Self-refuting idea

{{sources needed}}{{logicnav}}
A '''self-refuting idea''' is a [[logical fallacy]] in which the conclusion denies the premises. It occurs when concept A is used to deny concept B, but A logically depends on B. It is a [[formal fallacy]].

The fallacy is in some ways the mirror of [[begging the question]] (where you assume what you are attempting to prove), but instead, you are assuming what you want to disprove. Many [[conspiracy theories]] are self-refuting ideas.

==Alternate names==
*Stolen concept fallacy (coined by [[Ayn Rand]])
*Friendly fire
*Kettle logic
*Own goal
*Shooting oneself in the foot
*Smuggled concept
*Unforced error

==Forms==
Self-refuting ideas are relatively common among those who don't consider the assumptions they're making or what those assumptions actually mean; the result is an argument that undermines itself. This is particularly common when the person making the claim is [[cherry picking]], since they may not bother to check if the things they're picking even ''are'' cherries.

However, a claim of self-refutation may be based on semantics or a [[straw man]]. The common [[Objectivist]] example of the stolen concept is Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's statement that "property is theft"; it is argued that this is self-negating, as theft requires a concept of lawful property. This ignores the author's intended definition of the two terms – Proudhon referred to the private property of landowners and [[capitalist]]s, claiming they "stole" profits from workers (he called his preferred property concept "possession").<ref>[http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon.html Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]</ref> It is important to distinguish this from [[ad hoc]] attempts to rescue a self-refuting idea [[Moving the goalposts|by adding terms to it after the fact]].

One ought to be aware of the [[principle of charity]], to take the most reasonable interpretation of one's opponent's words. An argument may be formed as a deliberate [[oxymoron]], as a striking way of saying something, or other [[metaphor]], and is not to be taken literally.

And one must distinguish between a self-refuting idea and the quite useful ''[[reductio ad absurdum]]'', where one begins with the assumptions that one is trying to refute and shows that they result in a contradiction or other unwelcome conclusion.<ref group=note>However, ''reductio ad absurdum'' can be ''particularly'' useful for ''illustrating'' '''how and why''' a self-refuting idea is self-refuting.</ref>

===Canceling hypotheses===
Canceling hypotheses occurs when someone [[Handwave|explains away]] the absence of the evidence for something / consequences of something by ([[ad hoc]]) introducing a new [[hypothesis]] which cancels the effect of the first.

===Unintentional apophasis===
{{main|Apophasis}}
A literary term is for a species of irony, '''unintentional apophasis'''. Intentional apophasis is to bring up a subject with the pretense of not mentioning it, such as "I will not dwell on my opponent's [[atheism]]". Unintentional apophasis, on the other hand, is to bring up a subject which is best left alone, such as [[Donald Trump]] talking about the size of his hands.

===Kettle logic===
'''Kettle logic''' (''logique du chaudron'') was named by [[philosopher]] [[Jacques Derrida]] for a story that [[Sigmund Freud]] told in "Irma's dream" in ''The Interpretation of Dreams'' and ''Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious''. A man is accused by his neighbour of returning a borrowed kettle in a damaged condition and answers:
*That he had returned the kettle undamaged
*That it was already damaged when he borrowed it
*That he had never borrowed it in the first place

The arguments may stand individually, but put together they contradict each other.{{efn|Kettle logic is technically distinct from the blunder that [[TV Tropes]] refers to as "[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/INeverSaidItWasPoison I Never Said It Was Poison]" (demonstrating possession of knowledge that one '''could not have''' without being guilty of, involved with, actively investigating, or at the ''very'' least a witness to some crime or offense that one is denying culpability for), but it is entirely possible for the two to be combined, as at least one doctor attempting to drive away medical record collectors has learned the hard way.<ref>Not Always Right, "[https://notalwaysright.com/hes-telling-a-shaggy-dog-story/ He's Telling A Shaggy Dog Story]".</ref>}}

==Examples==
*Some [[axiom]]s are self-refuting, and are held to be true in spite of this. 
** For example, the claim "everything is subjective" would require the statement itself be objectively true and is thus self-negating; any attempt to rescue it using logic would fall prey to [[special pleading]] by demanding one arbitrary exemption to the claim. 
** Similarly, the attempt at proving the existence of [[God]] by positing that [[Argument from first cause|everything must have a cause]], while making one special exemption (namely, God) to the need for a cause, can fall prey to this as well.

* Both [[religious]] absolutists, who believe that judgement is God's, and [[Moral relativism|moral relativists]], who believe you cannot judge the morals of others, have a hard time defending their judgment of the opposing camp.

* [[Logical razor#Alder's razor|Alder's Razor]]

*[[Anti-science]] groups will often use scientific theories or methods which assume some of the things they're trying to refute; [[perpetual motion]] claims are often based on the idea that [[quantum physics]] can be used to defeat the [[laws of thermodynamics]], even though these laws are actually ''assumptions'' of quantum theory.

*"I do not exist" &mdash; The speaker denies the idea that they exist, but in the very act of making the statement, they presume their existence. Interestingly, people with some forms of the {{wpl|Cotard delusion}} believe that they do not exist and thus manifest this.

*"[[Reality]] is a(n) [[Simulated reality|illusion/simulation/hallucination]]" &mdash; The concepts of "{{wpl|Illusion|illusion|",}} "simulation", and "[[hallucination]]" are derived from the concept of "reality"; that is, they can make no sense unless there is indeed a true "reality" with which either may be contrasted. Note that this is not a refutation of [[solipsism]] or other forms of philosophical skepticism which argue that what one believes/perceives to be reality is/could be an illusion, or that reality itself is reducible to one’s mental content. Neither position proposes the absence of reality; they simply propose that humans are not capable of ''correctly '''perceiving''''' reality. 

