I haven't read the exchange between you and Chuzz very closely, but I did come across this paragraph of yours, which seems to me to reveal a change of subject by you that obfuscates Chuzz's point:
If you did not feel that the "truths" of Art were
inferior to the truths of science, but just
different, you would/should have said that their
truths were not on the same footing. As it is, you
said they were not on an equal footing. Separate,
but unequal. One superior, one inferior. And Art
is inferior, because:....
It seemed to me, as I read your characterization of Chuzz's point, that up until the clause I bolded, you and Chuzz were discussing the applicability of the word 'truth' to, on the one hand, Science, and on the other, Art.
And that Chuzz had made a simple point that described his definition of the word 'truth,' which can be anything he wants it to be for the purposes of a particular discussion, and the applicability of that definition to, respectively, Science or Art. And that, using his definition of 'truth,' Science presented 'truth' that was not an on "equal footing" with the 'truth' presented by Art.
But all of a sudden his stipulation of the species of 'truth' to which he was referring, his very definition of it, has been cast aside by you, as you make the change from their truths not being on an "equal footing," (Chuzzlewit's claim,) to the claim that he has said, "and Art is inferior."
In philosophy, I believe that moment is called ignoratio elenchi. That means something along the lines of changing the subject from the one at issue to another, usually one with a strong emotional charge.
The subject was whether 'truth' is to be found more in Art or in Science.
The Art lover Chuzz said it was to be found more in Science.
You changed the subject to a purported declaration by Chuzz that Art per se was 'inferior' to Science.
(If my perception of the argument, which I have admittedly not followed to its conclusion, is correct.) |
