| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/17/2010 12:15:34 AM · #226 |
Thanks for the links Bear. Those were two good articles. A bit to chew on all sides.
I'd like to present a piece of parody:
Shane: We should ban brussel sprouts because nobody in their right mind likes brussel sprouts. I hate them.
Abby: I like brussel sprouts.
Shane: No, you don't. You only say that because your parents brainwashed you by making you eat them and telling you it was good for you.
Abby: No, really. I like them. Here, let me show you. (eats brussel sprout)
Shane: Good gracious! Your case is worse than I feared. Now you have really shown you cannot make sound judgements for yourself!
Abby: Why? I like them. Here, you try one...
Shane (in horror): Get away! I feel so sorry for you. Your mind has been so warped that you feel compelled to share your delusions with others!
Abby: What can I say to prove I like brussel sprouts?
Shane: Nothing. I already know you don't like them.
Abby: Whatever...
Message edited by author 2010-09-17 00:16:43. |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 02:00:21 AM · #227 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Shane: We should ban brussel sprouts because nobody in their right mind likes brussel sprouts... |
Here we see an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy used to reverse the logic of your argument. To quote Stryker, "If you go down this road, you're not going to like what you find."
Message edited by author 2010-09-17 02:07:36. |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 09:31:31 AM · #228 |
As with many of these arguments, there is no absolutely right answer because the ban on face veils in France law draws a line on a scale of matters of religious expression that stretches between the clearly unacceptable to the clearly acceptable.
Clearly unacceptable matters include stoning, corporal punishment and law-making solely on arbitrary religious grounds. Not many people would defend the religious freedom of Christians who want to stone adulterers.
Other practices that might be seen as being more personal but still objectionable include female circumcision – banned in most parts of the world for clear moral and ethical reasons regardless of personal choice or socio-religious justification.
The wearing of face veils is potentially open to abuse and is socially undesirable and the view may be taken that the public interest in protecting unwilling participants and establishing a more permissive culture outweighs the interests of those people who would normally choose to adopt it. This is a matter of balance – not a black and white issue and different places may adopt different stances without being fundamentally right or wrong to do so.
There are other areas of balance – for example around the legality of inciting religious hatred. This is a crime in many parts of the world but permitted in the US where greater emphasis is placed on free speech, tipping the balance.
Attending religious ceremonies is perhaps at the other end of the scale – clearly a matter of personal choice and a freedom to be protected.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2010 11:27:48 AM · #229 |
| A reasonable position Matthew. Of course the challenge comes in deciding what falls where and in who gets to make that decision. |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 11:39:50 AM · #230 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Shane: We should ban brussel sprouts because nobody in their right mind likes brussel sprouts... |
Here we see an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy used to reverse the logic of your argument. To quote Stryker, "If you go down this road, you're not going to like what you find." |
I think you miss the point sir. The point is merely that a) one looks arrogant to presume their opinion is more valid than the person in question and b) what proof could be offered to show that they really did approve of the activity in question? All attestations in the affirmative would be dismissed as symptoms of the disease (as Kelli did in her post). |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 12:34:18 PM · #231 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The point is merely that a) one looks arrogant to presume their opinion is more valid than the person in question and b) what proof could be offered to show that they really did approve of the activity in question? |
Yanko never returned to confirm what he was asking you to prove in the other thread. I suspect he misstated and was asking for proof of the belief, not proof that you believe it (I certainly was). An opinion based on reason IS more valid than one based on fallacious rationalization. For example, you may point to a quote of Ben Franklin as evidence that he personally believed supernatural miracles occur because his saying so is enough to show that he believed it, but it's not evidence that supernatural miracles are real. Rationalizations may be sufficient to convince yourself of a belief, but it isn't necessarily compelling to anyone else as demonstrated by this "hypothetical" exchange:
Arguenaut: As a muslim, I believe the supernatural Allah wants women to wear burkas because the Koran says so.
Wikimon: Tautology. The Koran is not evidence that Allah actually exists, let alone what He might want just because it says so.
Arguenaut: That's not a tautology. Lots of muslims believe it.
Wikimon: Here's a link to the definition of tautology, and claiming that lots of people believe something is an argumentum ad populum fallacy.
Arguenaut: I'm not saying it's proof for other people. I'm saying it's proof that muslims believe it.
