| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/12/2008 01:16:02 PM · #326 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But you can't just dismiss an appeal to authority like that. If the authority is truly wiser or more intelligent than you, then relying on their advice is reasonable even if you do not understand the reason behind it. |
Sure you can. "all appeals to authority which assert that the authority is necessarily infallible are fallacious."
Setting aside the question of God's existence, the authority in these cases is not even the supposed deity, but the person who wrote the text you reference OR your own personal opinion. Mark, Paul, Timothy, the Pope, Jerry Falwell or even Warren Jeffs will all say we must do X because that's what God wants, but it's their opinion or interpretation, not established fact. There is no evidence that any of THESE people were wiser or more intelligent than you, I or Britney Spears.
Someone in another thread today pointed to Leviticus to justify an anti-homosexual stance because it asserts that homosexuality is an abomination to God. Leviticus also says that long hair on men is an abomination to God, yet Jesus is generally depicted with long hair. Uh, oh! |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 01:29:34 PM · #327 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The author did seem to set up some pretty easy pins to knock down. A few he also was pretty cavalier about dismissing. His first counter pretty well boiled down to, "Relying on the authority of God is dumb because God doesn't exist." Well, duh. |
That particular pin doesn't change the argument. "...for our purposes here, suffice it to say that it is an appeal to authority. Just because some preacher or some book makes a claim does not mean that the claim is true. Among other things, the Bible claims that a bush spoke." |
But you can't just dismiss an appeal to authority like that. If the authority is truly wiser or more intelligent than you, then relying on their advice is reasonable even if you do not understand the reason behind it. (This is leaving aside the "how do we know the will of God" question.) I took his last comment about the burning bush as another slap at the "duh, God doesn't exist" line of thinking rather than the "I'm not sure how to understand the will of God" question. |
You can dismiss an appeal to authority which is a syllogistic fallacy, as in this case. Moreover, we're not talking about a tangible authority like a university professor, we're talking about an authority the very foundation of which is in question. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 01:40:30 PM · #328 |
| Incidentally, the author of the article misses the argument, "You should sacrifice because it alleviates other people's suffering." He would argue that this is another form of an appeal to pity, but he cannot qualify what "suffering" means. He also misses the circularity factor, which would make altruism universally beneficial. In his appeal to pity example, he says the worst case would turn out to be the unrealistic demands one could make on others (bigger house, spouse, etc.). But that would in turn cause suffering on the one sacrificing, which should cause the requester to sacrifice his desire in order to alleviate the suffering of the original person, etc. In my view, altruism is more complicated than he or Ayn Rand imagine. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 01:45:50 PM · #329 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No, Shannon. I'm saying, in an abstract way, that not all the building blocks in the world can imbue a structure with spirit or grace. |
Actualy, rather simple, well known proportions can imbue a structure with grace. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 01:58:17 PM · #330 |
The essay was asking for reasons we should sacrifice.
The #1 answer on his list was an appeal to authority. I believe I should sacrifice because someone who knows more than me says it's the right thing to do.
Questioning that authority, while completely valid, does not abrogate the logic of the argument, it just questions whether the person is trusting the correct authority (or whether the auhority figure even exists). Can you see the difference? The appeal to authority remains a logical, rational reason to sacrifice. The question becomes whether the authority know's what he's talking about or whether he's even there. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 02:11:35 PM · #331 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
There is no evidence that any of THESE people were wiser or more intelligent than you, I or Britney Spears.
|
I am pretty sure they, whomever "they" is, is wiser than Britney Spears. But then again, I know a lot of people that will do what ever Britney tells them to do. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 02:17:07 PM · #332 |
| He Louis, did I do Dawkins justice in my original response to this essay? or did I miss the boat? |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 02:20:21 PM · #333 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No, Shannon. I'm saying, in an abstract way, that not all the building blocks in the world can imbue a structure with spirit or grace. |
Actualy, rather simple, well known proportions can imbue a structure with grace. |
A different sort of grace, mousie :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2008 02:24:57 PM · #334 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The essay was asking for reasons we should sacrifice.
The #1 answer on his list was an appeal to authority. I believe I should sacrifice because someone who knows more than me says it's the right thing to do.
Questioning that authority, while completely valid, does not abrogate the logic of the argument, it just questions whether the person is trusting the correct authority (or whether the auhority figure even exists). Can you see the difference? The appeal to authority remains a logical, rational reason to sacrifice. The question becomes whether the authority know's what he's talking about or whether he's even there. |
From the perspective of the arguments in the essay, I'm not sure that solves anything, Doc: it still leaves open the question of from whence the "authority figure" derives the logic or rationale for sacrifice.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2008 02:25:48 PM · #335 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
... the Bible claims that a bush spoke." |
WHOA.........Say it ain't so. GWB is mentioned in the bible??? Go figure.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 02:40:15 PM · #336 |
This discussion has made me recall Walt Whitman:
When I heard the learn'd astronomer;
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me;
When I was shown the charts and the diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them;
When I, sitting, heard the astronomer, where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick;
Till rising and gliding out, I wander'd off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look'd up in perfect silence at the stars.
