| rdfs:comment | - Sophistry, in its modern definiton, is considered by many to be an illogical or confusing argument intended to deceive someone into believing a fallacious, ludicrous idea. This is a false definition that is not based on the historical definition. In fact, in the time of Greek philosophers, sophistry was related to the word sophós, meaning "wiseman". The modern definition of sophistry cannot logically exist, because:
- In logic, sophistry was the use of an argument that appeared to make sense on the surface but was in reality untrue. In an attempt to subvert the Prime Directive and save Sarjenka and the Dremans from certain death in 2365, Data suggested that her transmissions could be considered a call for help. Picard recognized this as sophistry, and Worf agreed, saying that the girl could not ask for help from someone she did not know. Upon hearing her cry for help over the comms, Picard changed his mind. (TNG: "Pen Pals" )
|
| abstract | - In logic, sophistry was the use of an argument that appeared to make sense on the surface but was in reality untrue. In an attempt to subvert the Prime Directive and save Sarjenka and the Dremans from certain death in 2365, Data suggested that her transmissions could be considered a call for help. Picard recognized this as sophistry, and Worf agreed, saying that the girl could not ask for help from someone she did not know. Upon hearing her cry for help over the comms, Picard changed his mind. (TNG: "Pen Pals" ) In 2372, Harry Kim argued that USS Voyager should contact a Vidiian convoy to ask about Kathryn Janeway and Chakotay's unknown disease because they had not gone out of their way to locate them, but rather had happened upon them coincidentally. Tuvok denied his suggestion, saying "That bit of sophistry is not terribly persuasive, Ensign". (VOY: "Resolutions")
- Sophistry, in its modern definiton, is considered by many to be an illogical or confusing argument intended to deceive someone into believing a fallacious, ludicrous idea. This is a false definition that is not based on the historical definition. In fact, in the time of Greek philosophers, sophistry was related to the word sophós, meaning "wiseman". The modern definition of sophistry cannot logically exist, because: 1.
* It is not the arguer's fault if a gullible person does not recognize the lack of logic or inherent confusion in the argument. Furthermore, the argument, however illogical or confusing, makes sense to the arguer. Therefore, there is no such thing as an illogical or confusing argument. 2.
* If illogical or confusing arguments do not exist, then they cannot be used for deception. Therefore, deception through use of illogical or confusing arguments cannot exist. 3.
* Therefore, as the Greek philosophers concluded, sophistry, illogical and confusing arguments, and "wisemen" do not exist.
|
