Talk:Category mistake

this is a crappy article that is of no use to the general reader
it reads like it was written by and for 1st year grad students start over PS i have written a lot of technalogical things for wiki, and i am good and i know what i am talking about (and if u make fun my spelling grammar, like trees, forest not getting it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.17.105 (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The above remark is completely incoherent and unreadable. Must it stay here forever? TheScotch (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion topics originally inserted out of chronological order
Prior to this edit, the first section had the title "." [sic!], and the untitled individual discussions within it were positioned in more or less reverse chronological order. (It did not then include the discussion now sub-section-titled as "Chomsky Reference is Unmerited"; perhaps that was bcz of that sub-section's content being removed from the talk page by Agondie --apparently one of the disputants?-- and being replaced and expanded a month or so later --i'm guessing at a different place on the page-- by Navigatr85.) --Jerzy•t 02:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

(Mundanity)
Making a "category mistakes" can also be said about other areas of life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.210.90.180 (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2005

(Error/Mistake)
I could've sworn the term was "category error."Shaggorama 01:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've certainly heard "category error" far more often than "category mistake". Change it? Artichoke84 18:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ryle's 1949 paper "The Problem of Mind" (the origin of the term) refers to this subject as "category mistake." Hence the entry name should remain the same. I can't find an online copy of the paper, but you may consider:


 * http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/category-mistake.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoomTory (talk • contribs) 21:23, 30 April 2006


 * I didn't know there was a paper. I've got a book by Ryle here called The Concept of Mind.  The copyright date for the book is 1949.  Would this be what you mean?  He uses the phrase 'category-mistake' with a hyphen.--Publunch (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the article contained an erroneously overbroad definition of category error:


 * "In philosophy and formal logic, and it has its equivalents in science and business management, Category Error is the term for having stated or defined a problem so poorly that it becomes impossible to solve that problem, through dialectic or any other means." Suggested here.

I have removed this because (a) I can find no other source for the definition of the term, (b) the web site cited is a fictional story with many factual errors and cannot be considered an authoritative source, and (c) the definition given is quite imprecise, a quality that is rarely found in definitions written by logicians and much more frequently found in definitions written by amateurs.

For these reasons, it seems safe to say that the definition provided is an error by Dan Simmons which should not be replicated in Wikipedia. User:JoomTory — Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 30 April 2006 + 2 formatting-only edits within the next minute or 2

I have removed this portion because the Chinese Room argument contains no explicit reference to any category mistakes, as the issue has to do with syntax and semantics as well as belief and content, and not reification or other ontological fallacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7.165.42.70 (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2006

There's a decent discussion of this article at Brian Weatherson's blog. praymont (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Chomsky Reference is Unmerited
Why is "Colorless Green..." mentioned under "See Also"? Chomsky used that phrase when arguing for the generativity of language. Its only connection to category mistakes is that it is a nonsensical phrase, and even then, many phrases exemplifying category mistakes need not to be totally unintelligible. So really there is no connection.

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7249.html http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/categories/ Agondie 13:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See e.g. . --Tgr 14:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You haven't responded to my argument. If my argument is wrong, show me that it is wrong. Just because some guy uses it that way doesn't mean it's right, right? If, on the other hand, my argument is right, then it doesn't matter who uses it that way, does it? Agondie 06:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * AgondieI'm the one who originally added the Chomsky reference. It does have a connection to category mistakes, other than the fact that it's nonsensical. The connection is that Chomsky's sentence contains category mistakes. I'm using the definition of "category mistake" that's given in this wikipedia article: "a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property." For example, Chomsky's sentence ascribes the property "green" to the word "ideas," but ideas cannot have the property of being green. Yes, it's true that the sentence was constructed when arguing for the generativity of language. Chomsky was saying that this sentence is grammatically correct but unlikely to be generated. I would say that part of the reason that it's unlikely to be generated is because it contains category mistakes.
 * Navigatr85 01:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navigatr85 (talk • contribs)


 * I also agree that the reference to Chomsky is gratuitous. Not wrong. Just unnecessary.HeWasCalledYClept (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the history page, Agondie removed this entire section from this talk page back in October. I'm not sure why he removed the section, so I took the liberty of re-creating it. Anyway, in response to HeWasCalledYClept, I don't quite understand what you mean by "unnecessary." Could you give me an example of a topic that you would consider "necessary" in the "See Also" list of another article? If so, what is it necessary for? I thought the "See Also" list was just supposed to be a list of other topics, connected to the article's topic, that a reader might be interested in. Navigatr85 04:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navigatr85 (talk • contribs)
 * It's original research. It has no place in the article. -- Jibal (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

(Abstract wording)
"It was alleged to be a mistake to treat the mind as an object made of an immaterial substance because predications of substance are not meaningful for a collection of dispositions and capacities." What in the world does this mean? Could someone explain this in plain English please? Also, avoid passive voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.105.167.39 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 22 January 2008


 * I think this is saying that it's meaningless to apply the predicates that would apply to a substance to a collection of dispositions and capacities. If the mind just is a set of dispositions and capacities, then different predicates would apply to it than if it were an immaterial substance.  I'd change the wording, except it attributes a position to Ryle that he probably didn't hold, so if I knew how, I'd just rewrite it to reflect what Ryle actually thought.JustinBlank (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a quote, so complaints about voice are off base. And this page is not the place to explain things. -- Jibal (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm tempted to supplement the example given. "Most Americans are atheists" is false, but not a category error. On the other hand, "Most bananas are atheists" is definitely a category error. Noam Chomsky gave what is probably the most famous example of a sentence full of category errors to demonstrate the independence of syntax and semantics: "Colorful green ideas sleep furiously." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostoner (talk • contribs) 01:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to supplement the example given -- so you're one of far too many editors who don't understand the basics of Wikipedia and the editors' role. It's not your place to come up with examples. If some relevant author has come up with an example, you can add it and a citation.
 * And Chomsky's sentence was not intended as an example of category mistakes. It's "colorless green ..." not "colorful". Clearly "colorless green" is not a category mistake, it's a contradiction ... Chomsky wanted to illustrate that syntactic and meaningful are two different things. Category mistakes are just one source of meaninglessness. -- Jibal (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Other examples of category mistakes
1) On the Ghost in the machine page, this example of a category mistake (by Ryle) is given:

"One paradigm set forth by Ryle that is exemplary of an archetypal category mistake, is that of a foreign student visiting a university. As the student is shown the various campuses, buildings, libraries, fields, et cetera, the student asks, "But where is the university?" This is to equate the level of existence of the university with that of buildings, libraries, and campuses. However, the being of the university exists above such a level, as an encompassing whole or essence of such things, extending beyond mere plant and buildings (to include staff, students, curricula, etc.), and not among them (i.e., on the same categorical level). The student commits a category mistake, by presupposing that the university exists on the same level as the buildings, when the university certainly exists on a quite different level." HeWasCalledYClept (talk) 06:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

2) I can remember another one from university. It would be a category mistake to go to the ballet and then ask afterwards "Who won?"  It's a category mistake to think that the ballet is like a football game. HeWasCalledYClept (talk) 06:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

3) I offer a more serious example of category error. It lies at the foundations of economic thinking and involves the three factors of production: Land Labour Capital. Janosabel (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Land (including all nature given resources) is a non-produced factor and, as such, has no cost of production.
 * Labour is an inalienable part of the human individual and can not disappear when its price drops below subsistence level due to competition on the "labour market".
 * Capital is a factor derived from the interaction of Land and Labour.


