Talk:Relativist fallacy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
This article at this writing identifies a "fallacy" I have never seen named as such. Indeed, to call any relativism an instance of a "relativist fallacy" is itself fallacious--a failure to engage in the argument that is needed to demonstrate that whatever sort of relativism one is addressing is false. This entry strikes me, as a philosopher, as simply worthless. I will delete it unless someone can explain to me why I shouldn't. (By the way, I personally am just about the furthest you can get from a relativist.)
OK, a Google search actually brings up other results. Please consult [1] for how the present, blatantly biased, Wikipedia article could be improved. --LMS
I've edited the entry. I hope ya'll can understand my earlier objection. --LMS
- See also : Logical fallacy
-- Not a case of circular reasoning --
This is not circular reasoning:
- To advocate relativism, even some sophisticated relativism, is to commit the relativist fallacy.
- If one commits a fallacy, one says something false or not worth serious consideration.
- Therefore, to advocate relativism, even some sophisticated relativism, is to say something false or not worth serious consideration
It is a valid sylogism, with three terms. One may or may not agree with the firs premise, but if he does, the argument is valid. I think this could be an example of equivocation
