 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Which is better? |
| Ad hominems towards individuals |
|
38% |
[ 5 ] |
| Ad hominems towards masses of individuals |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Neither. |
|
61% |
[ 8 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 13 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5531
Location: United States
|
 Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 8:36 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Orwell wrote: |
Yes. If we were to say "The majority of modern scientists accept politically liberal positions, therefore liberalism is scientific," that would not hold up. But if we were to say, as iamnotaparakeet hinted at, "The majority of modern scientists accept evolution, therefore evolution is scientific," that statement would be given more credence. Now, what is the difference between the two, which are both arguments from authority? The first is an argument from authority in a field the authority isn't an authority in. The second statement still is not valid (the word valid as it applies to logic has nothing to do with truth or falsehood of statements). I'm objecting to the misuse of terminology here. In logic there's not really "perfect validity" and "reasonably valid," either an argument form is valid or it is invalid. |
Well, not only that, but also depending on how the question or argument is phrased, it could be entirely correct. If we argue that evolution should be taught as science because more scientists believe in evolution, then it would be similar to the issue parakeet is bringing up but it could be a proper argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 3208
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | Well, not only that, but also depending on how the question or argument is phrased, it could be entirely correct. If we argue that evolution should be taught as science because more scientists believe in evolution, then it would be similar to the issue parakeet is bringing up but it could be a proper argument. |
The example statement I gave is entirely correct, except perhaps in the word "therefore." The argument you present in your post is compelling, and I would accept it as a true statement, but it is not a "proper argument." For one, it includes "should," which is an ethical construct outside the bounds of logic (positive vs normative economics has a similar issue, right?)
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5531
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: |
The example statement I gave is entirely correct, except perhaps in the word "therefore." The argument you present in your post is compelling, and I would accept it as a true statement, but it is not a "proper argument." For one, it includes "should," which is an ethical construct outside the bounds of logic (positive vs normative economics has a similar issue, right?) |
Well, ok, we would have to include some more premises into it, such as an "if should" or some similar statement, but whatever, I don't argue so formally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 3208
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | but whatever, I don't argue so formally. |
I don't either, but I can be a fact-nazi and I don't like mixing up terminology. Plus, I've been reading a discrete math textbook, so this is what I'm thinking about at the moment.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
twoshots
The Moos of Derision
Joined: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 1411
Location: NJ
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | iamnotaparakeet wrote: | What do you think of:
"The majority of modern true scientists accept blah, therefore blah is scientific." |
I know what you're alluding to.  That is technically an argument from authority, and so the second part of the statement does not necessarily follow from the first. However, the first statement being true would contribute to the likelihood of the second also being true. Logical validity and truth don't always go hand-in-hand. The fact that large numbers of experts in a field support a given statement within that field indicate that it is probably true. EG "Most historians say X occurred, therefore X occurred." It's not a valid logical argument, but it is accepted as being most likely true. |
Informal logic (which is what we are dealing with) is not the same as formal. Following "necessarily" is not something we can hope for, and is not the standard of informal debate. While the argument from authority can be construed as a fallacy, it is not my impression that arguing from, say, a scientific authority would be considered such, generally speaking. If the authority is such that it is a reliable or necessary source of information, then it is appropriate to cite it and makes for a valid argument, inasmuch as informal arguments demonstrate only what is likely to be true. Hence, "Scientists think X => X is scientific" where X is something like 'the theory of evolution' I think would generally be considered informally valid.
_________________
Without logic reason is useless.
With it, you can win arguments and alienate multitudes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7392
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greenblue wrote: | | Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | iamnotaparakeet wrote: |
What? |
Both suggests that they can both provide a rip-roaring good time! |
Yeah, that's why the 'Both' option is needed. |
So, personal and group ad hominems are "both" better than each other? 
It's as if the sheer magnitude of your hate and desire to rush to these attacks blinded your logic,
so that you couldn't be persuaded even to rank one listed hateful option below the other.
Two things can't both be better than each other.
Nor does the "neither" option imply that both are bad, as AG incorrectly concluded.
_________________
Anyone who is interested in philosophy, the of meaning of life, and answers to our hardest questions, I suggest you check out the free, online mp3 archive of Ravi Zacharias at www.rzim.org. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5531
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: |
So, personal and group ad hominems are "both" better than each other?
It's as if the sheer magnitude of your hate and desire to rush to these attacks blinded your logic,
so that you couldn't be persuaded even to rank one listed hateful option below the other.
Two things can't both be better than each other.
Nor does the "neither" option imply that both are bad, as AG incorrectly concluded. |
Actually, if you look, it does not say "better than the other", it says "better". So, if it is better to have BOTH ad hominems, then a better option would be "both".
Well, Ragtime, two things can both be better than the other if you throw out little, insignificant rules of logic.
Well, neither sounds NEGATIVE! I mean, really, they both start with N! Neither, negative, neigathiver! And so on and so forth. The logic just flows!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7392
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | Ragtime wrote: |
So, personal and group ad hominems are "both" better than each other?
It's as if the sheer magnitude of your hate and desire to rush to these attacks blinded your logic,
so that you couldn't be persuaded even to rank one listed hateful option below the other.
Two things can't both be better than each other.
Nor does the "neither" option imply that both are bad, as AG incorrectly concluded. |
Actually, if you look, it does not say "better than the other", it says "better". So, if it is better to have BOTH ad hominems, then a better option would be "both".
Well, Ragtime, two things can both be better than the other if you throw out little, insignificant rules of logic.
Well, neither sounds NEGATIVE! I mean, really, they both start with N! Neither, negative, neigathiver! And so on and so forth. The logic just flows!! |
Logic, insanity... it's all the same to you.
_________________
Anyone who is interested in philosophy, the of meaning of life, and answers to our hardest questions, I suggest you check out the free, online mp3 archive of Ravi Zacharias at www.rzim.org.
Last edited by Ragtime on Tue May 20, 2008 2:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5531
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: |
Logic, insanity... it's all the same to you. |
Logic is merely the apologetics of madness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