 * Other than the one offered by Ryle, your examples are original research and have no relevance to the article or this talk page. (And they aren't category mistakes.) -- Jibal (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Examples
This article could use more examples. It's hard to understand. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Banana example is incorrect
In fact, there are NO bananas that believe in God. +++ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.123.17.17 (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Belief in God and belief that God does not exist are both positions taken (beliefs, if you will). Bananas are fruit. They do not think, therefore, they are not atheists. Unless, of course, you are implying that atheists don't think. Or that they are produce. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

^ Wrong sir - atheism is not the belief that god does not exist - it is the lack of a belief in god. Some atheists DO believe that 'there is no god' - most atheists lack a belief in god and do not necessarily believe that there is no god - personally I say that the hypothesis is indistinguishable from fiction - this does not equate to a positive or negative existence claim about extra-physical beings. Both categories are atheists. If one is a banana then one has no beliefs - if one has no beliefs then one is an atheist.

HOWEVER; the suffix 'ist' in 'atheist' is a personal suffix and denotes that denotes a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc. In this way one could say that calling a banana is a category error.

It is still a terribly confusing example!

How about we use one about the;


 * 'size of anger'
 * 'time of photon'
 * 'color or laughter'
 * 'experience of death'
 * 'The inside of a one dimensional line'
 * 'The nutritional value of the electromagnetic force'

131.172.36.45 (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, bananas don't believe in God, but that's merely because bananas are incapable of any belief, and they are incapable of any belief precisely because ascribing belief of any kind to bannanas is a categary error. Not having a particular belief or having no beliefs is not and could not be an atribute of bananas any more than yellowness could be an atribute of atheism. This has hothing whatsoever to do with your notion of a "personal suffix". Individual banas exist just as individual humans exist. It would be just as absurd to say that atheISM pervades banana society. TheScotch (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Scope of the definition
I haven't read The Concept of Mind, so this may be clarified somewhere in that text. But in each of the three examples given in the article currently, the error is specifically about mistaking some property of a system as a whole with a property of one of its parts. Is that more restricted version what Ryle meant in defining the term (or how it's commonly used nowadays in philosophy), as opposed to the more general 'atheist banana' example mentioned at the top of the page? 164.55.254.106 (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Misascription
"All (propositional) mistakes involve some sort of misascription of properties..." Misascription; adefinition of the word simply does not exist online, is this a typo or a word so rare, no one on the internet has defined it publicly? I've referenced it internally to a non-existent article to draw more attention to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudopeople (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2010

Aristotle
Surely notions of categories, and therefore category errors, in modern philosophy, are derived in some respect from Aristotle's Categories. So IMHO he should at least get a mention.

Although in a cursory skim through the Julian Barnes edition (Completed Works, Revised Oxford Translation, Vol One, Princeton/Bollingen, "Categories" translated by JL Ackrill) I could find no mention of the exact phrase "category error" or "category mistake", he does spend considerable time discussing mistakes. I seem to remember seeing the term "category error" somewhere else in the works.

Much discussion in Categories is to do with false "contraries", especially when talking of "privation and possession". Most could probably be described as syllogistic mistakes(?):

Eg 1. Cat 10: "It might … seem … "Socrates is well" … [is] contrary to "Socrates is sick". Yet not even with these is it necessary always for one to be true and the other false. For if Socrates exists one will be true and the other false, but if he does not both will be false."

Eg 2. Cat 11: "What is contrary to a good thing is necessarily bad … But what is contrary to a bad thing is sometimes good but sometimes bad. … All contraries must either be in the same genus or in contrary genera."

Eg 3. Cat 10: "It is not necessary for everything to be black or white that is capable of receiving them, or hot or cold, since something intermediate between these may perfectly well be present."

Also, earlier, a different sort of error.

Eg 4. In Cat 7, to paraphrase, although rudders are "of boats", since some boats do not have rudders, it would be better to put them in a category of ruddered things than a category of boat parts. Similarly … "a head would be more properly given as of "a headed" [my quotes] than as of an animal, because it is not as being an animal that a thing has a head, since many animals have not got a head." (not sure what animals he was thinking of, maybe worms?)

Unfortunately in the above para, the difficulty of translating participles seems to have made for some odd language eg: "if it is given properly - a ruddered is ruddered by a rudder" (!)

In modern times, these different types of categories seem well described by Venn diagrams, eg on the syllogism table here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

Aristotle also points out that "the man is sitting" and "the man is standing" are not mutually exclusive propositions [because he could stand up or sit down later!]

