This is just a manifestation of the general fact that it is impossible to specify a hypothetical fully without telling the entire story of how things got that way from the dawn of time. Speaking of hypotheticals is thus inherently loose. There is no way to avoid fallacies in most such exercises. Feigning rigor by calling specific cases “fallacies” is pretention.
It isn’t just difficult to avoid these errors; it’s impossible, and relegates the exercise to the merely cautiously suggestive, not a central method of philosophy.
This is just a manifestation of the general fact that it is impossible to specify a hypothetical fully without telling the entire story of how things got that way from the dawn of time. Speaking of hypotheticals is thus inherently loose. There is no way to avoid fallacies in most such exercises. Feigning rigor by calling specific cases “fallacies” is pretention.
It isn’t just difficult to avoid these errors; it’s impossible, and relegates the exercise to the merely cautiously suggestive, not a central method of philosophy.