Appeal to the stone/Not appeal to the stoned
Preface
Originally published June 1, 2017, edited and published on academia.edu, December 25, 2023.
Lapidem, argumentum ad
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
This entry from British, Philosopher, Madsen Pirie describes a fallacy that consists of ignoring an argument altogether and refusing to discuss its central claim. (138). Pirie uses a classic example of someone ignoring, as opposed to refuting an argument. (138).
This fallacy connects to concepts discussed within my other Pirie, and philosophical articles, such as defining premises and conclusions out of possibility, in this case by ignoring the possibility of such statements and/or arguments as reasonable. The fallacy also ties into concepts of a closed mind.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
This entry from British, Philosopher, Madsen Pirie describes a fallacy that consists of ignoring an argument altogether and refusing to discuss its central claim. (138). Pirie uses a classic example of someone ignoring, as opposed to refuting an argument. (138).
This fallacy connects to concepts discussed within my other Pirie, and philosophical articles, such as defining premises and conclusions out of possibility, in this case by ignoring the possibility of such statements and/or arguments as reasonable. The fallacy also ties into concepts of a closed mind.
Pirie uses an example:
'He is a friend of mine. I won't hear a word spoken against him.' (138).
This dismisses, knowledge, (138) and embraces ignorance.
Arguments are ignored because they fail to conform to existing thinking. (139). For example, argumentation is dismissed that fails to agree with modern thinking within Western society.
As this may come to the mind of the reader, I will state that an to appeal to the stone, is not the same as an appeal to the stoned; although in some cases the quality of reasoning may be comparable.
'He is a friend of mine. I won't hear a word spoken against him.' (138).
This dismisses, knowledge, (138) and embraces ignorance.
Arguments are ignored because they fail to conform to existing thinking. (139). For example, argumentation is dismissed that fails to agree with modern thinking within Western society.
As this may come to the mind of the reader, I will state that an to appeal to the stone, is not the same as an appeal to the stoned; although in some cases the quality of reasoning may be comparable.
My examples of the use of this fallacy:
I won't believe in God, because I believe in science.
I don't need to study science, because I just need to read my bible.
Dr. Christopher B. Germann (Ph.D., M.Sc., B.Sc. / Marie Curie Alumnus)
Cited
'Argumentum ad lapidem (Latin: “appeal to the stone”) is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity.
Ad lapidem statements are fallacious because they fail to address the merits of the claim in dispute. The same applies to proof by assertion, where an unproved or disproved claim is asserted as true on no ground other than that of its truth having been asserted.
The name of this fallacy is derived from a famous incident in which Samuel Johnson claimed to disprove Bishop Berkeley‘s immaterialist philosophy (that there are no material objects, only minds and ideas in those minds) by kicking a large stone and asserting, “I refute him thus.”[3] This action, which is said to fail to prove the existence of the stone outside the ideas formed by perception, is said to fail to contradict Berkeley’s argument, and has been seen as merely dismissing it.'
Pirie, Madsen (2006). How to win every argument: the use and abuse of logic. Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 101–103. ISBN 978-0-8264-9006-3.
Alexander, Samuel (2000). “Dr. Johnson as a Philosopher”. In Slater, John. Collected works of Samuel Alexander. 4. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 119. ISBN 978-1-85506-853-7.
Shatz, Itamar (2017). “The ‘Appeal to the Stone’ Fallacy: On Being Completely Dismissive in Arguments”. Effectiviology.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.
LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
