted by LobsterMitten at 11:43 PM on December 13, 2006
Horses have four legs
Bucephalus has four legs
Therefore 3 + 3 = 6.
The conclusion is true but the premises don't lead to it, in the sense of giving it support, entailing it, or giving us a reason to believe it. The premises don't give us any reason to believe that conclusion.
The specific fallacy in this case is one that Aristotle identified when he first laid out the rules of logic. It's the fallacy of the undistributed middle term. That wikipedia article has some nice examples in it.
Now, maybe you aren't asking about whether the premises lead to or support the conclusion in the way logicians talk about. Maybe what you're asking is, what's the word for when a logically inappropriate train of thought leads our minds completely by coincidence, or because we are bad reasoners, to the truth? The word there might be "serendipity".
posted by LobsterMitten at 11:43 PM on December 13, 2006
(Your example is an example of the undistributed middle; my example isn't, it's an example of a non-sequitur.)
posted by LobsterMitten at 11:45 PM on December 13, 2006
posted by LobsterMitten at 11:45 PM on December 13, 2006
It may well be that "non sequitur" is the term you seek. That translates as "does not follow", which is to say that the conclusion isn't proved by the premises and logic.
non sequitur: "an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises"
The only problem is that you're looking for a term to refer specifically to a fallacious logic process which nonetheless yields a true conclusion. The term "non sequitur" is more generic and doesn't imply that the conclusion is true.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 12:30 AM on December 14, 2006
non sequitur: "an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises"
The only problem is that you're looking for a term to refer specifically to a fallacious logic process which nonetheless yields a true conclusion. The term "non sequitur" is more generic and doesn't imply that the conclusion is true.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 12:30 AM on December 14, 2006
Response by poster: I think I may have muddied the waters by bringing logic into this question, when my main interest was in rhetoric. Logic was easier to construct an example for so that's why I mentioned it at all.
People frequently use arguments to support a claim which have nothing to do with why they believe it, and it's not infrequent that people will mess up those arguments such that they are unsound and do not logically carry any weight. This is more common than accidentally deducing something correct through invalid steps. It's common enough that I was looking for a term for it.
A lot of good terms fallacy, bullshit, and synonyms were been suggested, but these all describe a superset of what I am trying to get at. I want a more specific term which excludes the cases where invalid arguments lead to false conclusions or even conclusions of unknown veracity!
"Invalid correct conclusion", and "true but invalid" both capture the gist of what I am getting at, and though they lack the idiomatic oomph and succinctness of terms like "straw man" or "appeal to authority". The individual fallacies and unsound argumentative tactics are all enumerated and cataloged but there seems to be no formal term for when they are applied to something which, regardless of the poor argumentation, is true.
Had I realized my request was going to be so misunderstood I would have written more of this in the [more inside]. At this point I thinking that there probably is no formal or otherwise compelling extant term for this.
posted by aubilenon at 1:20 AM on December 14, 2006
People frequently use arguments to support a claim which have nothing to do with why they believe it, and it's not infrequent that people will mess up those arguments such that they are unsound and do not logically carry any weight. This is more common than accidentally deducing something correct through invalid steps. It's common enough that I was looking for a term for it.
A lot of good terms fallacy, bullshit, and synonyms were been suggested, but these all describe a superset of what I am trying to get at. I want a more specific term which excludes the cases where invalid arguments lead to false conclusions or even conclusions of unknown veracity!
"Invalid correct conclusion", and "true but invalid" both capture the gist of what I am getting at, and though they lack the idiomatic oomph and succinctness of terms like "straw man" or "appeal to authority". The individual fallacies and unsound argumentative tactics are all enumerated and cataloged but there seems to be no formal term for when they are applied to something which, regardless of the poor argumentation, is true.
Had I realized my request was going to be so misunderstood I would have written more of this in the [more inside]. At this point I thinking that there probably is no formal or otherwise compelling extant term for this.
posted by aubilenon at 1:20 AM on December 14, 2006
aubilenon, it probably would have been best to ask the question in terms of "Is there a word for an argument that is true but invalid?" Then you could have avoided the fumbling of weapons-grade up there and any sort of a more inside.
Sadly, I think you're quite possibly correct and there's no specific term for this. I'd never thought of it before, but it would be a great word to have!
posted by kavasa at 6:54 AM on December 14, 2006
Sadly, I think you're quite possibly correct and there's no specific term for this. I'd never thought of it before, but it would be a great word to have!
posted by kavasa at 6:54 AM on December 14, 2006
"there seems to be no formal term for when they are applied to something which, regardless of the poor argumentation, is true."
