That would be practical if it had a name, given the number of times I want to point it out in people I talk to… — Skalidris

Not sure what phenomenon you are referring to. Sounds like skepticism.

It's not really a phenomenon but a type of fallacy maybe? It's not just skepticism, because both persons could be skeptics, one is just using a simplification of language, which the other deliberately ignores to be right about something...

Or maybe there is name to describe people who refuse to see things as non binary?

Or maybe there is name to describe people who refuse to see things as non binary? — Skalidris

Context insensitivity or context blindness? Or maybe literalism.

Possibly hyperbole - deliberate exaggeration.

Possibly hyperbole - deliberate exaggeration — RussellA

Yes, it's getting closer. The only problem I have is that saying "you're selfish" or "how can you be sure" isn't a deliberate exaggeration, they're actually very common statements, it's more of a simplification.

Context insensitivity — Joshs

Context-insensitive expressions are governed by linguistic rules that determine their contents (semantic values), which remain invariant in all contexts of utterance.

Is that what you meant?

Yes, it's getting closer. — Skalidris

Everything's closer.

Everything's closer. — bongo fury

Everything is closer than everything? :sweat:

Context-insensitive expressions are governed by linguistic rules that determine their contents (semantic values), which remain invariant in all contexts of utterance.

Is that what you meant? — Skalidris

I didn’t mean they were following a rule, only that they were choosing to ignore the specific contextual sense of the phrase in favor of a generic meaning.

they were choosing to ignore the specific contextual sense of the phrase in favor of a generic meaning — Joshs

Mmmm I don't know, it doesn't seem context related to me. I believe anyone (who likes questioning things) could say "you're selfish" and mean "you're more selfish than average" in any context. Actually I don't like the word selfish as it is, in its meaning it's already simplified as if it was black and white (" lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.") anyone tends to do that to some extend...

I'd call it "equivocation" -- because you both mean different things by "selfish"

It is an equivocation fallacy, or a Suppressed correlative fallacy.

That would be practical if it had a name, given the number of times I want to point it out in people I talk to… — Skalidris

That's bosiness.

the first person would be saying “you’re selfish” and the other would reply “but everyone is selfish”. — Skalidris

The second person commits a hasty generalization fallacy, secundum quid, commonly called “converse accident”, in making a overly broad conclusion given a sample that fails to warrant it.

More syllogistic than propositional, but....close enough?

Anti-difference-of-degree-ism

they were choosing to ignore the specific contextual sense of the phrase in favor of a generic meaning
— Joshs

Mmmm I don't know, it doesn't seem context related to me. I believe anyone (who likes questioning things) could say "you're selfish" and mean "you're more selfish than average" in any context. — Skalidris

That IS the context of the utterance. When one means ‘you’re more selfish than average’, they have a specific contextual reason for making that statement at that time to that person. There is some currently relevant issue that prompts the insult.

Anti-difference-of-degree-ism — emancipate

Or anti-binary-ism. The implication being, usually, that everything is relative. E.g.

“but everyone is selfish”. — Skalidris

meaning "well obviously, but how selfish?".

Edit: Although, by "selfish" Skalidris already meant "too selfish", which is why they are probably right that "but everyone is selfish" is annoying.

I'd call it "equivocation" -- because you both mean different things by "selfish" — Moliere

Yes, thanks, I guess this would include what I'm talking about, although equivocation is not specific to the binary vs non binary problem caused by simplification of language.

Suppressed correlative fallacy. — DingoJones

Ah that's much better, thanks! I'm going to be greedy but there is still something that's different from what I meant. From my understanding, in the suppressed correlative, one kills the meaning of a word by making two categories into one. Like saying "this product is not natural", and the other person would be like "nature is everything that surrounds us, including us and what we do to nature, so everything is natural". That makes the adjective natural completely useless. But what I meant is really about the non binary nature of things. What I mean is more about the debate "this product is more natural than that product" (who could be phrased as "this is natural and that's not" as simplification) and the other saying "but a product that's 100% natural is impossible because we manufacture it anyway". They don't destroy the meaning of natural but they fail to see it on a scale. So it's not X or not X in the first place but like aX with "a" ranging from 0 to 1, and the other person would see it as X or not X and use proofs that X is not possible if your position is 0.9X. In my example, actually they both agree that 1X is impossible, but the person who can only see it as X or not X doesn't understand the 0.9X (or doesn't want to); Do you know what I mean? Did I understand the meaning of suppressed correlative fallacy correctly?

That's bosiness — baker

You mean bossiness?

Anti-difference-of-degree-ism — emancipate

Did you just make that up?

they have a specific contextual reason for making that statement at that time to that person — Joshs

Oh okay, that works too, but not in all cases. It would be like a deliberate change of context, if one is trying to insult and the other goes all philosophical about the nature of selfishness in humans. But if you're arguing about whether sciences are more "objective" than human sciences, and that the person says that nothing can be objective anyway, it's still the same context, it's an epistemological context in both cases.

But if you're arguing about whether sciences are more "objective" than human sciences, and that the person says that nothing can be objective anyway, it's still the same context, it's an epistemological context in both cases. — Skalidris

Immediate contexts can never be ‘epistemological’ because the latter refers to general categories of meaning, while the former involves the actual subjective and intersubjectively established sense of a generally defined meaning. In other words, the same epistemologically defined meaning can have a potentially unlimited number of senses, depending on the context of its use.

Or maybe there is name to describe people who refuse to see things as non binary? — Skalidris

Generally I hear this called the problem of dualistic thinking.

Is there a concept — Skalidris

Perhaps two concepts: polarised and nuanced arguments.

anyone tends to do that to some extend... — Skalidris

Now you're doing it

Bossiness. The craving to get the upper hand.

It's interesting in that it is binary logic framed as an appeal to non binary logic: everyone is selfish to a degree, therefore everyone is either selfish or perfectly unselfish.

All or nothing fallacy maybe?

Well, I don't think it's a fallacy as such but looks like it's got a whole lot to do with the mathematics of continuua. For example, we can do away with the binary concepts of hot vs. cold by simply using a basic heat scale (I'd recommend Kelvin) and so cold is simply a temperature range of "heat" content. The same goes for good and bad and any other pair of opposites - we can get rid of both by inventing a concept or using one of 'em (as in the heat example above) and developing a scale for it. For instance, Good can then be least bad or bad can be least good...you get the idea, oui monsieur?


The Chinese taijitu or yin-yang kinda captures the idea to the extent possible with a diagram.

There are gods, 0 gods! :snicker:

False dilemma. False dichotomy. Fallacy of the Excluded Middle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma