범주착오, 범주오류(category mistake, category error)
범주착오란 어떤 범주 안의 사물을 다른 범주에 있는 것으로 잘못 판단하거나 그 사물이 가질 수 없는 특성을 가지고 있는 것으로 믿는 오류를 말한다. 자주 사용되는 표현으로 '마음이 아프다'라는 말도 범주의 오류에 해당한다. 마은은 질병에 걸리거나 통증을 느끼는 신경이 없으니 가질 수 없는 특성을 가진 것처럼 말하는 오류다. '시간이 흐른다' 등. 대표적인 예로 '강의실', '도서관', '사무실', '운동장' 등등을 다 보여 줬는데도 '그런데 대학은 어디에 있냐?"고 묻는것도 범주오류이다.
역범주(inverse category)
범주 안의 모든 개체가 다른 범주와 일대일 대응을 이루고 반대의 경우도 성립하는 범주를 역범주라고 한다.
- 하나의 범주에서 특정한 부분이 전체 범주로 잘못 파악되는 오류를 일부 '역범주착오'라고 표현하기도 하는데, 이는 그냥 '범주착오' 혹은 '성급한 일반화의 오류'라고 해야 옳은 표현이다. 예를 들어 강의실, 도서관 등등을 보여주고 나서도 '그런데 콘크리트는 어디에 있냐?'고 묻는다면 이 또한 동일하게 범주의 오류에 해당되기 때문이다.
Category Error/Mistake
The term “category error” or “category mistake” is a philosophical term that was popularized by Gilbert Ryle in his rhetorical assault on Cartesian Dualism. Ryle’s famous example is that of a man who has never seen the game of cricket. After it is explained to him that certain teammates have the position of bowler, batter, and/or catcher the man then says, “Who on the team plays the position of team spirit.” Of course, there is no special position for performing team spirit. It is a team effort and thus a collective action. Unlike the bowler who performs the act by himself. This counts as a category error.
According to the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, there are several ways to commit a category error. The first is like that above.
“the placing of an entity in the wrong category.”
Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Term: category mistake.
Now both parties in the discussion need to explain why they believe X belongs or does not belong in the proposed category. In the cricket example, there is a difference in categories when comparing the collective actions of the team (i.e., team spirit) and individual actions of the team (i.e., bowling or catching). Still, while there is a category error in this respect there is not in others. Both [bowling and team spirit] are team activities aimed at success. One is done on the team level and one is done on the individual level but both contribute to the success of the team. Both are done by people. Both are done by people on a given team. Both are done at the same time. Both can be done by the same person. Person A can bowl and present team spirit at the same time. So as you can see, placing an entity in the wrong category is hardly done by the wave of the hand. It is important to explain why said entity is in the wrong category and to confirm with your interlocutor that he/she is attempting to place said entity into that discrete category.
Let me use another more familiar example. It would be a category error to say that an apple and an orange are the same. But it would not be a category error to say they are both fruits, or they both have skin, or they both have seeds, or they both are sweet, or they both are relatively round, or they both grow on trees or they both are sources of juice. So while apples and oranges are not the same they are nevertheless in the same category of relatively round, sweet, juicy fruits having skin and seeds. So when someone says, “Well you’re comparing apples and oranges on this point.” Your answer should be something like, “Well there is a lot to compare.”
On the point of Scripture and God, it is important to note that Scripture is not God. To state otherwise would be a category error. But to say that Scripture and God are principium [i.e., first principles] is not a category error. The former is the first principle of theological knowledge and the latter is the first principle of being. So to relate the two in terms of principium is to consider them properly in the same discrete category of first principles.
“The second use of ‘category mistake’ is to refer to the attribution to an entity of a property which the entity cannot have.”
Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Term: category mistake.
The example given to illustrate this kind of category error is to say, “Caesar is a prime number.” It is important to note here that the “property which the entity cannot have” is very different from the “property which the entity does not have.” The latter statement allows for a “could-have” relationship while the former does not. Thusly construed, to claim a category error on this second account, the burden of proof rests with the accuser to prove that it is impossible that some entity X has some property Y; and that entity X lacks a “could-have” relationship with property Y. The Dictionary goes on to explain.
“It is thought that they [i.e., category mistakes] go beyond simple error or ordinary mistakes, as when one attributes a property to a thing which that thing could have but does not have, since category mistakes involve attributions of properties…to things…that those things cannot have.”
Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Term: category mistake. [Italics: Mine]
In short, if someone accuses you of a category mistake the burden of proof rests on them to demonstrate why the property Y you are attributing to X cannot be attributed to X like in “That apple tastes blue.” If Y could be attributed to X then the attribution can, at worst, simply be an average garden variety mistake. So next time someone claims you have committed a category error/mistake help them to understand that they have a lot of explaining to do before such a claim can be admitted into the conversation.