The Boiled Egg Fallacy

[fast]

I would say that a boiled egg is an egg that has been boiled, but would you say that an egg that has been boiled is a boiled egg? Yes, I would too (reluctantly), but hidden is a subtle ambiguity that is masked by language where there is a sense in which not every instance of an egg that's been boiled is an instance of a boiled egg.

If I boil an egg for twenty minutes, then I will have a boiled egg in both senses of the term, but if I boil an egg for only twenty seconds, then I will have a boiled egg in only one of the two senses. That shows that one sense is not the same as the other.

There is more to a boiled egg than merely an egg being boiled. An egg that has been boiled for only twenty seconds lacks the texture that we're all familiar with a boiled egg having. One may counter argue and say that it's a matter of degree, but that only applies to one of the senses.

When you look at the words, what do you see? Do you see two one-worded terms, or do you see one two-worded term? If you see two one-worded terms, then you see an adjective followed by a noun. In this sense, even an egg that has been boiled for only twenty seconds is a boiled egg.

Just as the meaning of words can change over time, so too can multi-worded terms take on a life of their own and change meaning over time independent of the meaning of constituent terms, but my argument isn't based on that. Rather, we should recognize that "boiled" is a descriptive convenience. It aptly describes in shorthand the final product.

When I look at the term, I see a two-worded term and treat the entire term as a noun, and that's exactly how I think I should view it in many contexts. If a cooking instructor emphasing "boiled" when inquiring about (oh say) a scrambled egg being taking out of boiling water and asks if it's a boiled egg, then the answer can be yes or no depending on the sense. If he means "is this an egg that's been boiled", then yes, it's a boiled egg (adjective and noun), but if he means "it's what we all know as a boiled egg", then no, it's not a boiled egg (two-worded noun); after all, it's a scrambled egg that so happens to have been boiled.

At any rate, this post is inspired by the recent thread discussing "empty space." I didn't participate in the thread, and I don't know enough about it to make a judgement one way or the other, but I do believe that the notion "'empty space' is not empty" doesn't necessarily entail a contradiction if there is a difference between empty space (noun and adjective) and empty space (a term in its own right with a current meaning not dependent on the literal meaning of the constituent words).

 

[Juma]

"Boiled egg" is a dish. Dont confuse that with simply boiling an egg. Problem solved.

An empty pocket may be full of lint.

You keep forgetting the context.

 

[Bronzeage]

This is why cook books specify a degree of boiled egg, such as a "soft boiled", or "hard boiled."

As with most words in any language, usage sets the definition of a word. When we use the word "empty", there is an implication that a particular substance is absent. If I dig a hole, it is empty of earth, but not of air.

 

[untermensche]

A word that is ambiguous in terms of duration or degree is not a fallacy.

This is no different from a fried egg, or a sunburn, or a cold soda, or a short walk.

When you begin to look you will find countless expressions like this.

 

[fast]

A word that is ambiguous in terms of duration or degree is not a fallacy.

This is no different from a fried egg, or a sunburn, or a cold soda, or a short walk.

When you begin to look you will find countless expressions like this.

The fallacy is in the error of reasoning that results from using the wrong sense to arrive at a conclusion. To use Bronzeage's example, the conclusion that a hole is not an empty hole based on the presence of air in the hole would be fallacious.

 

[untermensche]

A word that is ambiguous in terms of duration or degree is not a fallacy.

This is no different from a fried egg, or a sunburn, or a cold soda, or a short walk.

When you begin to look you will find countless expressions like this.

The fallacy is in the error of reasoning that results from using the wrong sense to arrive at a conclusion. To use Bronzeage's example, the conclusion that a hole is not an empty hole based on the presence of air in the hole would be fallacious.

There is no right or wrong sense.

There is just ambiguity.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I prefer soft boiled eggs myself. They are actually soft, boiled and egg.

With a pinch of salt and a thin slice of bread. Once a week, broadly. I try to get the perfect boil to manage removing the shell without breaking the white of the egg (and thereby, catastrophy, spilling the yolk).

Soft is said to be better than hard boiled because the proteins in the yolk are thought to be better off without much boiling.



Words don't have meaning by themselves. We use them as if the had one but they don't and so no wonder we get to misunderstand each other.

