The Philosopher's Deduction Fallacy is the name of I've given to the problem with philosophers. If anyone wonders why the ravings of philosophers seem so pointless and irrational, it is due almost entirely to this single fallacy. The fallacy is the belief that knowledge cannot be certain unless it is derived exclusively from deduction.

The word 'prove' has two meanings. The first meaning is to derive from the rules of logic. This is the meaning that philosopher's tend to utilize, ignoring almost entirely the second meaning. The second meaning is to show evidence of. If little Jimmy and Freddy are playing one day, and Jimmy tells Freddy that he can run faster than him, Freddy will say "Prove it!". It would be surprising if Jimmy showed a mathematical formula, or other such deductive method. Instead, he races Freddy.

Philosophers, on the other hand, go through elaborate mental acrobatics to try to convince you that the world before you is real. Often, they give it up as impossible, and then wrongly conclude that the world isn't real. Or more likely, they say that "We can't be sure if the world around us is real". Why? Because they accept the idea that to really know something for sure, it needs to be a product of deduction.

The first question, of course, is what knowledge they are using to deduce. Deduction requires some initial knowledge. We say that Socrates is a man, and all men are mortal. We then deduce that Socrates is mortal. But where do we get the knowledge that Socrates is a man? Or that all men are mortal? Sometimes you can step farther back and derive one of those statements with deduction as well. But eventually, there needs to be knowledge that isn't gained deductively.

This is the crux of the problem for philosophers. Only induction can give them the roots they need to deduce. Induction, though, is considered unreliable, since it is not "provable". So philosophers talk about A Priori Knowledge. The most important piece of a priori knowledge they insist on is the rules of logic. In order for one to use deduction, one must have knowledge of the rules of logic. How does one gain knowledge of it? The answer is through induction. So they have to come up with methods of pretending that the rules of logic are not dependent on induction. Which means it is not dependent on perception. Which means it is not dependent on reality.

The games continue, but because they cannot accept induction, they have to create a philosophical system that does not depend on it. Which means that it does not depend on reality. And the result is that it does not correspond to reality either. Although the loop is bigger than normal, the result is an attempt to use circular reasoning. And the result is useless, pointless nonsense.

Taken from http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_Deduction.html

What does Totse think about this and does it matter?

All in all, I think the article is pretty nonsensical. It appears to say that all philosophers believe knowledge can only be attained through deduction, but this is nonsensical. I can think of plenty of philosophers who think otherwise, but not even one who accepts this 'fallacy'. For example, Leibniz believed that there were certain principles that did not need to be proven deductively, inductively, or in any other way, because they were self-evident certitudes. These were the idea of substance, the law of non-contradiction, the principle of identity, and the principle of indiscernibles. Leibniz believed that a complete description of the world as it is in itself and logic could be acquired with just these principles. So not only does he contradict the notion that this ‘fallacy’ is inherent in philosophy, but also puts into question the apparent need for induction -- which, by the way, is merely dogmatically asserted -- by showing an alternate route toward the axioms of logic.

Furthermore, the writer seems to think that induction would solve everything, but if deduction is dependent on induction, this would only causes further problems. For then the problem of induction, which is still a problem to this day, would become a problem for induction too.

All in all, I think the article is pretty nonsensical. It appears to say that all philosophers believe knowledge can only be attained through deduction, but this is nonsensical. I can think of plenty of philosophers who think otherwise, but not even one who accepts this 'fallacy'. For example, Leibniz believed that there were certain principles that did not need to be proven deductively, inductively, or in any other way, because they were self-evident certitudes. These were the idea of substance, the law of non-contradiction, the principle of identity, and the principle of indiscernibles. Leibniz believed that a complete description of the world as it is in itself and logic could be acquired with just these principles. So not only does he contradict the notion that this ‘fallacy’ is inherent in philosophy, but also puts into question the apparent need for induction -- which, by the way, is merely dogmatically asserted -- by showing an alternate route toward the axioms of logic.

Furthermore, the writer seems to think that induction would solve everything, but if deduction is dependent on induction, this would only causes further problems. For then the problem of induction, which is still a problem to this day, would become a problem for induction too.

Agreed. The article is a joke and thanks for your opinion.

This is really more of a problem to be determined by epistemologists. It seems to end, traditionally, by either Foundationalism or Coherentism. Some new kids on the block are also pushing Infinitism. But I do think the problem of infinite regress is a bit troubling imo.

Philosophers, on the other hand, go through elaborate mental acrobatics to try to convince you that the world before you is real. Often, they give it up as impossible, and then wrongly conclude that the world isn't real. Or more likely, they say that "We can't be sure if the world around us is real". Why? Because they accept the idea that to really know something for sure, it needs to be a product of deduction.

Maybe that should be European Philosophers' Fallacy.

This leads off into pseudo-intellectual word game bullshit that goes back to the Sophists. Symbolic logic can be totally illogical because symbols can represent things that don't exist. When was the last time you saw a unicorn?

DT

Inductive "truths" are not used by philosophers to justify; inductive knowledge is prescriptive. Induction is when you isolate a commonality in a given set of particulars, then use that isolated quality to create a concept. Saying that it is reliable or unreliable does not make sense.

maybe this applies to descartes but not every single philosopher.

I like it and I like this topic. But somehow, I don't think it will catch on in the Academia.

I sort of ran into this when I was sitting in on a university philosophy class. The professor was talking about how Nietzche argued that present civilization had gone down one path, but that there was another path (equally easy to go down) in which a civilization was composed soley of ubermenschen, and that this civilization would dominate our own.

I was about to argue that human history effectively disproved Nietzche since human history involves many independent groups of humans that could have gone done any path, yet none seem to have created his ubermensch society, but I had to leave. I really wanted to stay, but I had to leave.

Inductive "truths" are not used by philosophers to justify; inductive knowledge is prescriptive. Induction is when you isolate a commonality in a given set of particulars, then use that isolated quality to create a concept. Saying that it is reliable or unreliable does not make sense.

I don't see how the result of induction is prescriptive orver descriptive. For instance, one piece of "inductive knowledge" is that the sun will rise tomorrow. This is a purely descriptive statement given by induction.

Yes, philosophy is a huge joke. Do you have something to say that we don't already know?

I don't think it's shit, it's just not really saying much of any value. It's attempting to say something about philosophy as a whole, but is in fact just another response to a very old question.

What does Totse think about this and does it matter?

umm

Yes, we think about it, no it doesn't matter, and what: everything.

What Hare_Geist said.

There are many different types of knowledge.