I see a (subtle but significant) difference between Aristotle version and Yvain version.
In Aristotle version, it goes like “doing A is X”, “B does A” so “B is X”. That’s wrong, because (but Aristotle didn’t know it) words are not precise definitions but fuzzy clusters. That’s the main for which the “fallacy of accident” is a fallacy. And surgeons are not criminals.
The Yvain version is much more subtle. It acknowledges that words are fuzzy clusters, not fixed definitions. And that you can, without it being a fallacy (unlike in the first case) make claim like “abortion is murder” or “death penalty is murder”. But that even if that claim can be make (even if we can consider them to be part of the fuzzy cluster) it’s still a fallacy to use it as an argument, because while they are part of the cluster, they only share some of the problems that a typical member of the cluster has.
Now, if you consider my own point of view on those issues (but it could symmetric) : I’m pro-choice and against the death penalty. The WAitW idea is that I shouldn’t argue for the right to abortion by trying to prove “abortion is not murder” and against the death penalty by trying to prove “death penalty is murder”, being stuck in a definition match which is pointless, but that I should look deeper, dissolve what “murder” is and what it’s assumed to be wrong, and show that most of what make us reject murder doesn’t apply to abortion, and most of what make us reject it applies to death penalty. Or even completely discard the “murder” concept, and just look from a consequentialist point of view about the good and bad consequences of both.
“doing A is X”, “B does A” so “B is X”. That’s wrong, because (but Aristotle didn’t know it) words are not precise definitions but fuzzy clusters.
Everyone who does A is X.
B does A.
B is X.
That sounds like a valid argument to me. As such, if the premises are true, no god could make the conclusion false. The problem isn’t with this mode of argumentation. It is literally the opposite of fallacious. If there’s a problem, it’s just the very mundane problem that one of the premises is false.
In “doing A is X” (which kilobug wrote) X is an attribute of an action. In “everyone who does A is X” (which you wrote, apparently intending to echo what kilobug wrote) X is an attribute of people.
These aren’t equivalent. I’m not sure how relevant that is to your point, but then I’m not sure why you swapped one for the other.
I hesitated about that, but If Kilo had intended to hang something on that difference, then his subsequent comment probably wouldn’t have been about clusters in thing-space. ‘Fundamental attribution error’ isn’t relevant to that issue. That’s why I felt comfortable swapping them. But I’m not super confident about that.
I assume kilobug didn’t intend to hang anything on the difference between what they wrote and what you later wrote.
I assume you considered the difference significant, since if it wasn’t significant you could have actually referenced what he said to make your point, rather than referencing some other statement that he didn’t actually make.
I don’t know if the difference is actually significant.
I see a (subtle but significant) difference between Aristotle version and Yvain version.
In Aristotle version, it goes like “doing A is X”, “B does A” so “B is X”. That’s wrong, because (but Aristotle didn’t know it) words are not precise definitions but fuzzy clusters. That’s the main for which the “fallacy of accident” is a fallacy. And surgeons are not criminals.
The Yvain version is much more subtle. It acknowledges that words are fuzzy clusters, not fixed definitions. And that you can, without it being a fallacy (unlike in the first case) make claim like “abortion is murder” or “death penalty is murder”. But that even if that claim can be make (even if we can consider them to be part of the fuzzy cluster) it’s still a fallacy to use it as an argument, because while they are part of the cluster, they only share some of the problems that a typical member of the cluster has.
Now, if you consider my own point of view on those issues (but it could symmetric) : I’m pro-choice and against the death penalty. The WAitW idea is that I shouldn’t argue for the right to abortion by trying to prove “abortion is not murder” and against the death penalty by trying to prove “death penalty is murder”, being stuck in a definition match which is pointless, but that I should look deeper, dissolve what “murder” is and what it’s assumed to be wrong, and show that most of what make us reject murder doesn’t apply to abortion, and most of what make us reject it applies to death penalty. Or even completely discard the “murder” concept, and just look from a consequentialist point of view about the good and bad consequences of both.
Everyone who does A is X. B does A. B is X.
That sounds like a valid argument to me. As such, if the premises are true, no god could make the conclusion false. The problem isn’t with this mode of argumentation. It is literally the opposite of fallacious. If there’s a problem, it’s just the very mundane problem that one of the premises is false.
In “doing A is X” (which kilobug wrote) X is an attribute of an action.
In “everyone who does A is X” (which you wrote, apparently intending to echo what kilobug wrote) X is an attribute of people.
These aren’t equivalent.
I’m not sure how relevant that is to your point, but then I’m not sure why you swapped one for the other.
I hesitated about that, but If Kilo had intended to hang something on that difference, then his subsequent comment probably wouldn’t have been about clusters in thing-space. ‘Fundamental attribution error’ isn’t relevant to that issue. That’s why I felt comfortable swapping them. But I’m not super confident about that.
I assume kilobug didn’t intend to hang anything on the difference between what they wrote and what you later wrote.
I assume you considered the difference significant, since if it wasn’t significant you could have actually referenced what he said to make your point, rather than referencing some other statement that he didn’t actually make.
I don’t know if the difference is actually significant.