4 ms·
There should be a name for the fallacy of drawing a specific, practical conclusion from an abstract or metaphysical premise. "Vitalism is false, therefore Soyle
by voyou 13y ago
There should be a name for the fallacy of drawing a specific, practical conclusion from an abstract or metaphysical premise. "Vitalism is false, therefore Soylent is a good idea" is such a fallacious argument. Clearly, the premise doesn't follow from the conclusion at all.
What follows from vitalism being false is that something like Soylent, that is, an entirely synthesized meal replacement, isn't metaphysically impossible. But I haven't seen anyone making metaphysical objections to Soylent; all the objections I've seen have been practical: nutrition is a much, much more complicated field than the makers of and advocates for Soylent seem prepared to accept.
- molecule 13y agoIt's a strawman: "objections are Vitalism, Vitalism is false, therefore Soylent is good."
- steveklabnik 13y agoI read it more as "vitalism is false, therefore, assertions against Soylent via vitalism are false," which seems good. I didn't read it as "therefore Soylent is good" but rather as "therefore this criticism of Soylent is invalid." We may have just read this differently. > I havent seen anyone making metaphysical objections to Soylent I think the title of the article, about 'whole foods,' is a mixture between metaphysics and the more common charge, epistemic.
- codahale 13y agoStructurally, it's denying the antecedent: If Vitalism is true, Soylent is a bad idea. Vitalism is false, therefore Soylent is a good idea. Vitalism and Soylent can both be crap ideas.
- mattstocum 13y agoThat's a bit of a false dichotomy, the implication that one of either vitalism or Soylent must be true. Of course, I'd say you're committing a bit of a straw-man fallacy by claiming that the author stated that.