On the one side we have a bunch of absolutely secular, "rational" thinkers who are determined to reduce everything in the world (and not of the world for that matter) into bits and bytes of irreducible comprehension. On the other side we have those who resist these explanations, who (at least in my case) think the world, the universe too for that matter, is infinitely more precious for being fundamentally inexplicable.
So it goes...
R.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2008 02:41:06 PM · #337 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by scalvert:
... the Bible claims that a bush spoke." |
WHOA.........Say it ain't so. GWB is mentioned in the bible??? Go figure.
Ray |
No, the Bible is referring to Pappy Bush; GWB is the stone you can't get blood out of...
R.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2008 02:46:20 PM · #338 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This discussion has made me recall Walt Whitman:
When I heard the learn'd astronomer;
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me;
When I was shown the charts and the diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them;
When I, sitting, heard the astronomer, where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick;
Till rising and gliding out, I wander'd off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look'd up in perfect silence at the stars.
On the one side we have a bunch of absolutely secular, "rational" thinkers who are determined to reduce everything in the world (and not of the world for that matter) into bits and bytes of irreducible comprehension. On the other side we have those who resist these explanations, who (at least in my case) think the world, the universe too for that matter, is infinitely more precious for being fundamentally inexplicable.
So it goes...
R. |
Poetic as this may be, I find the universe much more beautiful when seen as soley responsible for it's own design, without the need to introduce an artificial entity into the equation. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 02:50:37 PM · #339 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
He Louis, did I do Dawkins justice in my original response to this essay? or did I miss the boat? |
I'm not an expert, but it sounds right to me. I'm not sure if it can be said that altruism is illusory so much as it is an evolutionary development along the lines indicated (unless what's meant by "illusion" is that the long-term genetic gain can't be glimpsed). There's a chapter about it in God Delusion. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 03:01:02 PM · #340 |
I would posit that sacrifice induces growth. We advance ourselves through sacrifice. We more accurately reflect God (as a way of saying we don't become God (ie. glorification as presented by Mormonism)). While this is likely true over even our lifetime, if we believe we live a lot longer than 80 years it becomes much more important. Just a thought.
Message edited by author 2008-12-12 15:01:27. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 03:03:42 PM · #341 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Poetic as this may be, I find the universe much more beautiful when seen as soley responsible for it's own design, without the need to introduce an artificial entity into the equation. |
Indeed, and for exactly the same reason that a natural diamond is far more appreciated than a synthetic one. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 03:03:44 PM · #342 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The essay was asking for reasons we should sacrifice.
The #1 answer on his list was an appeal to authority. I believe I should sacrifice because someone who knows more than me says it's the right thing to do.
Questioning that authority, while completely valid, does not abrogate the logic of the argument, it just questions whether the person is trusting the correct authority (or whether the auhority figure even exists). Can you see the difference? The appeal to authority remains a logical, rational reason to sacrifice. The question becomes whether the authority know's what he's talking about or whether he's even there. |
Which makes the appeal moot, and which is the reason, in its entirety, why an appeal to authority is a fallacy in formal logic. You can never do it. In informal arguments you can, when you say, "Let's suppose expert A knows what he's talking about," and go from there. But if you switch to formal arguing, you could never say, "Expert A's opinion is the ultimate authority and can never be changed," because anything that Expert A says, no matter how illogical, must therefore be true, even if under any other syllogism, Expert A's statement would be shown to be illogical. Appeals to authority must always fail tests of logic for this reason.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2008 03:04:21 PM · #343 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Poetic as this may be, I find the universe much more beautiful when seen as soley responsible for it's own design, without the need to introduce an artificial entity into the equation. |
Ditto.
And I think the logistic map is one of the most beautiful and graceful things ever discovered. Who would have thought that stereotypical Mandelbrot fractals and the population growth of living creatures could be modeled with the same simple equation? That so few transcribed characters could teach us amazing things about stability, chaos, and... beauty?
Frankly, the profound implications of the logisic map have much more sway over my belief system than any god ever could. There is more grace and elegance in the infinitely recursive nature of fractals than is found in any church, which only grasp at the infinite with brute, finite tools of chisel, mortar, glass, and stone.
Message edited by author 2008-12-12 15:06:06. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 03:05:57 PM · #344 |
An ex is a has been and a spurt is a drip under pressure. Put them together and you have an expert.
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The essay was asking for reasons we should sacrifice.
The #1 answer on his list was an appeal to authority. I believe I should sacrifice because someone who knows more than me says it's the right thing to do.