Given that comment, isn't plaidrabbit's suggestion what your looking for? That is, this is an example of specious reasoning, no? Granted "specious reasoning" doesn't necessarily have the connotation that the conclusion is always true. Yet it would be odd to accuse someone of specious reasoning if their conclusion were false.
A simply invalid argument:
Light passes through the atmosphere.
Water droplets in the atmosphere cool down the light.
That's why the sky is green.
A specious argument:
Light passes through the atmosphere.
The atmosphere likes to trick people.
That's why the sky is blue (that darn tricky atmosphere).
posted by oddman at 7:44 AM on December 14, 2006
Given that comment, isn't plaidrabbit's suggestion what your looking for? That is, this is an example of specious reasoning, no? Granted "specious reasoning" doesn't necessarily have the connotation that the conclusion is always true. Yet it would be odd to accuse someone of specious reasoning if their conclusion were false.
A simply invalid argument:
Light passes through the atmosphere.
Water droplets in the atmosphere cool down the light.
That's why the sky is green.
A specious argument:
Light passes through the atmosphere.
The atmosphere likes to trick people.
That's why the sky is blue (that darn tricky atmosphere).
posted by oddman at 7:44 AM on December 14, 2006
Assuming a technical definition of "invalid", an inductive argument meets your criteria. But many inductive arguments are strong, or good arguments. But I'm presuming by "invalid" you mean neither deductively valid, inductively strong, or abductively strong. In which case, I believe the answer you're looking for is "lucky".
For instance, take the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. I could conclude from the following premises:
1. If it's raining then the streets are wet.
2. The streets are wet.
that:
3. It's raining.
And say it is raining. Basically I got lucky, because Jones could have been out there with his garden hose.
The same thing happens all the time in post hoc ergo propter hoc (confusing correlation with causation). People have very tenuous reasons for believing causation exists, but they believe it simply because of the correlation. Once we do double-blind studies, we have much better reasons to believe that what operates is some kind of causal factor.
posted by ontic at 8:48 AM on December 14, 2006
For instance, take the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. I could conclude from the following premises:
1. If it's raining then the streets are wet.
2. The streets are wet.
that:
3. It's raining.
And say it is raining. Basically I got lucky, because Jones could have been out there with his garden hose.
The same thing happens all the time in post hoc ergo propter hoc (confusing correlation with causation). People have very tenuous reasons for believing causation exists, but they believe it simply because of the correlation. Once we do double-blind studies, we have much better reasons to believe that what operates is some kind of causal factor.
posted by ontic at 8:48 AM on December 14, 2006
Damn, didn't read that LobsterMitten had said essentially what I did. I guess it says something that two philosophers agree (without talking to one another first)!
posted by ontic at 8:51 AM on December 14, 2006
posted by ontic at 8:51 AM on December 14, 2006
I guess it says something that two philosophers agree...
Not necessarily :^)
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:20 AM on December 14, 2006
Not necessarily :^)
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:20 AM on December 14, 2006
High-five, ontic!
Just a final word about vocabulary:
In logic, "valid" and "invalid" can only describe arguments or trains of reasoning. They cannot describe individual statements.
A (deductively) valid argument is one whose premises entail its conclusion. That is, if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. So, a valid argument can have false premises; validity is just a matter of the form of the argument. (We can tell if an argument is valid without knowing any of the specifics of the premises -- for example, any argument of the form "If A then B, A, therefore B." is valid.)
A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises. If you think about this, you'll see that a sound argument will always have a true conclusion.
I'm still not totally sure exactly what you're after, but it sounds to me like "specious argument" is the closest of the answers you've gotten here.
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:10 AM on December 14, 2006
Just a final word about vocabulary:
In logic, "valid" and "invalid" can only describe arguments or trains of reasoning. They cannot describe individual statements.
A (deductively) valid argument is one whose premises entail its conclusion. That is, if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. So, a valid argument can have false premises; validity is just a matter of the form of the argument. (We can tell if an argument is valid without knowing any of the specifics of the premises -- for example, any argument of the form "If A then B, A, therefore B." is valid.)
A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises. If you think about this, you'll see that a sound argument will always have a true conclusion.
I'm still not totally sure exactly what you're after, but it sounds to me like "specious argument" is the closest of the answers you've gotten here.
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:10 AM on December 14, 2006
People frequently use arguments to support a claim which have nothing to do with why they believe it, and it's not infrequent that people will mess up those arguments such that they are unsound and do not logically carry any weight.
