Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(9)
Message 301 of 344 (641874)
11-23-2011 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by designtheorist
11-22-2011 6:34 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK - #293
designtheorist writes:
If you read the quotes I provided, it is clear that Hawking understands that a universe with a beginning "smacks of divine intervention."
and
designtheorist writes:
This thread is about logical fallacies
You have taken the Hawking quote completely out of context. He expands on that sentence in the sentences which follow it and it is clear that he doesn't mean what you want him to mean. I've supplied the two sentences which follow the quote in question and I've linked to chapter 3 so that you can read the quote in context. I've had no response to that post, but you continue to use it in isolation to support your argument.
This is a nice example of the logical fallacy known as quote mining. Does it not worry you slightly that in a thread which you started to "educate" us in what a logical fallacy actually is, you are completely incapable of recognising that you are using them time and again? Not only that, but you can't recognise them as such even when it's spelled out to you.
Try this rather simplistic example
Trixie writes:
Many people do not like horses, probably because they are very big and stink of horse poo
There is no way that that sentence, while being true, gives any idea about how I feel about horses (I'm rather fond of them which is fortunate, given I have 3 of the blighters) so how you can take
Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention
and claim it reflects the writer's view baffles me.
I plugged your quote into Google and the majority of hits I got were in discussion fora and such like where the quote was used in isolation to make the very argument you're making with no regard for context or comprehension.
Edited by Trixie, : I've done this as a reply to PaulK, but it should be a reply to designtheorist, sorry for the confusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by designtheorist, posted 11-22-2011 6:34 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by NoNukes, posted 11-24-2011 10:41 AM Trixie has not replied
 Message 325 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 12:40 AM Trixie has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 302 of 344 (641875)
11-23-2011 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Larni
11-23-2011 5:33 AM


Re: Are we nearly there, yet?
I'm hoping that designtheorist has learnt what a logical fallacy is. Oddly enough, despite claiming to have taken a college course in logic it seems that he simply equated "logical fallacy" with "bad argument" to the point where he was unable to see statements that an argument could be a good argument despite being a logical fallacy (more of that confirmation bias at work).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Larni, posted 11-23-2011 5:33 AM Larni has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 303 of 344 (641881)
11-23-2011 8:23 AM


What was learned...plenty
I don't see anything posted in this thread that was particularly earth shattering or new on the topic of logical fallacies. Most logical fallacies can be spotted on the fly by noting that the desired conclusion is not forced by the premises. Using analogy to show the faulty logic using non-contentious facts works fairly well. Debating logical syllogisms should be akin to, and equally as pointless as debating about Algebra.
On the other hand, this thread is an excellent opportunity to learn a good deal about designtheorist and about bad debating tactics employed by his ilk. I'd recommend "pinning" this thread.
I see three lessons to be learned here.
If you start a thread to rehabilitate your position in a previous thread, don't be surprised if your nonsense from the previous thread gets rehashed.
If you say something particularly foolish and the result is a dog-pile of responses pointing that out, perhaps something other than group think is at work. Perhaps 2+2 does not equal five after all.
I think the most important lesson here is that extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof. Throwing up a few out of context quotes just is not going to work, when the weight of the evidence is against you.
Eddington was a Quaker who died in 1944. Hawking can be wrong and pigheaded, but he's probably not an idiot. Einstein's spirituality is not easily summed up, but he was not a closet creationist. Darwin did not recant origin of species and convent to Christianity on his deathbed. If you want to convince people otherwise, a single sentence out of context won't do it. So do your %$#@ homework.

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 304 of 344 (641886)
11-23-2011 8:48 AM


Thread is not yet in summation mode.
Hello everyone,
The last few posts read as if there were intended as summations, but this thread is not yet in summation mode. I haven't even set a message limit yet. I was holding off because I wasn't sure what would be a reasonable length for this topic.
I'll set summation mode now so that it begins at 400 messages, but if people really think this thread is done just let me know and I'll put it into summation mode.
AbE: The status of summation mode can be seen by clicking on the Thread Details link near the top right of the page. The summation information is in the box on the right. You can control whether Thread Details are on or off by default through your member control panel, click on the Member CP link on the left end of the top menu bar.
Edited by Admin, : AbE.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Larni, posted 11-23-2011 9:33 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 305 of 344 (641890)
11-23-2011 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by Admin
11-23-2011 8:48 AM


Re: Thread is not yet in summation mode.
Sorry, I got it into my head that 300 was becoming the norm for summation mode.
Didn't mean to bork the thread :/

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Admin, posted 11-23-2011 8:48 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 306 of 344 (641962)
11-24-2011 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by Trixie
11-23-2011 5:55 AM


Re: Reply to PaulK - #293
Trixie writes:
quote:
Many people do not like horses, probably because they are very big and stink of horse poo
There is no way that that sentence, while being true, gives any idea about how I feel about horses (I'm rather fond of them which is fortunate, given I have 3 of the blighters)
At the risk of blunting the edge of a sharp argument, I must disagree with you just a little. The sentence does hint at how you feel about horses. The words strongly invite us to speculate on exactly that point.
The sentence is a pretty obvious setup for you to tell us exactly how you feel in the following sentences. If I have reason to believe that the writer is of any sophistication at all, I'd suspect that the holder has an opinion contrary to that of many people, despite agreeing, at least in part, that horses are large and do have a characteristic horsey smell.
Of course it is also possible that I'll find in the next sentences/paragraphs/chapters that you agree with the majority opinion. But there is no question that you are inviting me to read further.
And therein lies one reason why I cannot take designtheorist seriously. Despite several invitations to look at context for the quote, designtheorist continues to make his case using only the single sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Trixie, posted 11-23-2011 5:55 AM Trixie has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 307 of 344 (641989)
11-24-2011 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by designtheorist
11-13-2011 9:15 AM


quote:
Example: Newbie says: Albert Einstein was a Christian because he once wrote In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.
Most of what the majority of humanity holds as sacred truths are in fact the antithesis of truth and coherence - yet the masses uphold these truths. The mutually exclusive beiefs of Christianity and Islam, even relating to dates, places, geography and history of the same space-times, for example, say that one of them is 100% false. But over a Billion people will kill and die for that same falsehood. Here, no amount of proof will resolve such anamolies. A cherished lie transcends a disdained truth. Humanity is yet at the primitive phase. Isn't Moses a Muslim!?
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by designtheorist, posted 11-13-2011 9:15 AM designtheorist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Larni, posted 11-24-2011 4:01 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 308 of 344 (641991)
11-24-2011 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by IamJoseph
11-24-2011 3:22 PM


Why don't you fuck off out of threads you have no intention of making any meaningful contribution to?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 3:22 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by AdminModulous, posted 11-24-2011 5:31 PM Larni has not replied
 Message 311 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 8:16 PM Larni has not replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 309 of 344 (641995)
11-24-2011 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Larni
11-24-2011 4:01 PM


The moderators will decide when someone shall leave a thread. They will do so politely and respectfully. Please show respect to other members, even the ones you dislike or disagree with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Larni, posted 11-24-2011 4:01 PM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 7:57 PM AdminModulous has seen this message but not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 310 of 344 (641998)
11-24-2011 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by AdminModulous
11-24-2011 5:31 PM


At least give congratulations to the most scientific response yet when one has been check mated with a challenge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by AdminModulous, posted 11-24-2011 5:31 PM AdminModulous has seen this message but not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 311 of 344 (642001)
11-24-2011 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Larni
11-24-2011 4:01 PM


Einstein upheld a Creator [universe maker behind the universe] - because he accepted the universe is finite. You have not. Only one premise is still science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Larni, posted 11-24-2011 4:01 PM Larni has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 312 of 344 (642002)
11-24-2011 8:21 PM


My challenge stands. Accept the Genesis premise the universe is absolutely and non-negotiably finite - and then debate if the universe emerged by itself or by a transcendent, precedent force with no alternatives applying. Else you guys are winking in the dark and shouting eureka with half sentences - that is not science.

