Jump to content
Spiritual

A logical objection to inquiry

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Here is the argument, which is basically a logical objection to inquiry:

  1. If you know what you’re looking for, inquiry is unnecessary.
  2. If you don’t know what you’re looking for, inquiry is impossible.
  3. Therefore, inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible.

Either you know what you're looking for or you don't know what you're looking for. :) Test this argument, its not mine.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Spiritual said:

Here is the argument, which is basically a logical objection to inquiry:

  1. If you know what you’re looking for, inquiry is unnecessary.
  2. If you don’t know what you’re looking for, inquiry is impossible.
  3. Therefore, inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible.

Either you know what you're looking for or you don't know what you're looking for. :) Test this argument, its not mine.
 

I think it is going to be difficult :D.

Keep the above argument in mind & answer: Is it possible for you to know what you don't know? Obviously, it is not impossible, we come in this world in the state of ignorance and we start knowing things which we don't know. And as per this logic, it is impossible.

How can you refute the argument in the logical manner? In the manner it is created.
Premise 1, Premise 2 & then Conclusion.  :hahaha:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/menopar.htm

Quote
  1. The argument for Meno’s Paradox is therefore flawed: it commits the fallacy of equivocation. But beyond it lies a deeper problem. And that is why Plato does not dismiss it out of hand. That is why in response to it he proposes his famous “Theory of Recollection.”

    Theory of Recollection:

  2. Concedes that, in some sense, inquiry is impossible. What appears to be learning something new is really recollecting something already known.

     

  3. This is implausible for many kinds of inquiry. E.g., empirical inquiry:

     

    1. Who is at the door?
    2. How many leaves are on that tree?
    3. Is the liquid in this beaker an acid?

       

  4. In these cases, there is a recognized method, a standard procedure, for arriving at the correct answer. So one can, indeed, come to know something one did not previously know.

     

  5. But what about answers to non-empirical questions? Here, there may not be a recognized method or a standard procedure for getting answers. And Socrates’ questions (“What is justice,” etc.) are questions of this type.

     

  6. Plato’s theory is that we already have within our souls the answers to such questions. Thus, arriving at the answers is a matter of retrieving them from within. We recognize them as correct when we confront them. (The “Aha!” erlebnis.)
  7.  

 

Edited by Dhulfikar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Dhulfikar said:

Brother, I have seen this. I am more interested in refuting this argument in the same manner it is constructed.

1. If you know what you want to know, inquiry is unnecessary
2. If you want to know what you don't know, inquiry is necessary
3. Therefore, inquiry is either necessary or unnecessary.

How is that? :D

And your detection is correct, Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings). And you can see the refuting argument with just a little change in the wordings, it is giving you the result that inquiry is either necessary or unnecessary.

Edited by Spiritual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×