Is there a name for this (I guess informal) fallacy, where because there's some ambiguity about the fringe, about the demarcation between two categories, therefore someone equivocates/conflates between the categories themselves?
Like, I don't know, this would apply to anything really, but say there's times where there's some ambiguity over what's honest and what isn't, or what's immoral and what isn't --- or, hell, it doesn't have to be values necessarily, even what's day and what's night I guess --- therefore people conclude, or at least claim, that there's no such thing as honest and dishonest, moral and immoral, day and night? Or at least that those ideas are entirely subjective, and impossible to come to differentiate objectively --- specifically on account of the ambiguity around the demarcation/fringe?
Like, I don't know, this would apply to anything really, but say there's times where there's some ambiguity over what's honest and what isn't, or what's immoral and what isn't --- or, hell, it doesn't have to be values necessarily, even what's day and what's night I guess --- therefore people conclude, or at least claim, that there's no such thing as honest and dishonest, moral and immoral, day and night? Or at least that those ideas are entirely subjective, and impossible to come to differentiate objectively --- specifically on account of the ambiguity around the demarcation/fringe?
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/tavX0jd
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire