FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174  
175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   >>   >|  
error, just as our senses are fascinated by an expert juggler. We have seen how plausibly Zeno's argument against the possibility of motion hides a Petitio: the Fatalist Dilemma is another example of the same sort. If it is fated that you die, you will die whether you call in a doctor or not, and if it is fated that you will recover, you will recover whether you call in a doctor or not. But it must be fated either that you die or that you recover. _Therefore_, you will either die or recover whether you call in a doctor or not. Here it is tacitly assumed in the Major Premiss that the calling in of a doctor cannot be a link in the fated chain of events. In the statement of both the alternative conditions, it is assumed that Fate does not act through doctors, and the conclusion is merely a repetition of this assumption, a verbal proposition after an imposing show of argument. "If Fate does not act through doctors, you will die whether you call in a doctor or not." The fallacy in this case is probably aided by our veneration for the grand abstraction of Fate and the awful idea of Death, which absorbs our attention and takes it away from the artful _Petitio_. The Sophism of Achilles and the Tortoise is the most triumphant of examples of _Ignoratio Elenchi_. The point that the Sophism undertakes to prove is that Achilles can never overtake a Tortoise once it has a certain start: what it really proves, and proves indisputably, is that he cannot overtake the Tortoise within a certain space or time. For simplicity of exposition, let us assume that the Tortoise has 100 yards start and that Achilles runs ten times as fast. Then, clearly, Achilles will not come up with it at the end of 100 yards, for while he has run 100, the Tortoise has run 10; nor at the end of 110, for then the Tortoise has run 1 more; nor at the end of 111, for then the Tortoise has run 1/10 more; nor at the end of 111--1/10, for then the Tortoise has gained 1/100 more. So while Achilles runs this 1/100, the Tortoise runs 1/1000; while he runs the 1/1000, it runs 1/10000. Thus it would seem that the Tortoise must always keep ahead: he can never overtake it. But the conclusion is only a confusion of ideas: all that is really proved is that Achilles will not overtake the Tortoise while running 100 + 10 + 1 + 1/10 + 1/100 + 1/1000 + 1/10000, etc. That is, that he will not overtake it till he has completed the sum of
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174  
175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Tortoise

 

Achilles

 

doctor

 
overtake
 
recover
 

doctors

 
conclusion
 

assumed

 

argument

 

Petitio


proves
 

Sophism

 

indisputably

 

undertakes

 

simplicity

 
exposition
 

confusion

 

proved

 

running

 
completed

gained

 
Elenchi
 

assume

 

Dilemma

 

Fatalist

 

Therefore

 

calling

 
Premiss
 

tacitly

 

motion


possibility

 

fascinated

 

expert

 

juggler

 

senses

 

plausibly

 

events

 

absorbs

 

abstraction

 

attention


triumphant

 

examples

 

artful

 

veneration

 

repetition

 

assumption

 
conditions
 

alternative

 

statement

 

verbal