Sophism in Greek means literally: trick, invention or skill. This term refers to a statement that is false, but not devoid of an element of logic, due to which, on a superficial glance, it seems true. The question arises: sophism - what is it and how does it differ from paralogism? And the difference is that sophisms are based on conscious and deliberate deceit, violation of logic.
History of the term
Sophisms and paradoxes were noticed in antiquity. One of the fathers of philosophy - Aristotle called this phenomenon imaginary evidence that appears due to a lack of logical analysis, which leads to the subjectivity of the entire judgment. The persuasiveness of the arguments is just a disguise for a logical fallacy, which every sophist statement undoubtedly has.
Sophism - what is it? To answer this question, we need to consider an example of an ancient violation of logic: “You have what you did not lose. Lost horns? So you have horns." There is an oversight here. If the first phrase is modified: "You have everything that you did not lose," then the conclusion becomes true, but rather uninteresting. One of the rules of the early sophists wasthe assertion that the worst argument should be presented as the best, and the purpose of the dispute was only to win it, and not to search for the truth.
The Sophists argued that any opinion could be legitimate, thereby denying the law of contradiction later formulated by Aristotle. This has given rise to numerous types of sophisms in various sciences.
Sources of sophisms
The terminology that is used during the dispute can be a source of sophisms. Many words have several meanings (a doctor can be a doctor or a researcher with a degree), due to which there is a violation of logic. Sophisms in mathematics, for example, are based on changing numbers by multiplying them and then comparing the original and received data. Incorrect stress can also be a sophist's weapon, because a lot of words change their meaning when the stress changes. The construction of a phrase is sometimes very confusing, like, for example, two times two plus five. In this case, it is not clear whether the sum of two and five multiplied by two is meant, or the sum of the product of twos and five.
Complex sophisms
If we consider more complex logical sophisms, then it is worth giving an example with the inclusion of a premise in the phrase, which still needs to be proved. That is, the argument itself cannot be such until it has been proven. Another violation is criticism of the opponent's opinion, which is aimed at judgments erroneously attributed to him. Such a mistake is widespread in everyday life, where people attribute to each other thoseopinions and motives that are not theirs.
Besides, a phrase said with some reservation can be replaced by an expression that does not have such a reservation. Due to the fact that attention is not focused on the fact that was missed, the statement looks quite reasonable and logically correct. The so-called female logic also refers to violations of the normal course of reasoning, as it is the construction of a chain of thoughts that are not connected to each other, but upon superficial examination, the connection can be found.
Reasons for sophisms
The psychological causes of sophisms include the intellect of a person, his emotionality and the degree of suggestibility. That is, it is enough for a smarter person to lead his opponent into a dead end so that he agrees with the point of view proposed to him. A person prone to affective reactions may give in to his feelings and miss the sophistries. Examples of such situations are found wherever there are emotional people.
The more convincing a person's speech is, the greater the chance that others will not notice errors in his words. This is what many of those who use such methods in a dispute are counting on. But for a full understanding of these reasons, it is worth analyzing them in more detail, since sophisms and paradoxes in logic often pass by the attention of an unprepared person.
Intellectual and affective causes
A developed intellectual personality has the ability to follow not only his speech, but also every argument of the interlocutor, while paying attention to the arguments giveninterlocutor. Such a person is distinguished by a greater amount of attention, the ability to search for an answer to unknown questions instead of following memorized patterns, as well as a large active vocabulary with which thoughts are most accurately expressed.
The amount of knowledge is also important. The skillful application of such a type of violation as sophism in mathematics is inaccessible to an illiterate and not developing person.
These include the fear of consequences, because of which a person is not able to confidently express his point of view and give worthy arguments. Speaking about the emotional weaknesses of a person, one should not forget about the hope to find confirmation of one's views on life in any information received. For the humanist, mathematical sophisms can become a problem.
Volitional
During the discussion of points of view, there is an impact not only on the mind and feelings, but also on the will. A self-confident and assertive person will defend his point of view with great success, even if it was formulated in violation of logic. This technique has a particularly strong effect on large crowds of people who are subject to the effect of the crowd and do not notice sophism. What does this give the speaker? The ability to convince almost anything. Another feature of behavior that allows you to win an argument with the help of sophism is activity. The more passive a person is, the more chances to convince him that he is right.
Conclusion - the effectiveness of sophistic statements depends on the characteristics of both people involved in the conversation. At the same time, the effects of all considered personality traits add up andaffect the outcome of the discussion of the problem.
