All I was able to find was these 2 blog posts which basically say the same thing. Let me just quote it from one of those blogs
The “Taxi-Cab Fallacy” is committed when one hops in and assumes a certain system of thought or worldview in an attempt to make a particular point but then jumps out of the system of thought when it suits their fancy.I'm not sure I really understand this, and I did a quick scan of the comments of both blogs and was unable to find a good example. It seems that the complaint is that atheists are picking certain details out of the bible and then asking the theist to answer without being allowed to use other things from the bible. Depending on how it goes, I could see this being valid or not. It's hard to judge without an example. Although I will say, my initial reaction is that this sounds like a proof by contradiction. This is where you start with certain assumptions and show that they lead to nonsense, thereby proving that those assumptions were incorrect.
---------------------
Ok, now I am going to go look at the iron chariots page. They have the example of challenging a theist as to whether it was morally correct for Abraham to go up to the mountain to sacrifice his son. If the theist says yes, the the Atheist can ask if it was moral because God commanded it or if God commanded it because it is moral. If the theist says that God commanded it because it is moral then the atheist could ask for a non-biblical answer as to why that is moral and then is when the theist would complain of taxicab fallacy. Which certainly seems like a fraudulent claim to me. I'm guessing that the theist would try to argue taxicab fallacy without everything spelled out so nice and things get lost in the shuffle or something.
---------------------
I was just not satisfied with this, so I waded back into the video from above, I found it at around 24 minutes on the video of the Q and A (actually someone asks a fairly stupid question at 22:30, Krauss rephrases it in a less stupid way at about 23:00 and then WLC responds afterward)
Basically Krauss said that people want to stop asking why at some point, so they say God. This gives them a reason to stop asking why and it is intellectual laziness. He says that there may not be an ultimate answer. Craig then says that the arbitrary point to stop is the universe and the Theists are the ones that are going further. He says that stopping at the universe is the taxicab fallacy. As far as I can tell, this doesn't mesh with the definition I found elsewhere and described above at all. Honestly, it looks to me like he throws it out there when he wants to sound smart and doesn't have a real fallacy to cite.
I'm pretty irritated here as this seems totally dishonest to me. I could be totally wrong here and if someone sees me misunderstanding something please point it out, but if this was a real fallacy WLC would properly explain it instead of just throwing it out offhand here and there.
Very interesting. I had never heard of this fallacy before. I was pretty done after the debate and missed the Q and A. If its the way you are explaining it, I must be missing the fallacy. If anything, you are fighting an argument and disproving it own its own grounds instead of just shouting your opinion louder.
ReplyDeleteI think you pretty much covered it with the dishonesty. When it comes to these kinds of debates, people stick to figures like Craig without really questioning him because “Well, he seems like a nice guy and is very well spoken, and why would Craig lie?” Just my opinion.
I think the iron chariots page explains it pretty well. It is certainly not a fallacy. It is standard pseudo-science thing really, they notice that science wins points using certain words so they just start using them too. You keep saying I'm using fallacies? I'll say you use fallacies, I'll make up my own. Except what they are talking about aren't really fallacies.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding of it is that you "ride" certain assumptions/premises to other assumptions/premises or conclusions and then dump the former once you've arrived at the latter. Here's an example from WLC:
ReplyDelete"There are three premises in the argument:
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
Now what follows logically from these three premises?
From 1 and 3 it logically follows that:
4. The universe has an explanation of its existence.
And from 2 and 4 the conclusion logically follows:
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God.
Now this is a logically airtight argument. So if the atheist wants to deny the conclusion, he has to say that one of the three premises is false." (Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/argument-from-contingency#ixzz1uiGB9cI5)
So the atheist says everything EXCEPT the universe has an explaination of its existence, but it is arbitrary to stop at the universe. If the universe exists then it has an explaination for its existence just like everything else that exists. You can't deny premise 1 without undermining your acceptance of it with regards to everything else. Or, you can, but then you're committing the "taxicab fallacy".
Jared, thank you very much for responding.
ReplyDeleteForgive me, but I'm still not sure I really understand what the taxicab fallacy is supposed to be. What you described in your first paragraph:
"My understanding of it is that you "ride" certain assumptions/premises to other assumptions/premises or conclusions and then dump the former once you've arrived at the latter."
This certainly sounds bad to me. If I am understanding correctly, it sounds like the claim is that the taxicab fallacy involved assuming X, then X implies Y, and then once you have Y you then dismiss X and no longer assume X is true. Is this a correct assessment of what you are saying the taxicab fallacy is?
Here is a quote from the link you provided:
"Sometimes atheists will respond to premise 1 by saying that it is true of everything in the universe but not of the universe itself. But this response commits what has been aptly called “the taxicab fallacy.”"
That to me doesn't seem to commit this fallacy as described. What they are doing is refining the premise. WLC has claimed that everything that exists has an explanation, and the atheists have said that perhaps that is incorrect, and the universe itself doesn't. They never assumed (#1) and therefore never changed their mind half way through their argument.