In the case of "empty space", it should be said that physicists will probably take it as a two-word expression referring to a kind of space that is not actually empty. However, the layman will take it as a two-word grammatical construct with an adjective qualifying a noun, thereby referring to a kind of space that is actually empty of matter.

Like Juma said, however, it's all a matter of context. When Krauss wrote a book that explicitly addressed the question of nothingness, one expect the guy to use "empty space" and "vacuum" advisedly. Which he obviously didn't, thereby commiting the fallacy of equivocation.

It should also be said that if you are a specialist and you want to talk to the general public, you'd better explain the terminology you use, which authors not always do, and some are really bad at it. What do you mean by "selfish gene" for example? And if you don't explain yourself then don't come complaining. A good dictionary in English may contain 280,000 entries. Yet, there are several million terms in current use in the various professions, most of them without a dictionary to define them (and who would look up a 4,000,000-word dictionary? On the Internet? Yeah, if you have it and know how to use it. And by long experience, I can report that many words and expressions are not defined on the Internet either.

Now, who would be committing the fallacy? You say that the fallacy is in "the error of reasoning that results from using the wrong sense to arrive at a conclusion". But how would an audience know that there is a special sense to "empty space"? We know there is a difference between a blue bottle and a bluebottle, even in the way it's pronounced, but how do I know there's a difference between empty space and empty space. Which is why it is I think incumbent on the writer or speaker to make his meaning explicit. Scientists talking to each other probably understand each other well enough. But if you are a scientist who is keen on talking to a non-specialist audience, you better shape up and improve your command of the language.
EB

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

"Boiled egg" is just a culinary description. It's a set of words to describe a particular product, but in fact it has no intrinsic connection to the product. Because the egg does not boil; it's the water it's in that boils.

 

[fast]

Words don't have meaning by themselves. We use them as if the had one but they don't and so no wonder we get to misunderstand each other.

I've spent a good amount of time (not a great amount but a good amount) trying to grasp the subtle nuances about the meaning of words. The truth is so elusive that I wonder if it's not hidden in purported falsehoods themselves. Don't worry; I don't expect that to be understood.

We use words to denote meaning. That seems to be a truth that stands the test of time.
Words denote meaning. That seems to be a truth well worth arguing.

We use words to denote meaning. Yes, we also use words to convey meaning, but that's not what I'm intending to communicate at the moment. What I'm saying is that we use words to stand in place of meaning, kind of like how we use the letter X in math to stand in place of a variable number.

English is not a world of absolute precision, and with all the complexities of language, I believe it's acceptable (quite acceptable) to nevertheless truthfully and accurately say that words denote meaning. But, notice the twist. The twist can be seen in noticing the analogous difference between a drill that drills (or turns a drill bit) and a person that uses a drill to drill (or turn a drill bit). In the truth that stands the test of time, we (the people) are the talented ones that use words, and we're the ones that use them to denote meaning, but (goodness gracious, and me oh my!), what talent that drill must have to turn a drill bit! And, Lordy Lordy, what talent words themselves must have to denote meaning!--if the truth well worth arguing is in fact true.

And so, there you are, saying words don't have meaning. To be fair, you didn't actually say that. You said they don't have meaning by themselves. Yes, you're correct. Meaning is a function of usage. But, what is your intended message in your next line? Are you suggesting that words don't have meaning ... without the 'by themselves' qualification?

Clearly, words have meaning since we use words; That is how come words have meaning. Let me put it this way. The truth well worth arguing is not false because of the truth that stands the test of time is true. The truth well worth arguing is true because of the truth that stands the test of time. Planes don't fly by themselves, but planes fly because we fly them.

Meaning is such an elusive little creature. Ever tried to lasso one? They are good at playing hide and seek. I thought I had one cornered one time. I saw a dictionary and opened it up real quick. I had to walk away with my head hanging low. All I found was a stupid definition wearing a shirt that read, "I'm meaning." It tricked me momentarily. This was a long time ago. I've since learned not to judge a definition by the shirt it's wearing, lol.

A definition is a kind of explanation, and it helps to explain meaning; hence, we can look at the definition and from it glean the meaning of a word, but be fooled not and think there is no distinction. And speaking of distinctions, did you notice where I just said that "[definitions] helps to explain meaning"? Talented little creatures! Yes, oh yes, the truth, the real truth, (the truth that stands the test of time) is that we are the talented creatures that do as we do, but be true as that may be, let us not think it therefore false that truths well worth arguing are false because they do not as they do alone.

Words do have meaning, and definitions do explain meaning. They're kind of like employees. They ain't gonna do shit by themselves, and they're also kind of like tools. A lawn mower cuts grass. Dang sure ain't gonna use a hammer to do it with. And I can hear the sweaty person now: "the law mower cuts grass? Hell, I'm the one that cut the grass, and I used the lawn mower to do it! The lawn mower ain't done shit! Talented creature my ass!"

Language, oh, tricky, tricky, tricky. Sometimes, you feel like a nut; sometimes you don't. There are times when ordinary usage doesn't afford us to carry things too far, and I can sympathize with Mr. Grass cutter, but words do denote meaning because that's the function we bestow upon them. It's apart of language that it is true. What I'm denying is the notion that words don't have meaning. The apple wouldn't be on the table had it not been for us putting it there, but now that we have, it's there, and no further movement is required on our part for it to remain true, just as "stop" from a stop sign retains it meaning, even when it's situated in a recently evacuated city.

I'm rambling. I think I'm rambling. Let me start over. You said, "but they don't." I say they do.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's threads like this that makes me love this forum

 

[fast]

It's threads like this that makes me love this forum

Talented little creatures, threads are. Did the Frisbee hit me? Or, did she hit me with a Frisbee? I say both are true. Some may deny the former when recognizing the truth of the latter. Frisbees--talented little creatures--they might retort with mild sarcasm.

But, with an unbelievable lack of clarity, I'm not espousing the view they are talented. I'm throwing it out to highlight the objection espoused by those that might deny that the Frisbee hit me. The recognition of the truth that she hit me with a Frisbee stands so very poorly. It might need a cane.

 

[fast]

I prefer soft boiled eggs myself. They are actually soft, boiled and egg.

With a pinch of salt and a thin slice of bread. Once a week, broadly. I try to get the perfect boil to manage removing the shell without breaking the white of the egg (and thereby, catastrophy, spilling the yolk).

Soft is said to be better than hard boiled because the proteins in the yolk are thought to be better off without much boiling.



Words don't have meaning by themselves. We use them as if the had one but they don't and so no wonder we get to misunderstand each other.

In the case of "empty space", it should be said that physicists will probably take it as a two-word expression referring to a kind of space that is not actually empty. However, the layman will take it as a two-word grammatical construct with an adjective qualifying a noun, thereby referring to a kind of space that is actually empty of matter.

Like Juma said, however, it's all a matter of context. When Krauss wrote a book that explicitly addressed the question of nothingness, one expect the guy to use "empty space" and "vacuum" advisedly. Which he obviously didn't, thereby commiting the fallacy of equivocation.

It should also be said that if you are a specialist and you want to talk to the general public, you'd better explain the terminology you use, which authors not always do, and some are really bad at it. What do you mean by "selfish gene" for example? And if you don't explain yourself then don't come complaining. A good dictionary in English may contain 280,000 entries. Yet, there are several million terms in current use in the various professions, most of them without a dictionary to define them (and who would look up a 4,000,000-word dictionary? On the Internet? Yeah, if you have it and know how to use it. And by long experience, I can report that many words and expressions are not defined on the Internet either.

Now, who would be committing the fallacy? You say that the fallacy is in "the error of reasoning that results from using the wrong sense to arrive at a conclusion". But how would an audience know that there is a special sense to "empty space"? We know there is a difference between a blue bottle and a bluebottle, even in the way it's pronounced, but how do I know there's a difference between empty space and empty space. Which is why it is I think incumbent on the writer or speaker to make his meaning explicit. Scientists talking to each other probably understand each other well enough. But if you are a scientist who is keen on talking to a non-specialist audience, you better shape up and improve your command of the language.
EB

By the way, I appreciate this post, and I have a lot of respect for your overall message.

 

[ronburgundy]

As others have pointed out, it is not fallacious to say that an egg that has been boiled is a boiled egg, because this is a valid meaning of the term "boiled egg". All various meanings of a term need not be satisfied for an object to be correctly referred to by that term.

However, the OP does highlight an extremely frequent type of fallacy (or in many cases dishonest rhetorical strategy) used in argument, including on this board.
Let's denote 2 distinct meanings of term X as X1 and X2. Person A claims that X1 has property Y. Person B engaged in fallacious reasoning by presenting evidence or argument that X2 does not have property Y, pretending that X1 and X2 are identical.

I'd say this might be among the most common tactics in ideologically-driven argumentation. Among the countless examples of it is that almost every time a thread brings up the research on general intelligence, at least 1 person derails the thread by arguing about something they label "intelligence" that has zero relationship to how the concept defined by the research in question. This is why all valid science and intellectual inquiry first seeks to establish clear operational definitions for the key terms and variables in question. It makes the difference between a productive inquiry where the validity of ideas can be evaluated and a pseudo-philosophical circle-jerk.

Generally, ideologues and people without sound basis for their position will strive to make terms more and more inclusive and broad, because this allows them to bring irrelevant evidence into the discussion as though it favors them, and to dodge relevant evidence brought to bear against their claims.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I believe that most arguments are caused by a disagreement on the definitions of terms. Language, as efficacious as it is, has its limitations. Especially as it is used in the vernacular, where terms are often watered down or cavalierly used in a such a way as to lose the ability to communicate shades of meaning effectively. I always cringe at usages that impede our ability to communicate shades of meaning, like when two words that mean different things (even opposites) are used to mean the same thing -- a great example being the word "anxious" to mean "eager".

 

[fast]

As others have pointed out, it is not fallacious to say that an egg that has been boiled is a boiled egg, because this is a valid meaning of the term "boiled egg". All various meanings of a term need not be satisfied for an object to be correctly referred to by that term.

If I ask you if you were at the bank (the hill by the river), and if you reply that you were at the bank (the financial institution), then there is no fallacious error in reasoning--just perhaps miscommunication because of the ambiguity. At any rate, I agree with you.

You would be correct that you were at the bank (the financial institution), but I reserve the right to deny that you were at the bank (the hill by the river).

All Boiled Eggs are boiled eggs, but not all boiled eggs are Boiled Eggs. If you deny that the latter is true, then there is more going on than ambiguity alone. All eggs that have been boiled for at least 20 minutes are eggs that have been boiled for at least 20 seconds, but not all eggs that have been boiled for at least 20 seconds are eggs that have been boiled for at least 20 minutes.

 

[fast]

But how would an audience know that there is a special sense to "empty space"?

Well, truth is independent of knowledge. This reminds me of the term, "Abstract Object." No matter how much one might argue that Abstract Objects exist, the fact that there are no abstract objects will be as distractive as mosquitoes.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Words don't have meaning by themselves. We use them as if the had one but they don't and so no wonder we get to misunderstand each other.

I've spent a good amount of time (not a great amount but a good amount) trying to grasp the subtle nuances about the meaning of words. The truth is so elusive that I wonder if it's not hidden in purported falsehoods themselves. Don't worry; I don't expect that to be understood.

We use words to denote meaning. That seems to be a truth that stands the test of time.

I disagree with this word "denote" because it's a fib. We use particular words to convey particular ideas that we have in mind. Ideas are what is meant, so it's literally all the meaning that there is to get. It doesn't mean that words convey anything, let alone denote, and certainly not meaning. They are used, that's all we can say. They don't do anything by themselves except to sit there on the page, on the screen, or hang in the air. Everything else is just a manner of speaking, therefore not truth in any shape or form.

Words denote meaning. That seems to be a truth well worth arguing.

It's not a truth so it's not worth an honest man's hard work. But you can try to argue it. Often, we discover things we were not after on setting out for our journey.

We use words to denote meaning. Yes, we also use words to convey meaning, but that's not what I'm intending to communicate at the moment. What I'm saying is that we use words to stand in place of meaning, kind of like how we use the letter X in math to stand in place of a variable number.

We can always make up stories. I'm sure we could get a computer to trace meaning to words and back quite accurately so to say that words stand for meaning is not entirely misleading but it's just a manner of speaking, again. It's like saying that to get married is to set on a long journey. It's sort of poetic and most would understand what you mean but it's not true. Philosophically, it's not worth discussing, except perhaps on the expectation that we will find a some unexpected treasure along the way (another manner of speaking). So, what's the use of your manner of speaking?