Examples of logic violations
Sophisms, examples of which will be discussed below, were formulated quite a long time ago and are simple violations of logic, used only to train the ability to argue, since it is quite easy to see inconsistencies in these phrases.
So, sophisms (examples):
Full and empty - if two halves are equal, then two whole parts are also the same. In accordance with this - if half-empty and half-full are the same, then empty is equal to full.
Another example: "Do you know what I want to ask you?" - "Not". – “What about the fact that virtue is a good quality of a person?” - "I know". “So you don’t know what you know.”
Medicine that helps the sick is good, and the more good, the better. That is, drugs can be taken as much as possible.
A very famous sophism says: “This dog has children, so he is the father. But since she's your dog, that means she's your father. Besides, if you hit the dog, you hit the father. You are also the brother of the puppies.”
Logical paradoxes
Sophisms and paradoxes are two different things. A paradox is a proposition that can prove that the proposition is both false and true at the same time. This phenomenon is divided into 2 types: aporia and antinomy. The first implies the appearance of a conclusion that contradicts experience. An example is the paradox formulated by Zeno: swift-footed Achilles is not able to catch up with the tortoise, since it iseach subsequent step will move away from him for a certain distance, preventing him from catching up with himself, because the process of dividing the segment of the path is endless.
Antinomia, on the other hand, is a paradox that implies the existence of two mutually exclusive judgments that are simultaneously true. The phrase "I'm lying" can be either true or false, but if it is true, then the person speaking it is telling the truth and is not considered a liar, although the phrase implies the opposite. There are interesting logical paradoxes and sophisms, some of which will be described below.
Logical paradox "Crocodile"
A crocodile snatched a child from an Egyptian woman, but, taking pity on the woman, after her plea, he put forward conditions: if she guesses whether he will return the child to her or not, then he, respectively, will give or not give it. After these words, the mother thought and said that he would not give the child to her.
To this the crocodile replied: you will not get a child, because in the case when what you said is true, I cannot give you the child, because if I do, your words will no longer be true. And if this is not true, I cannot return the child by agreement.
After which the mother challenged his words, saying that he should give her the child anyway. The words were justified by the following arguments: if the answer was true, then under the contract the crocodile had to return what was taken away, and otherwise he was also obliged to give the child, because the refusal would mean that the mother’s words were fair, and this again obliges to return the baby.
Logical paradox "Missionary"
Having got to the cannibals, the missionary realized that he would soon be eaten, but at the same time he had the opportunity to choose whether he would be boiled or fried. The missionary had to make a statement, and if it turned out to be true, then it would be prepared in the first way, and the lie would lead to the second way. By saying the phrase, "you fry me," the missionary thereby dooms the cannibals to an insoluble situation in which they cannot decide how to cook it. Cannibals cannot fry him - in this case, he will be right and they are obliged to cook the missionary. And if it is wrong, then fry it, but this will not work either, because then the traveler's words will be true.
Violations of logic in mathematics
Usually mathematical sophisms prove the equality of unequal numbers or arithmetic expressions. One of the simplest patterns is comparing five and one. If you subtract 3 from 5, you get 2. When you subtract 3 from 1, you get -2. When both numbers are squared, we get the same result. Thus, the origins of these operations are equal, 5=1.
Mathematical sophistry problems are born most often due to the transformation of the original numbers (for example, squaring). As a result, it turns out that the results of these transformations are equal, from which it is concluded that the initial data are equal.
Problems with broken logic
Why does a bar stay at rest when a 1 kg weight is placed on it? Indeed, in this case, the force of gravity acts on it, is itdoes it contradict Newton's first law? The next task is the thread tension. If you fix a flexible thread with one end, applying a force F to the second, then the tension in each of its sections will become equal to F. But, since it consists of an infinite number of points, then the force applied to the whole body will be equal to an infinitely large value. But according to experience, this cannot be in principle. Mathematical sophisms, examples with and without answers can be found in the book by A. G. and D. A. Madera.
Action and reaction. If Newton's third law is true, then no matter how much force is applied to the body, the reaction will hold it in place and will not allow it to move.
A flat mirror swaps the right and left sides of the object displayed in it, so why don't top and bottom change?
Sophisms in geometry
Inferences called geometric sophisms substantiate any incorrect conclusion related to operations on geometric figures or their analysis.
Typical example: a match is twice as long as a telegraph pole.
