Taxicab Fallcy versus the Composition fallacy.

[Silvertusk]

Don't these contradict each other -

The statement - An infinite timeline is made up of finite parts which can be transversed so therefore the whole infinite timeline can be transversed - is commiting the composition fallacy - you can't assume the whole is the same as the individual componenets.

Where as the statement - if every part of the universe needs an explanation, doesn't mean the universe as a whole needs an explanation - is commiting the taxicab fallacy - which means that you can't stop just because you have reached your destination.

But lets switch this.

A statement like - You cannot transverse the infinite timeline just because you can transverse the finite parts of it - surely commits the taxicab fallacy

and

A statement like - because every part of the universe needs an explanation then the universe as a whole requires an explanation - commits the composition fallacy.

Am I interpreting this correct?

If so what is the answer to this puzzle - how do you avoid the contradiction?

Silvertusk.

[Jac3510]

I think you might be misunderstanding the taxicab fallacy . . . your second example is just (supposedly) another composition fallacy, I think. As far as I understand the taxicab, it has to do with logical consistency. Once you posit a particular set of assumptions, you have to be consistent with that set of assumptions. You can't just "opt out" of them whenever you so choose. It's precisely why for ages philosophers have come up with new systems they thought were acceptable but then their students become apparent nut-jobs -- students have a terrible knack for taking their mentors' ideas to their logical conclusions. (As an aside, that's why one of the best ways to evaluate a philosophy is by seeing how it played out after a generation or two of further discussion, but I digress.)

The idea that the universe doesn't need an explanation because all of its parts individually do doesn't seem to posit a set of assumptions and then abandon them. That just seems to be a simple "what is true of the part must also be true of the whole" type assumption.

In this specific case, I don't think it's an example of either the taxicab or the compositional fallacy, but that's because of the nature of existence as a property. "All feathers are light, therefore, a giant bag of feathers must be light" is a compositional fallacy because the weight of feathers can add up. That is, a group of feathers have different properties than a single feather, because the feathers "add up," and the "new" property comes from that addition. But nothing is added to a thing with existence. Kant, for all his mistakes (and they were many) did manage to show that decisively, I think. So if "the universe" is nothing more that all physically existent things, then the universe is just a set of things. An empty set would just be a non-existent set, which is to say, it would not exist. So if every individual thing is removed, then the universe does not exist. Therefore, if every individual thing requires an explanation for its existence, then so does the universe. You could just take away thing over and over and over until, eventually, you would just have nothing at all. And then the universe would not exist to require an explanation.

Bottom line: I think your first example illustrates the composition fallacy. Your second example is no fallacy at all, although atheists like to argue it is a compositional fallacy. Neither are examples of the taxicab fallacy.

Thoughts?

[Silvertusk]

I think you might be misunderstanding the taxicab fallacy . . . your second example is just (supposedly) another composition fallacy, I think. As far as I understand the taxicab, it has to do with logical consistency. Once you posit a particular set of assumptions, you have to be consistent with that set of assumptions. You can't just "opt out" of them whenever you so choose. It's precisely why for ages philosophers have come up with new systems they thought were acceptable but then their students become apparent nut-jobs -- students have a terrible knack for taking their mentors' ideas to their logical conclusions. (As an aside, that's why one of the best ways to evaluate a philosophy is by seeing how it played out after a generation or two of further discussion, but I digress.)

The idea that the universe doesn't need an explanation because all of its parts individually do doesn't seem to posit a set of assumptions and then abandon them. That just seems to be a simple "what is true of the part must also be true of the whole" type assumption.

In this specific case, I don't think it's an example of either the taxicab or the compositional fallacy, but that's because of the nature of existence as a property. "All feathers are light, therefore, a giant bag of feathers must be light" is a compositional fallacy because the weight of feathers can add up. That is, a group of feathers have different properties than a single feather, because the feathers "add up," and the "new" property comes from that addition. But nothing is added to a thing with existence. Kant, for all his mistakes (and they were many) did manage to show that decisively, I think. So if "the universe" is nothing more that all physically existent things, then the universe is just a set of things. An empty set would just be a non-existent set, which is to say, it would not exist. So if every individual thing is removed, then the universe does not exist. Therefore, if every individual thing requires an explanation for its existence, then so does the universe. You could just take away thing over and over and over until, eventually, you would just have nothing at all. And then the universe would not exist to require an explanation.

Bottom line: I think your first example illustrates the composition fallacy. Your second example is no fallacy at all, although atheists like to argue it is a compositional fallacy. Neither are examples of the taxicab fallacy.

Thoughts?

I think I kinda get what you are saying - but WLC often quotes the secind example as a taxicab example as atheists have said that the just because everything in the universe needs an explanation then it doesn't mean the universe as a whole needs an explanation.

Although I do like your example of the set of things - that makes a lot of sense.

[Jac3510]

Well unfortunately I can't say more than that -- if WLC uses the second as an example of the taxicab, that's fine. I would need to see his explanation for how that's the case, because I don't really follow his reasoning on that. It just looks like a typical argument for a composition fallacy that atheists like to make to me. *shrug*

[domokunrox]

Silvertusk,

I'm not really a fan of how WLC presents it, but they aren't the same. Jac explained it pretty well.

The only thing I have to add is that I don't tell people that they've committed the taxicab fallacy. If there are being inconsistent, I simply point it out. Most skeptics are unconvinced of their inconsistencies or just don't care if they are, so I make it a point to show how absurd or how conveniently they are helping themselves to stuff they can't explain to prop up their worldview. It hits harder, more on point, and in the end is more effective in getting skeptics to wise up. I see this way as a more effective tool to getting these people who have so much pride in humanity to be more humble. They need to start admitting to themselves or you that they are wrong.

Theres an analogy I often tell people on this.

You're not going to be very successful getting inland unless you take out the guys holed up in the pillboxes on the coast. Yes, I know. WWII nerd analogy. I stand by it.