Wikimon: Fallacy of overwhelming exception/hasty generalization. Large groups of muslims have created different interpretations of the Koran and taken opposing positions on many of its guidelines precisely because they DON'T all believe the same thing (including the requirement for burqas). Sunnis and Shiites have been warring for centuries over the differences.
Arguenaut: Hey everybody... Wikimon says muslims don't believe the Koran!
Wikimon: Here's a link to a Koran used by someone you insist is a muslim that contains no mention of burkas or anything supernatural. Do muslims universally believe it?
Arguenaut: Hey, just because some muslims don't all believe the same thing doesn't mean they don't all believe the same thing. Wait... are you now acknowledging that this person believed in the supernatural? Getting back to our discussion of Kareem Abdul Jabbar, here's another quote from Paula Abdulâ€Â¦, and furthermore I haven't seen any muslims question pages 24-26.
Wikimon: Yes it does, no he didn't, you're quoting the wrong person, argument from ignorance, etc.
Arguenaut: ...
Message edited by author 2010-09-17 12:36:10. |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 12:45:11 PM · #232 |
| Jason and the Arguenauts -- I can't wait to see the film! |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 12:46:22 PM · #233 |
But, but... Shannon... The debate isn't about whether the Koran requires Burqas or not. The debate is about whether or not it's advisable to ban an item of clothing because of what it symbolizes in some peoples' eyes.
There's a fallacy in the argument you keep foisting here, but I'm not as erudite and well-schooled as you are, and I can't pinpoint it with such elegant names. I just call it the "Big Box Fallacy" (i.e. bait & switch tactic).
R.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2010 12:48:20 PM · #234 |
I don't even know where to go with that.
I would be interested in Shannon's argument that equality of the sexes is a fundamental right without resorting to what he defines as a tautology.
What authority is this claim rooted in? and what do you make of the fact that large groups of people have interpreted otherwise? In fact, inequality of the sexes is historically more the norm than egalitarianism.
Message edited by author 2010-09-17 12:51:49. |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 12:59:35 PM · #235 |
| Some folks sure have a lot of time to shake the big box, take a dump in it to stink it up, and pull out a rabbit, expecting us to believe the rabbit was really a turd that had transformed simply by them shaking the box and uttering a bunch of seldom used words. I kind of look forward to seeing the movie too but I'm afraid there will be more sequels than I will live to see. |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 01:33:10 PM · #236 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But, but... Shannon... The debate isn't about whether the Koran requires Burqas or not. |
Robert, it was not a serious comment on this thread topic (no Koran actually mentions burqas). It was a "parody" of some hypothetical person proving he believes a religious tenet. It doesn't really matter what the particular belief is. I only used "belief that the Koran requires burqas" to stay at least somewhat on topic. You could substitute "belief that deeds do/n't" matter or"belief in resurrection" and continue on from there. |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 01:34:14 PM · #237 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Jason and the Arguenauts -- I can't wait to see the film! |
I was wondering if anyone would catch that. ;-) |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 01:45:23 PM · #238 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Jason and the Arguenauts -- I can't wait to see the film! |
ROFLMAO! ;D |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 01:49:51 PM · #239 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Shane: We should ban brussel sprouts because nobody in their right mind likes brussel sprouts... |
Here we see an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy used to reverse the logic of your argument. To quote Stryker, "If you go down this road, you're not going to like what you find." |
I think you miss the point sir. The point is merely that a) one looks arrogant to presume their opinion is more valid than the person in question and b) what proof could be offered to show that they really did approve of the activity in question? All attestations in the affirmative would be dismissed as symptoms of the disease (as Kelli did in her post). |
Is that what I did? This is why I hate posting in these threads. I give my lowly uneducated opinions and/or real world experiences, and people with doctorates put me in my place. |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 02:17:13 PM · #240 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Is that what I did? This is why I hate posting in these threads. I give my lowly uneducated opinions and/or real world experiences, and people with doctorates put me in my place. |
Don't feel bad. I really didn't mean to pick on you, I mean rather to address the argument. It's doubtful your opinion is either lowly or uneducated. |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 02:37:24 PM · #241 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I would be interested in Shannon's argument that equality of the sexes is a fundamental right without resorting to what he defines as a tautology. |
