![]() | The contents of the Continuum fallacy page were merged into Sorites paradox#Continuum fallacy on 20 June 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Continuum fallacy redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||
|
There are four articles in Wikipedia dealing with essentially one and the same philosophical topic: Imprecise language, Paradox of the heap, Vagueness and Continuum fallacy. ( Sorites paradox redirects to Paradox of the heap.) I have done a little editing of the Vagueness page, but really I think all four pages should be merged, or that at very least, they be rationalised to two pages, one a longer one on the philosophical problem of vagueness, and the other a quick summary of the sorites paradox with a link to the vagueness page for a more in-depth discussion. What do people think? Matt 9 Nov. 2005
Isn't this kind of fallacy, the beard argument, mentioned by Plato somewhere? Shouldn't that be included in the article? -- 80.60.180.182 23:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I have a problem with the "okay to drink" example, as "okay" is far to vague a term, and drinking isn't obviously positive or negative in influence. Many cultures will allow children to drink, even in celebration, at a very early age, and there seems to be no evidence supporting that the older one is, the "more okay" it is to drink alcohol.
Eh... where does the article at all state why it's a fallacy except just 'appeals to common sense'? Seems to me that the article itself makes a fallacy from assertion. Rajakhr ( talk) 01:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
What is the relationship between this fallacy and the slippery slope argument? Cesiumfrog ( talk) 00:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The slippery slope fallacy is about what would happen if you did X. Or if you did X, Y would happen without justification. The continuum fallacy is becauase X is vague, X is false.
Also, I think that some of the examples are flawed, because they give false impressions/semantic problems rather than logical fallacies. The bald example is the clearest: Someone is bald when they have no hair. The argument about baldness looks alright on the face of it, but when we apply common usage, it means that someone with hair can have no hair. This is a logical paradox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.33.114 ( talk) 14:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The section mentioning "in modern quantum physics, notions of continuous length break down at the Planck length, and thus what appear to be continua may, at base, simply be very many discrete states" is incorrect (and a quite uncommon misconception from my observations).
Notions of continuous length do not "break down" at the Planck scale. The Planck scale "units" regarding distance and duration are merely reflections of our practical inability to measure beyond a certain degree of precision due to limitations imposed on the inherent nature of observation itself by the finite speed of light.
Space and time themselves are nonquantized metrics, and are in no way comprised of "discrete states" (units). For a universe consisting of dynamic (and possibly even static) dimensions to possess such properties would be literally impossible, for more than one reason. -=[ Alexis ( talk) 15:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC) ]=-
When creationists admit that microevolution happens, but claim that macroevolution is an impossibility, are they making the continuum fallacy? - Soulkeeper ( talk) 08:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Would that be an example? -- 41.151.222.124 ( talk) 10:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely. G12002 ( talk) 03:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
This term for the continuum fallacy is a neologism coined at LessWrong and not used anywhere else. Someone found usage of the term for argument to moderation so the term points there. See past RFD discussion. If there's evidence of it taking off anywhere else we could reconsider it - David Gerard ( talk) 13:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
why→ Sorites paradox-- 追迹未来 ( talk) 15:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Continuum fallacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The abortion example is out of place here. Whether a person has a beard is based on how numerous, long, and thick the hairs are, which are continuous metrics. Whether a person is able to lift a bag of sand is based on how far up and how long it takes for the person to do it, which are also continuous. So those examples are appropriate. But there is no consensus on a definition of human life, or even the parameters of what that definition depends on. Depending on the definition, it might be a continuum or might not be. The references are also to a couple of opinion blogs which can hardly be claimed to be reliable sources for the claim. Miraculouschaos ( talk) 15:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the Continuum fallacy page were merged into Sorites paradox#Continuum fallacy on 20 June 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Continuum fallacy redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||
|
There are four articles in Wikipedia dealing with essentially one and the same philosophical topic: Imprecise language, Paradox of the heap, Vagueness and Continuum fallacy. ( Sorites paradox redirects to Paradox of the heap.) I have done a little editing of the Vagueness page, but really I think all four pages should be merged, or that at very least, they be rationalised to two pages, one a longer one on the philosophical problem of vagueness, and the other a quick summary of the sorites paradox with a link to the vagueness page for a more in-depth discussion. What do people think? Matt 9 Nov. 2005
Isn't this kind of fallacy, the beard argument, mentioned by Plato somewhere? Shouldn't that be included in the article? -- 80.60.180.182 23:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I have a problem with the "okay to drink" example, as "okay" is far to vague a term, and drinking isn't obviously positive or negative in influence. Many cultures will allow children to drink, even in celebration, at a very early age, and there seems to be no evidence supporting that the older one is, the "more okay" it is to drink alcohol.
Eh... where does the article at all state why it's a fallacy except just 'appeals to common sense'? Seems to me that the article itself makes a fallacy from assertion. Rajakhr ( talk) 01:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
What is the relationship between this fallacy and the slippery slope argument? Cesiumfrog ( talk) 00:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The slippery slope fallacy is about what would happen if you did X. Or if you did X, Y would happen without justification. The continuum fallacy is becauase X is vague, X is false.
Also, I think that some of the examples are flawed, because they give false impressions/semantic problems rather than logical fallacies. The bald example is the clearest: Someone is bald when they have no hair. The argument about baldness looks alright on the face of it, but when we apply common usage, it means that someone with hair can have no hair. This is a logical paradox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.33.114 ( talk) 14:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The section mentioning "in modern quantum physics, notions of continuous length break down at the Planck length, and thus what appear to be continua may, at base, simply be very many discrete states" is incorrect (and a quite uncommon misconception from my observations).
Notions of continuous length do not "break down" at the Planck scale. The Planck scale "units" regarding distance and duration are merely reflections of our practical inability to measure beyond a certain degree of precision due to limitations imposed on the inherent nature of observation itself by the finite speed of light.
Space and time themselves are nonquantized metrics, and are in no way comprised of "discrete states" (units). For a universe consisting of dynamic (and possibly even static) dimensions to possess such properties would be literally impossible, for more than one reason. -=[ Alexis ( talk) 15:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC) ]=-
When creationists admit that microevolution happens, but claim that macroevolution is an impossibility, are they making the continuum fallacy? - Soulkeeper ( talk) 08:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Would that be an example? -- 41.151.222.124 ( talk) 10:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely. G12002 ( talk) 03:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
This term for the continuum fallacy is a neologism coined at LessWrong and not used anywhere else. Someone found usage of the term for argument to moderation so the term points there. See past RFD discussion. If there's evidence of it taking off anywhere else we could reconsider it - David Gerard ( talk) 13:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
why→ Sorites paradox-- 追迹未来 ( talk) 15:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Continuum fallacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The abortion example is out of place here. Whether a person has a beard is based on how numerous, long, and thick the hairs are, which are continuous metrics. Whether a person is able to lift a bag of sand is based on how far up and how long it takes for the person to do it, which are also continuous. So those examples are appropriate. But there is no consensus on a definition of human life, or even the parameters of what that definition depends on. Depending on the definition, it might be a continuum or might not be. The references are also to a couple of opinion blogs which can hardly be claimed to be reliable sources for the claim. Miraculouschaos ( talk) 15:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)