COFFEE.jpg (2219 bytes)

 

 

  

Infinite Regress
 
Description:

 
The argument proposes an explanation, but the mechanism proposed stands just as much in need of explanation as the original fact to be explained - and indeed it stands in need of the same kind of explanation. So it is tempting to apply the explanation to itself.
 

 
Comments:

Such explanations are sometimes called "skyhooks." The image comes from a problem in engineering: to hold something up we must have something to attach it to. The building of bridges (for example) would be much easier if, instead of using cranes, we could simply attach our hooks and cables directly to the sky.
 

 
Examples:

"The world is supported by four elephants standing on the back of a giant turtle, which is standing on the back of another giant turtle, which is standing on the back of another giant turtle..."

"Eggs exist because they are laid by chickens; and, of course, chickens are hatched from eggs."
 

 
Discussion:

 
Everything needs an explanation. However, explanations are generally offered in a context in which most of the facts involved in the explanation are taken for granted. While it is sometimes necessary to ask for further details that get deeper into the facts, this can quickly be taken to absurd lengths.

       "Daddy, why do I have to get up?"
       "Because it's morning."
       "Why?"
       "Because the sun is coming up."
       "Why?"
       "Well, you see, dear, the earth is a big ball that spins around. Right now we're on the side that is spinning toward the sun."
       "Why does it spin around?"
       "Well, dear, the earth was formed from big rocks orbiting around the sun. When they coalesced together, the vector sum of the angular momentum of their orbits was converted into spin..."
       "Why?"
       "Because it did! Now get your clothes on!"

Knowing that a discussion of explanations must end somewhere, we form the habit of accepting the context of an explanation without (much) further examination, and, of course, this is usually perfectly appropriate. However, it means that we sometimes don't notice when an explanation really does beg further inquiry. The fallacy of Infinite Regress occurs when an explanation suffers from the same need for explanation as the fact it is called upon to explain, but this need may be overlooked because of our tendency to accept the context of the explanation without further inquiry.
 

 
Classification: A retroductive fallacy of circularity.

 
Source: Aristotle refers to the impossibility of an infinite regress in his proof of the unmoving mover (Physics, 8.1). Prior to that Zeno of Elia uses the notion that an infinite regress is an absurdity in the development of his famous paradoxes.

 

Go to:     WELCOME     EXPLANATION of PRINCIPLES     TABLE of  FALLACIES     EXERCISES     INDEX