0

Any statement can be interpreted to mean anything.

This is surely true in a strict sense, but would render all logical investigation impossible, and in common sense terms is surely false (there may be several interpretations of a statement, but that does not mean that infinite interpretations have been, or are, taken).

The legal system encouters arguments (sincere and frivolous) that rely on the subjectivity of terms all the time, leading to famous ripostes like "I know it when I see it", but is there a term for relying on it as an argument beyond the bounds of common sense? (Or is it just known as being unreasonable? ;-)

I've found plenty of fallacies that are close (if by whisky, equivocation, Loki's wager, moving the goalposts) and is possibly a case of begging the question (they should prove it can be interpreted in any way), but I haven't found a specific term for it.

Any help much appreciated.

ian
  • 143
  • 7
  • "a term for relying on it" - what exactly does "it" refer to? –  Aug 13 '16 at 21:49
  • "I'll know it when I see it" is not usually interpreted as radical relativism, but rather as making distinctions based on vague terms, it was originally used in 1964 by US justice Stewart to describe his "test" for obscenity. Relativistic denial of distinctions based on vague boundaries between them is known as the line-drawing fallacy or the sorites paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy "I'll know it when I see it" is considered a valid response to that. – Conifold Aug 13 '16 at 22:41
  • @mobileink "it" is *the subjectivity of terms*. – ian Aug 14 '16 at 02:03
  • @Conifold Ah, I perhaps should've been clearer, I meant that he was rebutting the subjectivity with his "I'll know it when I see it" remark, not supporting it, but thanks for clarifying it for me. I did wonder about the continuum fallacy, but as the emphasis was on steps between 2 (or more) points I dismissed as not *quite* right, but I'll give it another mull over. I think you should definitely add it as an answer though, to let people vote. – ian Aug 14 '16 at 02:37
  • 1
    Thanks. I wrote an earlier post on the use of soritic reasoning to support relativism, and on how to counter it systematically using Kant's resolution of the antinomy of taste or Wittgenstein's family resemblance http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/31879/is-it-possible-to-use-wittgensteins-family-resemblance-to-separate-high-art-fro/31901#31901 – Conifold Aug 15 '16 at 22:18
  • All terms are "subjective"; this follows from the simple fact that speakers are subjects. All terms are also objective; this follows from the simple fact that language is public. it sounds like what you're interested in is ambiguity (which is also a universal property of words) and how speakers can exploit ambiguity for nefarious or at least rhetorical purposes. Close? Can you give a specific example? –  Aug 16 '16 at 20:34
  • @mobileink Yes, that's close. I see it used most often (though not exclusively) to defend interpretations of religious doctrine that lead to bad actions. A simple one would be "Kill the unbelievers" - > the believers kill unbelievers - > the defenders says "any religious text can be taken to mean anything". Obviously, each tradition in question has its own branches of textual study and methods of validity for things like these, but it's really the **general** logical position I'm interested in, first and foremost. – ian Aug 17 '16 at 13:42
  • @iain: still not sure I follow you, but if I do, then you're talking about rhetoric, not logic. Logical fallacies involve errors in reasoning, whereas your concern seems to be more about "material" errors involving the interpretation of terms. Logic (truth-conditional) excludes this on principle: all propositions are either true or false,so an error of reasoning does not impeach propositions. you can draw a perfectly valid inference from false premises, but strictly speaking that would not be a *logical* fallacy. Maybe the Sayings of Chairman Trump give a good example? Assert then deny? –  Aug 17 '16 at 19:11

1 Answers1

1

You write:

Any statement can be interpreted to mean anything

This is surely true in a strict sense

Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation of texts, which might be relevant; here, they start off with the proposition:

Not every interpretation of a text is equally valid

The question then is to determine which interpretations are valid, and why.

Community
  • 1
Mozibur Ullah
  • 1
  • 14
  • 88
  • 234
  • 1
    That's really interesting, I didn't know that branch of study existed in its own right. Thanks! Since it's not *technically* the answer to the question, but I still think it's a *correct* answer, I'll see if anyone can produce an actual fallacy, otherwise I'll give you the mark. – ian Aug 17 '16 at 13:34
  • This is, of course, my subjective opinion on the meaning of technical and correct :) – ian Aug 17 '16 at 13:35
  • Michael Forster (University of Chicago) writes wonderfully about this. You can get some of his papers on his homepage. –  Aug 17 '16 at 19:13
  • 1
    @iain: well, there's the spirit of the law vs the technicalities of the law - which is usually a matter of interpretation ;). – Mozibur Ullah Aug 20 '16 at 07:39