system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Question about the continuum fallacy. When should we be allowed to use this kind of argument?

"The continuum fallacy" is an informal fallacy made when someone argues that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct simply because, in between them, there exists a continuum (spectrum or gradient). 

I ripped that explanation from wikipedia. Seemed like a good one. 

A huge part of philosophy is properly making distinctions and this kind of continuum argument is made a lot. Whenever someone demands any kind of "line" to be drawn. For example, this is often seen as central to the abortion debate in which interlocutors demand that the 'other side' draw a non-arbitrary line in the development of the foetus where it is acceptable to abort on one side and unacceptable on the other. Or, in debates about free speech where one party demands that the other draw a line to define 'how hateful' speech can be before it must be disallowed. And often, it is argued that a failure to draw these lines means that no distinction exists at all.  

Obviously informal fallacies aren't the be-all and end-all since arguments can still be deductively valid or even seem reasonable when one commits an informal fallacy, depending on what it is.   


However, the case for disallowing the "continuum fallacy" in any argument seems fairly strong. The idea that we shouldn't accept some given distinction purely on the basis that there is a continuum between the items within the distinction seems like bad reasoning since, for example, we wouldn't argue that there are is no proper distinction between red or blue just because there is a continuum of colours in between them. Or, similarly, we wouldn't argue that there is no proper distinction between a G note and C note simply because there is a continuum of pitches/sound frequencies between them. 

Should I be allowed to disregard all uses of this kind of "continuum argument" on this basis alone? If not, when *is* it reasonable to reject a distinction based on the existence of some continuum and when is it not? 

&#x200B;

Sorry if the question is vague. If so, tell me and I'll edit it to suit. Thanks. 

&#x200B;

&#x200B;
gpt
The problem is that not all instances of a supposed "continuum fallacy" are actually such a fallacy.

Take the abortion example. If you understand that the pro-life side is (usually) coming from a side with the premises:

1. All humans are people

2. All people have certain rights, one of which is a right to life

it becomes less about the continuum fallacy and more about the pro-life stance that there is no good reason to suppose the unborn *are not people*.

Further, there is a problem in any pro-choice formulation offering a distinction between persons and non-persons in that the distinguishing factor can always be applied to at least some post-birth human beings. So the pro-lifers aren't asking for a non-arbitrary line in a continuum, but for a distinguishing factor that can be applied consistently and not result in it being permissible to, say, kill infants or people with mental or physical disabilities. The disagreement lies in what makes a person, not whether persons on one end of a spectrum are somehow different from persons on the other end.

In the case of the speech question, it *is* a continuum, since all speech is speech. We don't disagree on this point, like we do about what counts as a person. Thus, with respect to your free speech example, we *do* have a continuum fallacy being used in some cases.

I think the question is less "when is it a fallacy" and more "are we sure we're actually discussing a spectrum and not something else."