Okey dokey. I would prefer to see people treated equally regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation or nationality out of personal empathy and human decency. In other words: fairness. There is strong scientific evidence that a sense of fairness is both socially beneficial and biological in nature as toddlers and monkeys have demonstrated the ability to recognize an unfair situation, so no external authority is necessary to know that I wouldn't want to be treated as inferior. The question, then, is really why WOULDN'T we treat others as equals? I believe that the natural sense of fairness and empathy that motivates humans to help others tends to be overridden by a stronger natural desire to improve one's own situation- personal survival- and that leads to justification for subjugating others. The people we least identify with as "like ourselves" are the easiest to rationalize as inferior, so obvious differences like race and gender are always the first targets for discrimination by the more powerful group. The relatively recent development of civilization has allowed us the luxury to relax concerns of personal survival and start questioning those traditional justifications for discrimination that we've grown up believing make other groups less worthy of our innate fairness (including the very idea of basic human rights). The old barriers slowly fall and we again recognize former "inferiors" as very much like ourselves. Concepts of equality that were once considered outrageous become so obviously natural that it makes us wonder how our ancestors could have thought otherwise. Much of this is personal opinion, of course, but feel free to point out fallacies in my reasoning.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
what do you make of the fact that large groups of people have interpreted otherwise? In fact, inequality of the sexes is historically more the norm than egalitarianism. |
Nothing (argumentum ad populum and historian's fallacy). Large groups of people have also interpreted slavery as permissible and historically practiced it for longer than racial equality. |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 02:52:36 PM · #242 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But, but... Shannon... The debate isn't about whether the Koran requires Burqas or not. |
Robert, it was not a serious comment on this thread topic (no Koran actually mentions burqas). It was a "parody" of some hypothetical person proving he believes a religious tenet. It doesn't really matter what the particular belief is. I only used "belief that the Koran requires burqas" to stay at least somewhat on topic. You could substitute "belief that deeds do/n't" matter or"belief in resurrection" and continue on from there. |
You're still not taking my point; your tongue-in-cheek hypothetical is constructed around inconsistent interpretations of the Koran. As such, it might have some validity as commentary upon the fallacies of taking holy writ as received truth, but it's irrelevant to the issue of whether or not a democratic nation's lawmakers are well-advised to ban symbolic manifestations of presumptively immoral behavior.
It seems to me you want to have it both ways, Shannon: you want to define a set of attitudes which any intelligent being would accept as self-evident, and you want to deny the intelligence of anyone who believes otherwise. In short, Shannon, it seems to me that when we peel the gloss of jargon off of your pronouncements, we can see that in your interchanges in these forums you are DPC's leading abuser of the No Real Scotsman fallacy.
R. |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 03:12:01 PM · #243 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I would be interested in Shannon's argument that equality of the sexes is a fundamental right without resorting to what he defines as a tautology. |
Okey dokey. I would prefer to see people treated equally regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation or nationality out of personal empathy and human decency. In other words: fairness. There is strong scientific evidence that a sense of fairness is both socially beneficial and biological in nature as toddlers and monkeys have demonstrated the ability to recognize an unfair situation, so no external authority is necessary to know that I wouldn't want to be treated as inferior. The question, then, is really why WOULDN'T we treat others as equals? I believe that the natural sense of fairness and empathy that motivates humans to help others tends to be overridden by a stronger natural desire to improve one's own situation- personal survival- and that leads to justification for subjugating others. The people we least identify with as "like ourselves" are the easiest to rationalize as inferior, so obvious differences like race and gender are always the first targets for discrimination by the more powerful group. The relatively recent development of civilization has allowed us the luxury to relax concerns of personal survival and start questioning those traditional justifications for discrimination that we've grown up believing make other groups less worthy of our innate fairness (including the very idea of basic human rights). The old barriers slowly fall and we again recognize former "inferiors" as very much like ourselves. Concepts of equality that were once considered outrageous become so obviously natural that it makes us wonder how our ancestors could have thought otherwise. Much of this is personal opinion, of course, but feel free to point out fallacies in my reasoning.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
what do you make of the fact that large groups of people have interpreted otherwise? In fact, inequality of the sexes is historically more the norm than egalitarianism. |
Nothing (argumentum ad populum and historian's fallacy). Large groups of people have also interpreted slavery as permissible and historically practiced it for longer than racial equality. |
Sorry Shannon. That doesn't cut it. You are saying your argument is valid because monkeys show a sense of fairness (the study which I have discounted many times on these threads and which other studies have found contradictory evidence)? What about the alpha male lion who has sex with all the females in the pride rather than other males getting a chance? Fair? Should we take moral lessons from that biological example?
