On a Certain Flacy, or What Lewis Carroll's Paradox Hs in Common with Hume's Problem

Abstract

The paper is a warning against an unreserved use of reasoning, which is designed to show that a premise in an argument is missing. The reasoning is susceptible to a common equivocation. As a result, it can be systematically misleading, making us judge that certain premises are missing where they are not. It is argued that the equivocation in question lies at the bottom of Lewis Carroll's paradox, a version of Hume's problem as well as some arguments in philosophy of mind and ethics. The paper is first and foremost a warning because it turns out that there is some didactic value in playing on the equivocation.