So thanks to some great analysis in class, we figured out that Aquinas's argument for the impossibility of an infinite regress commits the fallacy of
equivocation. This means that a word or phrase shifts meanings halfway through an argument. It's treating two different things as if they're the same by using the same words to refer to them. Equivocation creates the false impression that there's a logically strong relationship (the relationship of
identity!) in the argument when there actually isn't.
My best friend the
inter-
net has some
nice examples of equivocation. Here are two good ones:
- P1) A feather is light.
- P2) What is light cannot be dark.
C) Thus, a feather cannot be dark.
- P1) Samantha is a jackass.
- P2) All jackasses have long ears.
- C) Thus, Samantha has long ears.
Well, what have we learned? First, evaluating args can be tricky. I hope we're developing more advanced techniques for figuring out which arguments are good and which are bad.
Second, we're back to square one in this version of the
cosmological argument. Aquinas's argument against an infinite regress is bad, so his 2nd premise in the cosmological argument is questionable. (NOTE: that doesn't mean that an infinite regress is possible, just that he hasn't disproven it's possibility with his line of reasoning.)
Regardless, an infinite regress still seems weird. If Aquinas's arg didn't work, why else might we think that an infinite regress is impossible?
Discuss your arguments
in the comments of this post.
