Yesterday was an exciting day for me. An unusually exciting day for me.
That's because I got to thinking about the conflation of terms within the context of an argument! It had been a long time since I had thought about conflation, and I had totally forgotten the near ecstasy of pondering the subject.
Well, as you might imagine, I soon wanted to share the fun with others.
So I PMed @SalixIncendium about it, but he said he was very sorry he couldn't talk with me at the moment because he'd forgotten until just then that he had to refold all of his clean socks. So I PMed @Vouthon instead, but he suddenly realized that he had to arrange for a babysitter for his ant farm on the off-chance he might be drafted into the military that week.
Then @Terese couldn't chat with me because she just remembered she had to rewind all the paper towel rolls in her house backwards in order to do something nice for her sister, who is left-handed. So I tried to get hold of @Jaiket, @sayak83, @YmirGF, @danieldemol, @adrian009, @Audie, and about 24 other RFers, but the PM system must have crashed by then because none of them have been able to get back to me yet.
I'm just too excited to wait any longer for someone to respond, so I'm creating this thread to share my analysis of conflation with everyone! I mean, I should have thought to create it in the first place, but in my excitement I simply forgot all about doing so. Sorry about that, folks!
Honest Abe
It is said (by Allen Thorndike Rice) that Abraham Lincoln was once in a conversation with some folks about whether or not the Emancipation Proclamation, which was an executive order, was "an abuse of power". Someone -- we don't know who -- apparently suggested that it was not an abuse because the term "executive order" could be stretched in such a way that the Proclamation would not then be an abuse of power.
Lincoln responded by telling a story about a boy who, when asked how many legs his calf would have if he called its tail a leg, replied, 'Five”. Lincoln then pointed out that calling the tail a leg would not make it a leg.
Of course, the story is nowadays told with "dog" substituted for "calf", but Lincoln's point remains. Yet, exactly what was Lincoln's point?
I believe some folks misunderstand Lincoln. They think he was arguing against any and all redefining of words. But Lincoln was a brilliant man -- far too brilliant to argue against any and all redefining of words.
Instead, I think he was making the more limited -- and far more sensible -- point that redefining a word or term to obscure a distinction between two or more things does not turn those things into the same thing. Not if the distinction between them is real.
Conflation
"Conflation", according to the dictionary, can be defined as simply "the merging of two or more things into one". It is not necessarily a logical fallacy. If there is no real or significant difference between the things within the context of an argument, then there is no logical reason to object to their being merged.
For instance:
Here boys and girls are conflated as "humans", and no fallacy of logic is committed in the process. But there are circumstances in which conflating two or more things becomes a fallacy.
When Conflation Breaks Bad
Conflation breaks bad -- becomes a fallacy -- when the two or more things being conflated are different or distinct in some way that renders false the claim they are equivalent in any way significant or relevant to the argument at hand.
Conflation is not a formal fallacy, but an informal one.
We should note here that there can be some similarity or identity between the two or more things. A tail is, after all, vaguely similar to a leg. But not so similar that it counts as a leg. Conflation often relies on something two or more things share in common to claim that they share more in common than they actually do share.
Eagles and ducks are significantly different when it comes to talons despite that both can be conflated as "birds". You cannot conclude ducks have talons just because eagles do, and calling their webbed feet "talons" won't make them talons. Hence, their conflation in this case is fallacious.
A Related Fallacy
When conflation becomes a fallacy, it seems to be closely related to the fallacy of equivocation. In equivocation, a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument. For instance:
Here, the term "Word of God" is equivocated on because it means one thing in the first premise and another thing in the second premise.
Conflation is distinct from equivocation, however. Equivocation uses a term in two or more different senses within the same argument. Conflation, on the other hand, is calling two or more distinct things by one name, then claiming that they are more similar in some significant or relevant way than they really are. "A calf's tail is a leg" conflates tails with legs, but does not equivocate on any of its terms.
Questions? Comments?
That's because I got to thinking about the conflation of terms within the context of an argument! It had been a long time since I had thought about conflation, and I had totally forgotten the near ecstasy of pondering the subject.
Well, as you might imagine, I soon wanted to share the fun with others.
So I PMed @SalixIncendium about it, but he said he was very sorry he couldn't talk with me at the moment because he'd forgotten until just then that he had to refold all of his clean socks. So I PMed @Vouthon instead, but he suddenly realized that he had to arrange for a babysitter for his ant farm on the off-chance he might be drafted into the military that week.
Then @Terese couldn't chat with me because she just remembered she had to rewind all the paper towel rolls in her house backwards in order to do something nice for her sister, who is left-handed. So I tried to get hold of @Jaiket, @sayak83, @YmirGF, @danieldemol, @adrian009, @Audie, and about 24 other RFers, but the PM system must have crashed by then because none of them have been able to get back to me yet.
I'm just too excited to wait any longer for someone to respond, so I'm creating this thread to share my analysis of conflation with everyone! I mean, I should have thought to create it in the first place, but in my excitement I simply forgot all about doing so. Sorry about that, folks!
Honest Abe
It is said (by Allen Thorndike Rice) that Abraham Lincoln was once in a conversation with some folks about whether or not the Emancipation Proclamation, which was an executive order, was "an abuse of power". Someone -- we don't know who -- apparently suggested that it was not an abuse because the term "executive order" could be stretched in such a way that the Proclamation would not then be an abuse of power.
Lincoln responded by telling a story about a boy who, when asked how many legs his calf would have if he called its tail a leg, replied, 'Five”. Lincoln then pointed out that calling the tail a leg would not make it a leg.
Of course, the story is nowadays told with "dog" substituted for "calf", but Lincoln's point remains. Yet, exactly what was Lincoln's point?
I believe some folks misunderstand Lincoln. They think he was arguing against any and all redefining of words. But Lincoln was a brilliant man -- far too brilliant to argue against any and all redefining of words.
Instead, I think he was making the more limited -- and far more sensible -- point that redefining a word or term to obscure a distinction between two or more things does not turn those things into the same thing. Not if the distinction between them is real.
Conflation
"Conflation", according to the dictionary, can be defined as simply "the merging of two or more things into one". It is not necessarily a logical fallacy. If there is no real or significant difference between the things within the context of an argument, then there is no logical reason to object to their being merged.
For instance:
Boys and girls are both human.
All humans should be treated with equal dignity..
Therefore, both boys and girls should be treated with equal dignity.
All humans should be treated with equal dignity..
Therefore, both boys and girls should be treated with equal dignity.
When Conflation Breaks Bad
Conflation breaks bad -- becomes a fallacy -- when the two or more things being conflated are different or distinct in some way that renders false the claim they are equivalent in any way significant or relevant to the argument at hand.
Conflation is not a formal fallacy, but an informal one.
We should note here that there can be some similarity or identity between the two or more things. A tail is, after all, vaguely similar to a leg. But not so similar that it counts as a leg. Conflation often relies on something two or more things share in common to claim that they share more in common than they actually do share.
Eagles and ducks are both birds.
Eagles have talons.
Therefore ducks have talons.
Eagles have talons.
Therefore ducks have talons.
Eagles and ducks are significantly different when it comes to talons despite that both can be conflated as "birds". You cannot conclude ducks have talons just because eagles do, and calling their webbed feet "talons" won't make them talons. Hence, their conflation in this case is fallacious.
A Related Fallacy
When conflation becomes a fallacy, it seems to be closely related to the fallacy of equivocation. In equivocation, a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument. For instance:
Jesus is the Word of God.
The Bible is the Word of God.
Therefore, Jesus is the Bible.
The Bible is the Word of God.
Therefore, Jesus is the Bible.
Here, the term "Word of God" is equivocated on because it means one thing in the first premise and another thing in the second premise.
Conflation is distinct from equivocation, however. Equivocation uses a term in two or more different senses within the same argument. Conflation, on the other hand, is calling two or more distinct things by one name, then claiming that they are more similar in some significant or relevant way than they really are. "A calf's tail is a leg" conflates tails with legs, but does not equivocate on any of its terms.
Questions? Comments?
