more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
The fallacy of 'ad obscurum per obscurius' is to explain the obscure by appeal to what is more obscure.
Gist of Idea
It is a fallacy to explain the obscure with the even more obscure
Source
B Hale / C Wright (The Metaontology of Abstraction [2009], §3)
Book Ref
'Metametaphysics', ed/tr. Chalmers/Manley/Wasserman [OUP 2009], p.182
A Reaction
Not strictly a fallacy, so much as an example of inadequate explanation, along with circularity and infinite regresses.
12223 | It is a fallacy to explain the obscure with the even more obscure [Hale/Wright] |
12224 | Are neo-Fregeans 'maximalists' - that everything which can exist does exist? [Hale/Wright] |
12225 | Neo-Fregeanism might be better with truth-makers, rather than quantifier commitment [Hale/Wright] |
12226 | The identity of Pegasus with Pegasus may be true, despite the non-existence [Hale/Wright] |
12227 | Abstractionism needs existential commitment and uniform truth-conditions [Hale/Wright] |
12228 | Equivalence abstraction refers to objects otherwise beyond our grasp [Hale/Wright] |
12231 | Reference needs truth as well as sense [Hale/Wright] |
12230 | Singular terms refer if they make certain atomic statements true [Hale/Wright] |
12229 | Maybe we have abundant properties for semantics, and sparse properties for ontology [Hale/Wright] |
18443 | A successful predicate guarantees the existence of a property - the way of being it expresses [Hale/Wright] |