Fairness is socially beneficial. What is the definition of "socially beneficial"? That which is fair. Circular argument. Is taxing the rich at a higher rate "fair"? Is it socially beneficial?
Do most scientists consider fairness to be represented in genetics? If so, I'll just declare argumentum ad populum as if that makes it suddenly wrong. Is there a disparity in opinion? I'll use that to say your opinion is wrong because people disagree with it.
You see how silly this is?
Message edited by author 2010-09-17 15:13:50. |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 03:13:15 PM · #244 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
your tongue-in-cheek hypothetical is constructed around inconsistent interpretations of the Koran. As such, it might have some validity as commentary upon the fallacies of taking holy writ as received truth, but it's irrelevant to the issue of whether or not a democratic nation's lawmakers are well-advised to ban symbolic manifestations of presumptively immoral behavior. |
YES! I agree wholeheartedly. You are 100% correct... "As a muslim, I believe the supernatural Allah wants women to wear burkas because the Koran says so," is a fallacious argument based on inconsistent interpretations that are irrelevant in terms of objective decisions... exactly like the contention it parodied: "I believe that the Christian faith teaches that motivation is more important than the deed when considering the "righteousness" of an action." It has nothing whatsoever to do with the earlier conversation on burqas in this thread. |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 03:47:35 PM · #245 |
Just so we can stomp down the monkey experiment again, I'll quote from 2008. These are the same people that did the capuchin study that purportedly showed aversion to inequality.
Brosnan et al. (Brosnan, S. F. Schiff, H. C. & de Waal, F. B. M. 2005 Tolerance for inequity may increase with social closeness in chimpanzees. Proc. R. Soc. B272, 253–258) found that chimpanzees showed increased levels of rejection for less-preferred food when competitors received better food than themselves and postulated as an explanation inequity aversion. In the present study, we extended these findings by adding important control conditions, and we investigated whether inequity aversion could also be found in the other great ape species and whether it would be influenced by subjects' relationship with the competitor. In the present study, subjects showed a pattern of food rejection opposite to the subjects of the above study by Brosnan et al. (2005). Our apes ignored fewer food pieces and stayed longer in front of the experimenter when a conspecific received better food than themselves. Moreover, chimpanzees begged more vigorously when the conspecific got favoured food. The most plausible explanation for these results is the food expectation hypothesis—seeing another individual receive high-quality food creates the expectation of receiving the same food oneself—and not inequity aversion.
D'oh! So much for "strong scientific evidence" |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 03:57:00 PM · #246 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I would be interested in Shannon's argument that equality of the sexes is a fundamental right without resorting to what he defines as a tautology. |
Okey dokey. I would prefer to see people treated equally regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation or nationality out of personal empathy and human decency. In other words: fairness. There is strong scientific evidence that a sense of fairness is both socially beneficial and biological in nature as toddlers and monkeys have demonstrated the ability to recognize an unfair situation, so no external authority is necessary to know that I wouldn't want to be treated as inferior. The question, then, is really why WOULDN'T we treat others as equals? I believe that the natural sense of fairness and empathy that motivates humans to help others tends to be overridden by a stronger natural desire to improve one's own situation- personal survival- and that leads to justification for subjugating others. The people we least identify with as "like ourselves" are the easiest to rationalize as inferior, so obvious differences like race and gender are always the first targets for discrimination by the more powerful group. The relatively recent development of civilization has allowed us the luxury to relax concerns of personal survival and start questioning those traditional justifications for discrimination that we've grown up believing make other groups less worthy of our innate fairness (including the very idea of basic human rights). The old barriers slowly fall and we again recognize former "inferiors" as very much like ourselves. Concepts of equality that were once considered outrageous become so obviously natural that it makes us wonder how our ancestors could have thought otherwise. Much of this is personal opinion, of course, but feel free to point out fallacies in my reasoning.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
what do you make of the fact that large groups of people have interpreted otherwise? In fact, inequality of the sexes is historically more the norm than egalitarianism. |
Nothing (argumentum ad populum and historian's fallacy). Large groups of people have also interpreted slavery as permissible and historically practiced it for longer than racial equality. |
Well stated. |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 04:03:20 PM · #247 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
what do you make of the fact that large groups of people have interpreted otherwise? In fact, inequality of the sexes is historically more the norm than egalitarianism. |
Nothing (argumentum ad populum and historian's fallacy). Large groups of people have also interpreted slavery as permissible and historically practiced it for longer than racial equality.