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Admin, posted 11-24-2011 9:47 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(4)
Message 313 of 344 (642015)
11-24-2011 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by IamJoseph
11-24-2011 8:21 PM


Hi IamJoseph,
You do not appear to be making any attempt to address the topic, or anything that anyone has said. Please stop posting to this thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 8:21 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Wollysaurus
Member (Idle past 4491 days)
Posts: 52
From: US
Joined: 08-25-2011


(6)
Message 314 of 344 (642020)
11-24-2011 10:28 PM


This may be completely off the rails.
From a newby's perspective (having no formal classes or even necessarily training in "logical fallacies" to the extent that some here appear to have) I tend to view the use of techniques such as "argument from authority" and the like as more useful in terms of Rhetoric than actually proving that one side of the argument has more of a basis in fact than another.
I heard plenty of openings in High School debates and college Public Speaking courses start with lines such as "Plato says (insert quote here)..."
When I did my thesis defense, it came to being able to cite actual primary source evidence and not leaning on things like quotes. If I had answered a question with a simple quote from an authority, as opposed to the findings that that "authority" uncovered through research (such as archaeological evidence) I would have been sunk. I couldn't simply answer with "Dr. So and So says I'm right! Ha!". I'd have to come up with a cogent response to a critique based upon something tangible, something real. Unless, of course, I was being asked what a specific authority "thought" about a particular topic, in which case citing their quotes (in context) might be appropriate.
Granted, my background doesn't lend itself to the broad topics of evolution that this forum covers, but I think the methodology is relevant. This is part of what led me *away* from a biblical worldview.
I suppose what I mean is that there is an intuitive element (call it a "B.S. detector") when it comes to filtering logical fallacies. One might not be able to immediately categorize it as an "argument from authority" or as suffering from a "confirmation bias", but one should be able to tell if something "smells" right. What works in public debates and speeches will not usually stand long in an academic setting.

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Trixie, posted 11-25-2011 2:08 PM Wollysaurus has replied
 Message 317 by Modulous, posted 11-25-2011 4:16 PM Wollysaurus has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(6)
Message 315 of 344 (642072)
11-25-2011 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by Wollysaurus
11-24-2011 10:28 PM


Writing in Science
I can only applaud your post. It touches on something that I don't think many non-scientists are aware of.
When writing primary research papers, scientists are so very careful to state only what their results support. While they can ruminate on the implications of their findings in the Discussion section they make clear that it is rumination, by using phrases such as "the results suggest" or "the results indicate" and you'll always find a smattering of "probably" or "possibly". Scientists say what they mean. There is no room for interpretation, the writing is concise and precise.
They are also careful that every statement they make can be backed up, either by their own data or by the primary data of others and they provide full references for readers to locate and peruse the primary data that they have taken notice of. This means that they ensure that nothing is taken out of context and if it is, the peer review process will find it and ask for it to be corrected.
Scientists think like this as it becomes second nature. You're always asking yourself "Can I back up this statement with data?" or "What does this data actually demonstrate?"and the crucial question any scientist worth his/her salt asks of their own data is "Does this data support an alternative idea to mine?"
The entire practice of science is not so much doing exeriments to support your pet hypothesis, but to rule out competing hypotheses. Science is all about looking for the holes. It doesn't matter how many pieces of evidence you have supporting an idea, a single piece negating it is all it takes.
Without critical thinking and applying logic correctly, scientists would lead themselves up the garden path and it would become evident in their data. I think your description of a B.S. detector inherent in science and scientists is accurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Wollysaurus, posted 11-24-2011 10:28 PM Wollysaurus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by Wollysaurus, posted 11-25-2011 3:17 PM Trixie has not replied
 Message 336 by mike the wiz, posted 11-29-2011 1:40 PM Trixie has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024