Self-refuting ideas are ideas or statements whose falsehood is a logical consequence of the act or situation of holding them to be true. Many ideas are accused by their detractors of being self-refuting, and such accusations are therefore almost always controversial, with defenders claiming that the idea is being misunderstood or that the argument is invalid. For these reasons, none of the ideas below are unambiguously or incontrovertibly self-refuting. These ideas are often used as axioms, which are definitions taken to be true (tautological assumptions), and cannot be used to test themselves, for doing so would lead to only two consequences: consistency (circular reasoning) or exception (self contradiction). It is important to know that the conclusion of an argument that is self-refuting is not necessarily false, since it could be supported by another, more valid, argument.
Contents |
The Epimenides paradox is a statement of the form "this statement is false". Such statements troubled philosophers, especially when there was a serious attempt to formalize the foundations of logic. Bertrand Russell developed his "Theory of Types" to formalize a set of rules that would prevent such statements (more formally Russell's paradox) being made in symbolic logic.[1] This work has led to the modern formulation of axiomatic set theory. While Russell's formalization didn't contain such paradoxes, Kurt Gödel showed that it must contain independent statements. Any logical system that is rich enough to contain elementary arithmetic contains at least one proposition whose interpretation is "this proposition is unprovable" (from within the logical system concerned), and hence no such system can be both complete and consistent.
Objectivists define the fallacy of the stolen concept: the act of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends. An example of the stolen concept fallacy is anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's assertion, "All property is theft".
Others have said the slogan is not an instance of the stolen concept fallacy under Proudhon's intended meaning. Proudhon used the term "property" with reference to claimed ownership in land, factories, etc. He believed such claims were illegitimate, and thus a form of theft from the commons.[3] Proudhon explicitly states that the phrase "property is theft" is analogous to the phrase "slavery is murder". According to Proudhon, the slave, though biologically alive, is clearly in a sense "murdered". The "theft" in his terminology does not refer to ownership any more than the "murder" refers directly to physiological death, but rather both are meant as terms to represent a denial of specific rights. [2] Others point out that the difference between the two examples is that "slavery is murder," unlike "property is theft," does not make a statement that denies the validity of one of the concepts it utilizes. We should note as well that Proudhon does not actually say all property is theft-he is referring to a very specific kind of property rights. Proudhon favored another kind, which he called possession, based on occupancy and use, a sort of usufruct rights idea. In What is Property? he therefore says with the apparent contradiction "property is theft" to denote one sort he feels is this, "property is liberty", referring to the kind he favored, and "property is impossible" to make it clear any sort of property rights cannot be absolute. Separate concepts are therefore laid out, in a way that can be confusing, especially if one does not know them.
Self-refutation plays an important role in some inconsistency tolerant logics (e.g. paraconsistent logics and Direct Logic[4]) that lack proof by contradiction. Para-consistent logic has been criticized as an attempt to evade contradiction as it consists of sub-contrary variates and not contradicting statements as it is often claimed.
Brain in a vat is a thought experiment in philosophy which is premised upon the skeptical hypothesis that one could actually be a brain in a vat receiving electrical input identical to that which would be coming from the nervous system. Similar premises are found in Descartes's evil demon and dream argument. Philosopher Hilary Putnam argues that some versions of the thought experiment would be inconsistent due to semantic externalism. For a brain in a vat that had only ever experienced the simulated world, the denial "I'm not a brain in a vat" is true. The only possible brains and vats it could be referring to are simulated, and it's true that it's not a simulated brain in a simulated vat. For the same reason, it can only falsely assert "I'm a brain in vat".[5]
It has been argued, particularly by Christian apologists, that to assert determinism as a rational claim in a debate is doubly self-defeating.[6][7]
The argument does not succeed against the compatibilistic view, since in the latter there is no conflict between determinism and free will. Moreover, the argument fails if one denies either of the above or its implicit implications. That is, one could avoid the argument by maintaining that free will is not required for rationality or for trying to change one's mind. The latter is a sensible position insofar as one could be determined to try to persuade someone of something, and the listener could be determined to accept it. There is no internal contradiction in that view.
One can also consider a deterministic computer algorithm which is able to make a correct conclusion, such as a mathematical calculation or fingerprint identification. However, on some notions of "rationality", such programs are themselves not rational because they simply follow a certain deterministic pre-programmed path and nothing more. This does not apply if one takes on a position with regards to rationality analogous to compatibilism, namely, one could simply view rationality as the property of correctly executing the laws of logic, in which case there simply is no contradiction with determinism. The contradiction would arise if one defines "rationality" in a manner that is incompatiblist. Some argue that machines cannot "think", and if rationality is defined so that it requires human-like thought, this might pose a problem. But the view that machines cannot "think" in principle is rejected by most philosophers who accept a Computational theory of mind.