*"Logic is illogical" &mdash; self-evidently contradictory, as logic defines what is logical. 

*"The real question is not whether machines think, but whether humans do." &mdash; The act of pondering who (if anybody) thinks is, itself, thinking.

*"[[Liar paradox|This statement is False]]"

*"[[Atheists hate god|There are atheists who hate God]](s)" &mdash; This is laughable on its face, since any atheist who hated a God would by necessity believe in that particular God, and therefore no longer be an atheist.<ref group=note>Atheists [[Antitheism|may dislike God]] (the character, not the concept), similar to how audiences might dislike any character that displays traits they find repulsive.</ref>

*The widely repeated urban legend that David Rice Atchison was [[President of the United States]] for one day in 1849, since President-elect [[Zachary Taylor]] refused to take the Oath of Office on Inauguration Day since it was a Sunday. But Atchison didn’t swear the Oath either, so if this makes Taylor not President, then Atchison certainly isn’t President. 

===Statements or concepts involving explicit or implicit absolutes/universals===
Although statements and concepts involving them explicitly and implicitly which are not self-refuting ideas do indeed exist, absolutes and universals generally create these readily due to their nature of allowing no exception to be given and thus requiring an [[escape hatch]] to get out of any apparent exception.

*The concepts of divine [[omnipotence]], [[omniscience]], and [[omnibenevolence]] present a battery of possible contradictions, such as "[[Omnipotence paradox|If God is all-powerful, can He create a rock He cannot lift]]", "[[Problem of evil|If God is all-loving and all-powerful, how could evil and suffering exist]]", or “What can ‘[[free will]]’ mean in a world with a God who knows everything, including what we will do and what we would do in reaction to anything She does?”.

*"Whether or not any form of actually valid/strong argument exists, no [[valid]]/strong argument can really be [[Soundness|sound]]/cogent" (“Every argument must contain a false premise/only goes as deep as definitions”) &mdash; The speaker may not be calling logic out as "arbitrary" or "illogical" explicitly, but nevertheless denies the real possibility of any logical deduction or induction at all. But how could any arbitrary or illogical "deduction" or "induction" even be possible to determine without contrasting it with what deduction or induction is known to be logical?

*"There is not really anything" &mdash; The speaker may not be invoking the concept "illusion", "simulation", or "hallucination" explicitly, but nevertheless denies the real existence of anything at all. But the very act of speaking presupposes the real existence of an entity which is able to speak and a language containing at least only the relatively well-defined words being said and the grammar for accepting them in that particular order.

*"There is no sign that is really well-enough defined to be used" &mdash; The very use of any given sign generally presupposes that it is indeed well-enough defined to be used.

*"Everything is a(n) illusion/simulation/hallucination; nothing actually exists," &mdash; Even an illusion, simulation, or hallucination still ''exists'', if only apparently. But the concept ''apparently exists'' can make no sense unless there is indeed something that "actually exists" with which anything else may be contrasted.

*"All knowledge is doubtful" (“Question Everything”) &mdash; {{cquote|If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty.|||[[Ludwig Wittgenstein]] #115 from ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Certainty On Certainty]''|source=}}

*[[Hitchens's razor|”That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”]] But [[Argument by assertion|no evidence is provided that such dismissal is justified]], so ''it'' can be dismissed without evidence, but then it can be asserted without evidence again, and be dismissed again, and so on ''ad infinitum''.

*”Nothing is certain” and/or “There are no absolutes”.  If nothing is certain, then the statement that “nothing is certain” is, itself, not certain. This would mean it is possible that something <i>is</i> certain.  Basically, claiming that “nothing is certain” implies that something might be certain.  Stating that there are no absolutes is even more direct in refuting itself.  If there are no absolutes, then the statement, itself, is not absolute, so there must be something absolute out there to stop the statement from being absolute.

===Christianity===
The proponents of "[[Presuppositionalism|presuppositional apologetics]]" (for example, Gordon H. Clark) accuse any arguments against the existence of God of committing the Stolen Concept Fallacy on the grounds that any arguments from logic, induction, or morality allegedly presuppose the existence of God (see the [[transcendental argument for God]]). This is an incorrect application of the Stolen Concept fallacy, with its question-begging starting premise (X could only be sourced in my God; X exists; therefore my God exists).

Methods of rebuttal could include showing that logic does not require God &mdash; e.g., the alleged Divine Attributes ([[omnipotence paradox]]) are or the idea of Creation ''ex nihilo'', at least relative to an isolated system, is inherently illogical; that induction does not require God &mdash; e.g., [[miracle]]s undermine the natural order, hence making induction faulty if God exists; and/or that objective morality does not require God &mdash; e.g., if God is the source of [[morality]], then morality [[Divine command theory|reduces to subjective divine commands]].

In all cases, speakers and listeners presuppose the validity of logic and induction by the very enterprise of engaging in argument; correct arguments then use logic and induction to discover whether postulated entity X (such as God) exists. Presuppositional apologetics / the transcendental argument, in negating the validity of logic and induction (until and unless the speaker's God is conceded to exist), is the side committing a Stolen Concept fallacy.

==See also==
*[[Conspiracy theory]]
*[[Correlation does not equal causation]] 
*[[False analogy]]

==External links==
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20070813183250/http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/cancelling.asp Canceling Hypotheses (Conspiracy Theory)], Bruce Thompson

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

{{logfal}}

[[Category:Circular reasoning]]
[[Category:Formal fallacies]]

Categories: Circular reasoning, Formal fallacies