Questioning that authority, while completely valid, does not abrogate the logic of the argument, it just questions whether the person is trusting the correct authority (or whether the auhority figure even exists). Can you see the difference? The appeal to authority remains a logical, rational reason to sacrifice. The question becomes whether the authority know's what he's talking about or whether he's even there. |
Which makes the appeal moot, and which is the reason, in its entirety, why an appeal to authority is a fallacy in formal logic. You can never do it. In informal arguments you can, when you say, "Let's suppose expert A knows what he's talking about," and go from there. But if you switch to formal arguing, you could never say, "Expert A's opinion is the ultimate authority and can never be changed," because anything that Expert A says, no matter how illogical, must therefore be true, even if under any other syllogism, Expert A's statement would be shown to be illogical. Appeals to authority must always fail tests of logic for this reason. |
|
|
|
|
12/12/2008 03:06:16 PM · #345 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
He Louis, did I do Dawkins justice in my original response to this essay? or did I miss the boat? |
Originally posted by Louis:
I'm not an expert, but it sounds right to me. I'm not sure if it can be said that altruism is illusory so much as it is an evolutionary development along the lines indicated (unless what's meant by "illusion" is that the long-term genetic gain can't be glimpsed). There's a chapter about it in God Delusion. |
I have met people who I consider to be altruistic in that they genuinely derived pleasure from helping others.
I feel that there was no ulterior motive other than the helping in and of itself.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2008 03:14:53 PM · #346 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
He Louis, did I do Dawkins justice in my original response to this essay? or did I miss the boat? |
Originally posted by Louis:
I'm not an expert, but it sounds right to me. I'm not sure if it can be said that altruism is illusory so much as it is an evolutionary development along the lines indicated (unless what's meant by "illusion" is that the long-term genetic gain can't be glimpsed). There's a chapter about it in God Delusion. |
I have met people who I consider to be altruistic in that they genuinely derived pleasure from helping others.
I feel that there was no ulterior motive other than the helping in and of itself. |
Except for genuinely deriving pleasure? |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 03:30:14 PM · #347 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
He Louis, did I do Dawkins justice in my original response to this essay? or did I miss the boat? |
Originally posted by Louis:
I'm not an expert, but it sounds right to me. I'm not sure if it can be said that altruism is illusory so much as it is an evolutionary development along the lines indicated (unless what's meant by "illusion" is that the long-term genetic gain can't be glimpsed). There's a chapter about it in God Delusion. |
I have met people who I consider to be altruistic in that they genuinely derived pleasure from helping others.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I feel that there was no ulterior motive other than the helping in and of itself. |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Except for genuinely deriving pleasure? |
Is not the deriving pleasure for the selfless deed the definition of altruism?
|
|
|
|
12/12/2008 03:34:04 PM · #348 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The essay was asking for reasons we should sacrifice.
The #1 answer on his list was an appeal to authority. I believe I should sacrifice because someone who knows more than me says it's the right thing to do.
Questioning that authority, while completely valid, does not abrogate the logic of the argument, it just questions whether the person is trusting the correct authority (or whether the auhority figure even exists). Can you see the difference? The appeal to authority remains a logical, rational reason to sacrifice. The question becomes whether the authority know's what he's talking about or whether he's even there. |
Which makes the appeal moot, and which is the reason, in its entirety, why an appeal to authority is a fallacy in formal logic. You can never do it. In informal arguments you can, when you say, "Let's suppose expert A knows what he's talking about," and go from there. But if you switch to formal arguing, you could never say, "Expert A's opinion is the ultimate authority and can never be changed," because anything that Expert A says, no matter how illogical, must therefore be true, even if under any other syllogism, Expert A's statement would be shown to be illogical. Appeals to authority must always fail tests of logic for this reason. |
I think you have some valid points, but I don't think it is complete. His quote, "Just because some preacher or some book makes a claim does not mean that the claim is true." True. But it doesn't make it false either. It just makes it a claim. "I sacrifice because God tells me to and I trust God understands why I should sacrifice." is rational and good enough for some people (but not everybody of course). The author claims that line of argument "involves a logical fallacy" but I disagree at least on practical grounds. I understand, I think, what you mean in formal grounds. We are basically accepting "Sacrifice is good" as an axiom. That's not very exciting in the realm of logic because you are merely defining it as true. But on practical grounds we do this all the time because "authorities" tell us to. If your doctor tells you not to mix your viagra with your nitro, you don't need to understand the reason for it to be good for you to follow. If you trust your doctor, you do it anyway.
Maybe at the end of the day there are just some "why" questions I'm satisfied not to ask. (However, I did mention the "growth" reason so this may not completely be one of those times.) |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 03:34:46 PM · #349 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Except for genuinely deriving pleasure? |
Is not the deriving pleasure for the selfless deed the definition of altruism? |
I think some people are saying a truly altruistic act cannot benefit you at all, or at the least the cost is greater than the benefit.
Message edited by author 2008-12-12 15:35:16. |
|
|
|
12/12/2008 03:49:29 PM · #350 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Except for genuinely deriving pleasure? |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Is not the deriving pleasure for the selfless deed the definition of altruism? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think some people are saying a truly altruistic act cannot benefit you at all, or at the least the cost is greater than the benefit. |
So.....even if the deed is selfless, and it's a good thing whereby you gain nothing, if you are happy that you did something nice for someone else, then it's not altruism?
|
|