It has been argued that extreme ethical egoism is self-defeating. Faced with a situation of limited resources, egoists would consume as much of the resource as they could, making the overall situation worse for everybody. Egoists rejoin that if the situation becomes worse for everybody, that would include the egoist, so it is not in fact in their rational self-interest to take things to such extremes.[8]
The philosopher Mary Midgley claims the idea that "nothing exists except matter" is also self-refuting because if it were true neither it, nor any other idea, would exist, and similarly that an argument to that effect would be self-refuting because it would deny its own existence.[9]
Several other philosophers argue that Eliminative materialism is self-refuting.[10][11][12]
However, other forms of materialism may escape this kind of argument because, rather than eliminating the mental, they seek to identify it with, or reduce it to, the material.[13] For instance, identity theorists such as J. J. C. Smart, Ullin Place and E. G. Boring claim that ideas exist materially as patterns of neural structure and activity.[14][15]. The claims made by Smart and other however, have been criticized and found to be incoherent on the account of materialism as any philosophy of mind that reduces the mental to the material is still problematic as it denies the efficacy of the mind and its contents. As J.P. Moreland explains, such attempts are problematic as they amount to mere semantic tricks.[16]
The first notable self-refuting idea is the Epimenides paradox, a statement attributed to Epimenides, a Cretan philosopher, that "All Cretans are liars". Interpreted (for the present purpose) as meaning "no Cretan ever speaks the truth" this cannot be true if uttered by a Cretan. For the purpose of creating a self-refuting statement, this paradox might be better stated as "I am lying." This is because the first statement does not, if false, necessarily mean that the speaker is telling the truth (the third option being "some Cretans do not speak the truth"). The second statement has no third alternative—the speaker's statement is either true or false.
Alvin Plantinga argues in his Evolutionary argument against naturalism that the combination of Naturalism and Evolution is "in a certain interesting way self-defeating" because if it were true there would be insufficient grounds to believe that human cognitive faculties are reliable. Consequently, if human cognitive abilities are unreliable or unknowably reliable, then any human construct, which by implication utlizes cognitive faculties, such as evolutionary theory would be undermined. In this particular case, it's the confluence of evolutionary theory and naturalism that, according to the argument, undermine the reason for believing themselves to be true. If the argument succeeds, one could not simultaneously claim that evolutionary biology and metaphysical naturalism are true and that one's belief that they are true is justified. [17] Since Plantinga originally formulated the argument, a few theistic philosophers and Christian apologists have agreed [18][19] There has also been a considerable backlash of papers arguing that the argument is flawed in a number of ways, one of the more recent ones published in 2011 by Feng Ye [20](see also the references in the Evolutionary argument against naturalism article)
The philosopher Anthony Kenny argues that the idea, "common to theists like Aquinas and Descartes and to an atheist like Russell" that "Rational belief [is] either self-evident or based directly or indirectly on what is evident" (which he termed "foundationalism" following Plantinga) is self-refuting on the basis that this idea is itself neither self-evident nor based directly or indirectly on what is evident and that the same applies to other formulations of such foundationalism.[21] However, the self-evident impossibility of infinite regress can be offered as a justification for foundationalism.[22] Following the identification of problems with "naive foundationalism", the term is now often used to focus on incorrigible beliefs (modern foundationalism), or basic beliefs (reformed foundationalism).
It is often asserted that relativism about truth must be applied to itself.[23][24] The cruder form of the argument concludes that since the relativist is asserting relativism as an absolute truth, it leads to a contradiction. Relativists often rejoin that in fact relativism is only relatively true, leading to a subtler problem: the absolutist, the relativist's opponent, is perfectly entitled, by the relativist's own standards, to reject relativism. That is, the relativist's arguments can have no normative force over someone who has different basic beliefs.[25]
Philosophical skeptics claim "nothing can be known". Can that claim itself be known, or is it self-refuting?[26][27] One very old response to this problem is Academic skepticism:[28] an exception is made for the skeptic's own claim. This leads to further debate about consistency and special pleading. Another response is to accept that "nothing can be known" cannot itself be known, so that it is not known whether anything is knowable or not. This is Pyrrhonic skepticism. However, the issue can be pressed further. To claim that "nothing can be known" is itself unknowable, is to claim that we know for a fact that "nothing can be known" is unknowable. This admits at least one form of knowledge, and the metaphysical proposition "I can discern truth". It is therefore self-refuting; only justified through an infinite regress of not knowing knowledge claims and not knowing that you can know them ad infinitum.
The statement "no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically", is claimed to be self-refuting insofar as it cannot be proven scientifically; the same goes for essentially similar views like "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true".[29] (This kind of issue was a serious problem for logical positivism.)
On the face of it, a statement of solipsism is — at least performatively — self-defeating, because a statement assumes another person to whom the statement is made. (That is to say, an unexpressed private belief in solipsism is not self-refuting). This, of course, assumes the solipsist would not communicate with a hallucination, even if just for self-amusement.
The solipsist can adopt the rather surreal maneuver of claiming that their interlocutor is in fact a figment of their imagination, but since their interlocutor knows they are not, they are not going to be convinced![30]
The statements "statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically verified" and "statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically falsified" are both claimed to be self-refuting on the basis that they can neither be empirically verified nor falsified.[31]
The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is an unusual example of a self-refuting argument, in that Ludwig Wittgenstein explicitly admits to the issue at the end of the work:
"My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it)". (6.54)
However, this idea can be solved in the sense that, even if the argument itself is self-refuting, the effects of the argument elicit understandings that go beyond the argument itself. Søren Kierkegaard describes it as such:
"[The reader] can understand that the understanding is a revocation--the understanding with him as the sole reader is indeed the revocation of the book. He can understand that to write a book and to revoke it is not the same as refraining from writing it, that to write a book that does not demand to be important for anyone is still not the same as letting it be unwritten." (Concluding Unscientific Postscript)