I think there's a distinction to be made here. There are cases, as you say, in which people use arguments to support a conclusion that are disconnected from the reasons they believe it to be true. Call this Group A. These are sometimes rationalizations, or arguments made in bad faith. They may also involve self-deception of some kind, possibly fitting into Jean-Paul Sartre's technical definition of bad faith (see: Being and Nothingness). They may also be arguments aimed at people who do not share the same premises. So, for example, suppose that you want to convince me that free speech is very important. You base your belief in this conclusion on an argument that appeals to human happiness. Unfortunately for you, I do not believe that we are morally required to promote human happiness, and you know this. So you deploy another argument to convince me that doesn't rely on the promotion of human happiness. Perhaps you screw up this argument because you are not especially familar with it. In any case, this isn't bad faith, exactly, but it seems to fit into Group A just as well.
On the other hand, people sometimes use arguments that are disconnected from the truth of their conclusion, even if the conclusion is correct. This can be done accidentally, or because of ignorance. Call this Group B. This is what "true, but invalid" most commonly refers to. This is when reasoning goes awry, but happens to land on the truth. Incidentally, you might read up on so-called "Gettier cases," which would fit into this group, but they're more complicated, getting into what it means to have justification for knowledge.
I think the difficulty in trying to give you a name for these things is that they're often quite specific. For example, in the first group, Sartrean bad faith doesn't cover every case in Group A, let alone the cases in Group B. On top of that, I don't think many of the philosophers in the room know exactly which cases you want to refer to, and which you want to exclude.
posted by smorange at 11:29 AM on December 14, 2006
I think there's a distinction to be made here. There are cases, as you say, in which people use arguments to support a conclusion that are disconnected from the reasons they believe it to be true. Call this Group A. These are sometimes rationalizations, or arguments made in bad faith. They may also involve self-deception of some kind, possibly fitting into Jean-Paul Sartre's technical definition of bad faith (see: Being and Nothingness). They may also be arguments aimed at people who do not share the same premises. So, for example, suppose that you want to convince me that free speech is very important. You base your belief in this conclusion on an argument that appeals to human happiness. Unfortunately for you, I do not believe that we are morally required to promote human happiness, and you know this. So you deploy another argument to convince me that doesn't rely on the promotion of human happiness. Perhaps you screw up this argument because you are not especially familar with it. In any case, this isn't bad faith, exactly, but it seems to fit into Group A just as well.
On the other hand, people sometimes use arguments that are disconnected from the truth of their conclusion, even if the conclusion is correct. This can be done accidentally, or because of ignorance. Call this Group B. This is what "true, but invalid" most commonly refers to. This is when reasoning goes awry, but happens to land on the truth. Incidentally, you might read up on so-called "Gettier cases," which would fit into this group, but they're more complicated, getting into what it means to have justification for knowledge.
I think the difficulty in trying to give you a name for these things is that they're often quite specific. For example, in the first group, Sartrean bad faith doesn't cover every case in Group A, let alone the cases in Group B. On top of that, I don't think many of the philosophers in the room know exactly which cases you want to refer to, and which you want to exclude.
posted by smorange at 11:29 AM on December 14, 2006
In Psychology this is calleda heuristic.
It's opposite is an algorithm, where you come to a conclusion by testing every possible scenario until you find the correct one.
An example would be one of those number guessing problems like: What is the next logical number in the following sequence - 1 3 5 7 9
Heuristic - you can guess that it will be 11
Algorithm - you calculate until you figure out that each number is 2 more than the previous.
The advantage of a heuristic is that you can get the answer faster but it will not always be accurate.
The advantage of an algorithm is that it will take longer to get the answer but it will always be correct.
posted by eatcake at 12:16 PM on December 14, 2006
It's opposite is an algorithm, where you come to a conclusion by testing every possible scenario until you find the correct one.
An example would be one of those number guessing problems like: What is the next logical number in the following sequence - 1 3 5 7 9
Heuristic - you can guess that it will be 11
Algorithm - you calculate until you figure out that each number is 2 more than the previous.
The advantage of a heuristic is that you can get the answer faster but it will not always be accurate.
The advantage of an algorithm is that it will take longer to get the answer but it will always be correct.
posted by eatcake at 12:16 PM on December 14, 2006
If what you're after is rhetoric, you may find the Logical fallacy page on Wikipedia to be of interest.
posted by Araucaria at 4:05 PM on December 14, 2006
posted by Araucaria at 4:05 PM on December 14, 2006
unjustified, true belief?
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:35 AM on December 15, 2006
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:35 AM on December 15, 2006
Strategic Buffoonery.
posted by patnakajima at 11:17 AM on December 20, 2006
posted by patnakajima at 11:17 AM on December 20, 2006
« Older Which adjective best describes Inspector Javert? | How can I fix my CRT display's ghosting? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by rob511 at 8:08 PM on December 13, 2006