English is not a world of absolute precision, and with all the complexities of language, I believe it's acceptable (quite acceptable) to nevertheless truthfully and accurately say that words denote meaning. But, notice the twist. The twist can be seen in noticing the analogous difference between a drill that drills (or turns a drill bit) and a person that uses a drill to drill (or turn a drill bit). In the truth that stands the test of time, we (the people) are the talented ones that use words, and we're the ones that use them to denote meaning, but (goodness gracious, and me oh my!), what talent that drill must have to turn a drill bit! And, Lordy Lordy, what talent words themselves must have to denote meaning!--if the truth well worth arguing is in fact true.

The parallel is bad. Nobody will be mislead to believe wrongly anything important if we say that the drill made a hole whereas many people take the idea that words have meaning literally and use this idea to support some fanciful perspective on life.

And so, there you are, saying words don't have meaning. To be fair, you didn't actually say that. You said they don't have meaning by themselves. Yes, you're correct. Meaning is a function of usage. But, what is your intended message in your next line? Are you suggesting that words don't have meaning ... without the 'by themselves' qualification?

Meaning is not a function of usage. Sure, we can speculate that there's some close knit interaction between our use of words and our meanings but each speaker is a free agent and will use words pretty much as s/he wants to, whether or not usage get to be a factor.

Clearly, words have meaning since we use words; That is how come words have meaning. Let me put it this way. The truth well worth arguing is not false because of the truth that stands the test of time is true. The truth well worth arguing is true because of the truth that stands the test of time. Planes don't fly by themselves, but planes fly because we fly them.

What's the meaning of the word "fly" here? Surely a plane doesn't fly like a bird. Perhaps before airplane we thought of flying as involving the flapping of wings and so perhaps we had to adjust our notion to make it more general, like, say, move through the air whatever the means to achieve it. Still, although Pegasus was thought of as having wings, I suspect people before airplanes already talked of wingless things moving through the air as somehow flying. So planes can fly and no big deal.

Meaning is such an elusive little creature. Ever tried to lasso one? They are good at playing hide and seek. I thought I had one cornered one time. I saw a dictionary and opened it up real quick. I had to walk away with my head hanging low. All I found was a stupid definition wearing a shirt that read, "I'm meaning." It tricked me momentarily. This was a long time ago. I've since learned not to judge a definition by the shirt it's wearing, lol.

We do meaning even without thinking about it so it can be hard work to look at what we do in detail but I think it's not so difficult. Meaning is the idea you want to convey when using a particular word. Surely you can retrieve it!

A definition is a kind of explanation, and it helps to explain meaning; hence, we can look at the definition and from it glean the meaning of a word, but be fooled not and think there is no distinction. And speaking of distinctions, did you notice where I just said that "[definitions] helps to explain meaning"? Talented little creatures! Yes, oh yes, the truth, the real truth, (the truth that stands the test of time) is that we are the talented creatures that do as we do, but be true as that may be, let us not think it therefore false that truths well worth arguing are false because they do not as they do alone.

Words do have meaning, and definitions do explain meaning. They're kind of like employees. They ain't gonna do shit by themselves, and they're also kind of like tools. A lawn mower cuts grass. Dang sure ain't gonna use a hammer to do it with. And I can hear the sweaty person now: "the law mower cuts grass? Hell, I'm the one that cut the grass, and I used the lawn mower to do it! The lawn mower ain't done shit! Talented creature my ass!"

Language, oh, tricky, tricky, tricky. Sometimes, you feel like a nut; sometimes you don't. There are times when ordinary usage doesn't afford us to carry things too far, and I can sympathize with Mr. Grass cutter, but words do denote meaning because that's the function we bestow upon them. It's apart of language that it is true. What I'm denying is the notion that words don't have meaning. The apple wouldn't be on the table had it not been for us putting it there, but now that we have, it's there, and no further movement is required on our part for it to remain true, just as "stop" from a stop sign retains it meaning, even when it's situated in a recently evacuated city.

I'm rambling. I think I'm rambling. Let me start over. You said, "but they don't." I say they do.

You'll be aware that we cannot retrieve the meaning words had once the people who spoke the language are all dead, unless like in the Rosetta stone case we have a translation in a known language. In other words, you need people to conceive meaning upon seeing words. No people, no meaning. And we can also mean something without using words. So, there you are.
EB

 

[4321lynx]

"Boiled egg" is a dish. Dont confuse that with simply boiling an egg. Problem solved.

An empty pocket may be full of lint.

You keep forgetting the context.

If "your pocket is full of empty" in some exBrit West Indies it means you ain't got no money, mon...