Personally, I would give the following as an example of a typical category error. This type often seems to crop up when people are discussing race, nationality, class etc:

Obama: I am a black man.

Person B: You can't be black, your mother was white.

Possibilities:

A) Obama is right, B is wrong.

Person B has made a mistake in logic defining "black" - it is not contingent on the race of a person's mother.

B) Obama is right, B is right.

Both assertions are "right", given the various wooly definitions of the category "black", but person B is mistakenly assuming their category of "black" is the same as the one understood by Obama.

C) Obama is wrong, B is right.

i) Obama is confused into a category error of thinking one must be either "black" or "not-black" (but in fact is somewhere in between), or

ii) Person B also thinks one can only be either black or not-black, and believes Obama is not-black because he has a white mother.

D) Both are wrong!

Whatever the case, natural language has produced a misunderstanding based on one or more category errors.

Other examples:

A: I'm old.

B: You're not old!

A and B both know exactly how old A is, but disagree on the properties of the category "old". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.68.118 (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Customs officer: Have you anything to declare?

Wilde: Nothing but my genius! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.68.118 (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Most Americans are Christians
I won't edit myself, but would like stakeholders of this page to seriously consider removing examples of Christianity's popularity as representative of category mistakes. For example:


 * Thus the claim that "Most Americans are Christians"[2] is not a category mistake, since most Americans are Christians.

Such a mention of a particular religion is itself contentious and does not adhere to a neutral tone. The truth of this statement is debatable and introduces an unnecessary complication to the concept of "category mistake". Any justification would at best be based on some poll. Any poll result would be highly dependent on the poll's wording and how the definition of "Christian person" means. And any such justification would, at best, only be valid for some time period of the poll, and not necessarily a lasting truth for the sake of the article. 2601:E:8A00:244:2CDE:72B0:BE63:7882 (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅—Machine Elf 1735  05:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Very Bad article
This page is about Logic and (philosophical) categories, not ideological or philosophical debates (as they are going on here on the talk page and as they seem to transpire in the main article). I think that even if Gilbert Ryle introduced the concept, an unbiased presentation should be given about it.

I suggest that at the VERY LEAST this source is reviewed: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/categories/ and followed up by a comptetent and unbiased article (using more than one source, however). – Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.202.109 (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2016‎ (UTC)


 * These sorts of articles are prone to this sort of thing, because a lot of stupid, ignorant people fancy themselves "philosophers" and so they a) think they have something intelligent and worthwhile to say on the subject and b) are incapable of grasping that their drivel is original research and thus has no relevance to Wikipedia. -- Jibal (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. Just because it is not relevant to Wikipedia, original research is not necessarily drivel. Much of it may be output from intelligent people who think for themselves
 * ¬¬¬¬ Janosabel (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Eliminative Materialism??
This claim is not substantiated by the article: "Ryle's category mistake argument can be used to support eliminative materialism." Seems like personal research. Any references for this claim? Thanks, Wolfworks (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

^ yeah no one associates this argument with eliminativism, so it seems very ad hoc. Eliminativists make very different sorts of claims from Ryle, so I'm questioning the relevance. Also have no idea how to edit stuff on wiki, sorry. - M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.36.146 (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

classes of category error?
I see variations of this. E.g:
 * When the category stated is a subset of a more appropriate category
 * When the category stated is a superset of a more appropriate category
 * When the category stated is a unrelated of a more appropriate category

For instance, on the assumption that Christians believe that there is a place in heaven for all people (quite possibly not true), I would classify the following as category errors:


 * "Baptists believe there is a place in heaven for all people" - while this is logically true, it implies a quality belonging exclusively to Baptists.
 * "Christians believe that there is a place in heaven for women" - again, logically true, but it implies a quality belonging exclusively to women.
 * "Cats give milk to their young" - yes, cats are mammals. But far better to say "Cats are mammals".

etc.. Has any work been done on this. or are these different things? (20040302 (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC))