Stolen Concept
From EvoWiki
|
This page is part of the EvoWiki encyclopedia of fallacies. |
Contents |
Synonyms
- Smuggled Concept
- Stolen Concept Fallacy
Explanation
The Stolen Concept Fallacy consists of using idea 1 to discredit idea 2, when idea 1 makes no sense without idea 2. It is similar to the logical fallacy of Begging The Question (where you assume what you are attempting to prove), but in a stolen concept, you are assuming what you want to disprove. It is also similar to the fallacy of Conclusion Denying Premises, but Stolen Concept refers to the implicit premises of an argument.
Stolen Concept is a fallacy because certain ideas make no sense without reference to other ideas. For example, the concept "orphan" relies on the concept "parent." An easy way to check if concept A relies on concept B is that concept A's definition includes concept B ("Orphan: a person whose parents have died").
In short, a Stolen Concept fallacy occurs when the conclusion denies the assumptions of the premises.
Examples of Stolen Concepts:
- "There is no right or wrong" - The statement attempts to communicate a truth about reality. As such, it presumes there is right and wrong - at least in regard to statements which attempt to communicate truths about reality.
- "I do not exist" - The speaker denies the idea that she exists, but in the very act of making the statement she presumes her existence.
- "Reality is an illusion" - The concept "illusion" is derived from the concept "reality"; that is, the concept "illusion" makes no sense, unless there is indeed "reality" with which it may be contrasted.
- "Logic is arbitrary" - How could you ever determine that something is arbitrary, except by contrasting it with that which you know to be logical?
- "Nothing is certain; there are only probabilities" - And how do you propose to express or measure probability, except by comparing it to that which is certain (probability = 1)?
Countermeasure
Demonstrate how the conclusion of the opposing argument denies its own presuppositions.
If the opposing argument is to deny logic, induction, reason, etc. outright, then walk away from the argument. (You can't have a reasoned argument with someone who rejects reason.)
Use in Christian Theology
The proponents of "Presuppositional Apologetics" (for example, Gordon H Clark) accuse any arguments against the existence of God of committing the Stolen Concept Fallacy on the grounds that any arguments from logic, induction or morality allegedly presuppose the existence of God (see "Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God" on Wikipedia). This is an incorrect application of the Stolen Concept fallacy, and essentially a variation of the Cosmological Argument for God's existence with its question-begging starting premise (X could only be sourced in my God; X exists; therefore my God exists).
Methods of rebuttal could include showing that logic does not require God - e.g., the alleged Divine Attributes (see "Omnipotence Paradox") or the idea of Creation ex Nihlio are inherently illogical; that induction does not require God - e.g., miracles undermine the natural order, hence making induction faulty if God exists; and/or that objective morality does not require God - e.g., if God is the source of morality, then morality reduces to subjective divine commands.
In all cases, speakers and listeners presuppose the validity of logic and induction by the very enterprise of engaging in argument; correct arguments then use logic and induction to discover whether postulated entity X (such as God) exists. Presuppositional Apologetics / Transcendental Argument, in negating the validity of logic and induction (until and unless the speaker's God is conceded to exist), is the side committing a Stolen Concept fallacy.