The length of the match will be denoted by a, the length of the column - b. The difference between these values is c. it turns out that b - a=c, b=a + c. If these expressions are multiplied, the following will be obtained: b2 - ab=ca + c2. In this case, it is possible to subtract the component bc from both parts of the derived equality. You get the following: b2 - ab - bc \u003d ca + c2 - bc, or b (b - a - c) u003d - c (b - a - c). Whence b=- c, but c=b - a, so b=a - b, or a=2b. That is, a match andthe truth is twice as long as the column. The error in these calculations lies in the expression (b - a - c), which is equal to zero. Such sophistry problems usually confuse schoolchildren or people who are far from mathematics.
Philosophy
Sophism as a philosophical direction arose around the second half of the 5th century BC. e. The followers of this trend were people who considered themselves to be sages, since the term "sophist" meant "sage". The first person to call himself that was Protagoras. He and his contemporaries, who adhered to sophistic views, believed that everything is subjective. According to the ideas of the sophists, man is the measure of all things, which means that any opinion is true and no point of view can be considered scientific or correct. This also applied to religious beliefs.
Examples of sophisms in philosophy: a girl is not a person. If we assume that the girl is a man, then the statement is true that she is a young man. But since a young man is not a girl, then a girl is not a person. The most famous sophism, which also contains a share of humor, sounds like this: the more suicides, the less suicides.
Sophism of Euathlus
A man named Euathlus took lessons in sophism from the famous sage Protagoras. The conditions were as follows: if the student, after obtaining the skills of the dispute, wins the lawsuit, he will pay for the training, otherwise there will be no payment. The catch was that after the training, the student simply did not participate in any process and, thus, was not required to pay. Protagoras threatened to servecomplaints to the court, saying that the student will pay in any case, the only question is whether it will be a court verdict or the student will win the case and will be required to pay tuition.
Evatl did not agree, arguing that if he was awarded payment, then under an agreement with Protagoras, having lost the case, he is not obliged to pay, but if he wins, according to the court verdict, he also does not owe money to the teacher.
Sophism "sentence"
Examples of sophisms in philosophy are supplemented by a “sentence”, which says that a certain person was sentenced to death, but was informed about one rule: the execution will not happen immediately, but within a week, and the day of execution will not be announced in advance. Hearing this, the sentenced man began to reason, trying to understand on what day a terrible event would happen to him. According to his considerations, if the execution does not take place until Sunday, then on Saturday he will know that he will be executed tomorrow - that is, the rule that he was told about has already been violated. Having excluded Sunday, the condemned thought the same about Saturday, because if he knows that he will not be executed on Sunday, then provided that the execution does not take place before Friday, Saturday is also excluded. After considering all this, he came to the conclusion that he could not be executed, as the rule would be violated. But on Wednesday I was surprised when the executioner appeared and did his terrible deed.
The Parable of the Railroad
An example of this kind of violation of logic, as economic sophisms, is the theory of building a railway from one large city to another. A feature of this path was a gap at a small station between twopoints connected by the road. This gap, from an economic point of view, would help small towns by bringing in the money of passing people. But on the way of two large cities there is more than one settlement, that is, there should be many gaps in the railway, in order to extract maximum profit. This means building a railroad that doesn't really exist.
Reason, obstacle
Sophisms, examples of which are considered by Frédéric Bastiat, have become very famous, and especially the violation of the logic "cause, obstacle". Primitive man had practically nothing and in order to get something, he had to overcome many obstacles. Even a simple example of overcoming distance shows that it will be very difficult for an individual to independently overcome all the barriers that stand in the way of any single traveler. But in modern society, people specialized in such an occupation are engaged in solving the problems of overcoming obstacles. Moreover, these obstacles have become for them a way of earning money, that is, enrichment.
Each new obstacle created gives work to many people, it follows that there must be obstacles in order for society and each individual to be enriched. So what is the correct conclusion? Is the obstacle or its removal a boon for mankind?
Arguments in the discussion
The arguments given by people during the discussion are divided into objective and incorrect. The former are aimed at resolving the problem situation and finding the right answer, while the latter are aimed atwin the argument and nothing more.
The first type of incorrect arguments can be considered an argument to the personality of the person with whom the dispute is being waged, paying attention to his character traits, features of appearance, beliefs, and so on. Thanks to this approach, the arguing person affects the emotions of the interlocutor, thereby killing the rational principle in him. There are also arguments for authority, power, gain, vanity, loy alty, ignorance, and common sense.
So, sophism - what is it? A technique that helps in a dispute, or meaningless reasoning that does not give any answer and therefore has no value? Both.