Well stated. |
You're missing the point Richard. The point is IF equality is founded in genetics, why do people tend to show inequality? They would have the same genetic makeup wouldn't they?
Did you catch the fallacy? At first he points to a genetic foundation for "fairness" (as evidenced by his faulty and contradicted monkey study) and considers this to be enough to discard the need for an "external authority". But in the very next sentence he talks about the "stronger natural desire to improve one's own situation". Isn't this genetic as well? How does one determine which is proper and which isn't? In fact, since the one desire is "stronger" by his own admission, why don't we consider "looking out for #1" to be of paramount importance?
It's a total house of cards.
Message edited by author 2010-09-17 16:03:55. |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 04:19:27 PM · #248 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are saying your argument is valid because monkeys show a sense of fairness (the study which I have discounted many times on these threads and which other studies have found contradictory evidence)? |
Umm, yeah. You've tried to rationalize the evidence away, but you didn't show any fallacy in the reasoning.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What about the alpha male lion who has sex with all the females in the pride rather than other males getting a chance? Fair? Should we take moral lessons from that biological example? |
Who said lions demonstrate a sense of fairness?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Fairness is socially beneficial. What is the definition of "socially beneficial"? That which is fair. Circular argument. |
That which is advantageous to the growth and continuation of society. Do I really need to explain why a fair and cooperative society has advantages over the 'every man for himself' model?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do most scientists consider fairness to be represented in genetics? If so, I'll just declare argumentum ad populum as if that makes it suddenly wrong. |
Straw man fallacy. Argumentum ad populum involves a confusion between the justification of a belief and its widespread acceptance by a given group of people. A religious belief may enjoy widespread acceptance, but generally no empirical justification. Pointing to scientific consensus would technically be an appeal to authority since the opinions are a reflection of empirical evidence. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true- only that it can't be wrong or subject to correction. In informal logic, the fact that a majority of experts in a given field believe X—for example, the fact that nearly all medical scientists think that HIV causes AIDS and reject AIDS denialism—makes it more reasonable for a person without knowledge in the field to believe X. The same principle does not hold for unsupported belief. The fact that a majority of Heaven's Gate members believed that a comet would take them to a new level of consciousness does NOT make it more reasonable for a person without knowledge in Heaven's Gate to believe it. |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 04:27:11 PM · #249 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are saying your argument is valid because monkeys show a sense of fairness (the study which I have discounted many times on these threads and which other studies have found contradictory evidence)? |
Umm, yeah. You've tried to rationalize the evidence away, but you didn't show any fallacy in the reasoning. |
Of course I did. On two fronts.
1) The study was flawed and not reproducible when bether methodology was used.
2) If you are allowed to cherry pick data you can show anything you want. If the grounding of fairness is genetic, then wouldn't examples of inequality also ground unfairness in genetics? How do we accept one over the other? |
|
|
|
09/17/2010 04:41:09 PM · #250 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The point is IF equality is founded in genetics, why do people tend to show inequality?
At first he points to a genetic foundation for "fairness"... in the very next sentence he talks about the "stronger natural desire to improve one's own situation". |
That's why.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
They would have the same genetic makeup wouldn't they? |
All genetic tendencies are not equally strong. Left handedness is not as imperative as self-preservation, so if a southpaw's life depends on writing with his right hand, he probably will.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How does one determine which is proper and which isn't? |
Debate the relative merits. You seem to be looking for some universal absolute authority for morality, but it doesn't exist. Heeding the supposed word of a god is obedience, not morality. If you think god wants you to stone adulterers to death, you would be compelled to do so to be moral. The fact that we find this practice abhorrent demonstrates that morality comes from somewhere else. |
|
