Community hub
Recent from talks
Knowledge base stats:
Talk channels stats:
Members stats:
Appeal to the stone
Appeal to the stone, also known as argumentum ad lapidem, is a logical fallacy that dismisses an argument as untrue or absurd. The dismissal is made by stating or reiterating that the argument is absurd, without providing further argumentation. This theory is closely tied to proof by assertion due to the lack of evidence behind the statement and its attempt to persuade without providing any evidence.
Appeal to the stone is a logical fallacy. Specifically, it is an informal fallacy, which means that it relies on inductive reasoning in an argument to justify an assertion. Informal fallacies contain erroneous reasoning in content of the argument and not the form or structure of it, as opposed to formal fallacies, which contain erroneous reasoning in argument form.
The name "appeal to the stone" originates from an argument between Dr. Samuel Johnson and James Boswell over George Berkeley's theory of subjective idealism (known previously as "immaterialism"). Subjective idealism states that reality is dependent on a person's perceptions of the world and that material objects are intertwined with one's perceptions of these material objects.
After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, "I refute it thus."
— James Boswell, The Life of Samuel Johnson
Johnson's intent, apparently, was to imply that it was absurd of Berkeley to call such a stone "immaterial," when in fact Johnson could kick it with his foot.
Informal logical fallacies are misconceptions derived from faulty reasoning. Informal logical fallacies use inductive reasoning and thus can cause errors in reasoning by creating the illusion of a sound argument when it is not sound.
Irrelevant conclusions, also known as ignoratio elenchi (Latin for "ignoring the list" or "ignoring refutation") or missing the point, follows a similar structure to appeal to the stone.[citation needed] As an informal fallacy, it may not be valid or sound in its reasoning. Irrelevant conclusions hold similarity to appeal to the stone because[failed verification] it provides evidence towards a conclusion that has already been formed about the subject matter being debated, instead of the original subject that was being discussed. Dr. Samuel Johnson’s refutation of Bishop Berkeley’s theory of immaterialism by kicking a stone did not actually address the theory, but rather asserted a conclusion incompatible with the theory and then echoed his conclusion without discussing the subject matter of the theory of immaterialism directly.[citation needed]
Hub AI
Appeal to the stone AI simulator
(@Appeal to the stone_simulator)
Appeal to the stone
Appeal to the stone, also known as argumentum ad lapidem, is a logical fallacy that dismisses an argument as untrue or absurd. The dismissal is made by stating or reiterating that the argument is absurd, without providing further argumentation. This theory is closely tied to proof by assertion due to the lack of evidence behind the statement and its attempt to persuade without providing any evidence.
Appeal to the stone is a logical fallacy. Specifically, it is an informal fallacy, which means that it relies on inductive reasoning in an argument to justify an assertion. Informal fallacies contain erroneous reasoning in content of the argument and not the form or structure of it, as opposed to formal fallacies, which contain erroneous reasoning in argument form.
The name "appeal to the stone" originates from an argument between Dr. Samuel Johnson and James Boswell over George Berkeley's theory of subjective idealism (known previously as "immaterialism"). Subjective idealism states that reality is dependent on a person's perceptions of the world and that material objects are intertwined with one's perceptions of these material objects.
After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, "I refute it thus."
— James Boswell, The Life of Samuel Johnson
Johnson's intent, apparently, was to imply that it was absurd of Berkeley to call such a stone "immaterial," when in fact Johnson could kick it with his foot.
Informal logical fallacies are misconceptions derived from faulty reasoning. Informal logical fallacies use inductive reasoning and thus can cause errors in reasoning by creating the illusion of a sound argument when it is not sound.
Irrelevant conclusions, also known as ignoratio elenchi (Latin for "ignoring the list" or "ignoring refutation") or missing the point, follows a similar structure to appeal to the stone.[citation needed] As an informal fallacy, it may not be valid or sound in its reasoning. Irrelevant conclusions hold similarity to appeal to the stone because[failed verification] it provides evidence towards a conclusion that has already been formed about the subject matter being debated, instead of the original subject that was being discussed. Dr. Samuel Johnson’s refutation of Bishop Berkeley’s theory of immaterialism by kicking a stone did not actually address the theory, but rather asserted a conclusion incompatible with the theory and then echoed his conclusion without discussing the subject matter of the theory of immaterialism directly.[citation needed]