(BTW, there are other issues I have with the argument in that link, but here I'd like to focus on figuring out exactly what the taxicab fallacy is. Perhaps I will do a full post on the argument from contingency later)
Forgive me, but wouldn't that also be begging the question? You said in your second premise, "2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God." Wouldn't you just be assuming what you are trying to prove?
ReplyDeleteI'm still a little lost as well when it comes to the taxicab fallacy.. Maybe you can clear this up a bit. Thanks :)
Hausdorff,
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty simple, the formulation of the LCA summarized above by jared relies on our intuition that everything we see must have an explanation for its existence, hence also the universe itself. Sometimes critics of the LCA will say that our intuitions are correct about everything within the universe (i.e. these things must have explanations for their existence) but they don't apply to the universe itself. However, in the absence of any independent justification for why our intuitions about things needing explanations for their existence suddenly break down at the level of the universe itself this rejoinder commits what Schopenhauer (and also WLC) referred to as the taxi-cab fallacy. In other words, the intuitive force of premise 1 is admitted (as if one were sitting in a taxi-cab) up until the point the critic needs it to not be true (as if he were suddenly leaving the taxi), but this seems like a wholly arbitrary move for a critic of the LCA to make, hence the identification of this move as the taxi-cab fallacy.
I think I understand what you are saying, in which case I think I also understand and agree with the complaint in some situations.
DeleteYou are saying that some people argue that our intuitions are correct for everything in the universe, but when it comes to the universe as a whole our intuition fails. No reason is given for the universe as a whole to fail while everything in it doesn't fail, but they need intuition to fail and therefore they say it does. This is the taxicab fallacy as described.
Is this a fair summary of what you are saying? If I have understood you correct, I agree with you. The person who is making that argument has failed.
However, if the person instead says that the universe is different, and then gives a reason, would you agree that the taxicab fallacy has not taken place? It seems to me that the key here is that we change the rules for no good reason. (obviously, if a reason was given your goal would be to then find a flaw with said reason)
I did a little more reading on this. The taxi-cab argument is kind of a bullshit "fallacy." There is no formal expression for it. But let's say that for the sake of argument there is. The cosmological argument would be a perfect example of this "fallacy" if you really think about it. You assume that everything has a preceding cause, then you ditch it when talking about God (the "uncaused cause").
ReplyDeleteThis is a good point. If the taxicab fallacy is as I understand it, changing the rules when it is convenient, the apologists need to be careful not to employ it when making exceptions for their God.
DeleteAnd on the comment about the "airtight" argument, once again, you have a premise which is what you are out to prove. I know I'm more or less repeating myself here but there is no justification for premise two. You could just as easily stick in whatever you want.
ReplyDelete1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is a unicorn that craps rainbow pattern waffles, and occasionally a universe.
3. The universe exists.
Now what follows logically from these three premises?
From 1 and 3 it logically follows that:
4. The universe has an explanation of its existence.
And from 2 and 4 the conclusion logically follows:
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is a unicorn that craps rainbow pattern waffles, and occasionally a universe.
Annonymous said in the previous blog, that premise two is later justified by the argument, which is what he is out to prove. If this is the "thesis" of the argument, does it really belong as part of the "evidence"? If you take out premise two, which is where you assume that the only explanation is God, the argument falls apart.
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
3. The universe exists.
Now what follows logically from these three premises?
From 1 and 3 it logically follows that:
4. The universe has an explanation of its existence.
And from 2 and 4 the conclusion logically follows:
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God.
I think apologists also call "taxi cab" when you don't assume first off that God is the only explanation and "jump" out of the argument.
I was sort of hoping for an explanation of the history of the "fallacy" - now I'll have to go through the pain of listening to WLC again to try to work out exactly what he meant. Disappointed.
ReplyDeleteA point though, I've not got as far as the Q&A and WLC has already mentioned the taxi-cab fallacy. When I've done it, I'll do my take of his non-sense here - http://neophilosophical.blogspot.com/
Ok, I've looked at it in detail now, and it's worse than you (and I) thought, I'll post the response to it on my blog in a couple of days (I want to brood on it and get the typos eliminated first). Click my icon to get to my email if you want to see a pre-post version.
ReplyDeletecheers,
-neopolitan-
Thanks for posting neopolitan,
DeleteIf I recall correctly, when I looked into this a few months ago I was pretty disappointed with what I found. It seemed to me like the whole idea of the fallacy falls apart like a house of cards with the slightest scrutiny, it seems you found the same thing.
Looking forward to your post on it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou guys should really read WLC's book "On Guard" he explains Leibniz's argument very well and absolutely refutes your issues with the argument.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting. I had never heard of this fallacy before. I was pretty done after the debate and missed the Q and A. If its the way you are explaining it, I must be missing the fallacy. If anything, you are fighting an argument and disproving it own its own grounds instead of just shouting your opinion louder.
ReplyDeletegoldenslot
GCLUB Casino
Gclub
GClub casino