Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-11-2013, 06:52 AM
Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
I notice a trend that everyone is guilty of. Including myself. We name the argument our opponent is making.

"That's a god of the gaps arguement."
"Well hello there, argument from ignorance, good to see you."
"That's an argument from authority"


The list goes on and on. Does naming an argument make it invalid? Why do we do this?

I do make arguments from authority when in am weak on the subject matter. When I speak of the Big Bang, I make the argument from authority, that authority being astrophysists. I have a greater than layman understanding of the Big Bang, but I don't intricately understand it. It's vastness and complexity is beyond my grasp. There are stupid people, average, smart, and then there is the intellectually elite. I am not a member of the elite. Mensa won't return my phone calls. Sad

Or when someone said it more eloquently than myself.
Christopher hitchens was tremendously intelligent. Dawkins, Hubble and a million other scientists.

Therefore - does identifying the argument make it somehow invalid? And if so, how? And on a philosophical level, isn't the "argument identification argument" just another form of argument in a long line of arguments?

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 07:01 AM
RE: Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
(19-11-2013 06:52 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I notice a trend that everyone is guilty of. Including myself. We name the argument our opponent is making.

"That's a god of the gaps arguement."
"Well hello there, argument from ignorance, good to see you."
"That's an argument from authority"


The list goes on and on. Does naming an argument make it invalid? Why do we do this?

I do make arguments from authority when in am weak on the subject matter. When I speak of the Big Bang, I make the argument from authority, that authority being astrophysists. I have a greater than layman understanding of the Big Bang, but I don't intricately understand it. It's vastness and complexity is beyond my grasp. There are stupid people, average, smart, and then there is the intellectually elite. I am not a member of the elite. Mensa won't return my phone calls. Sad

Or when someone said it more eloquently than myself.
Christopher hitchens was tremendously intelligent. Dawkins, Hubble and a million other scientists.

Therefore - does identifying the argument make it somehow invalid? And if so, how? And on a philosophical level, isn't the "argument identification argument" just another form of argument in a long line of arguments?

People refer to the names of arguments (Argument from Ignorance, for example) as it details what the argument encountered is; "Your argument is based entirely on ignorance." It is often, in my experience, a sign of exasperation: "Oh fucksakes, not the fucking God of The Gaps again!".

Naming an argument doesn't render it invalid, just as naming all the logical fallacies in an argument doesn't render it invalid (the Fallacy Fallacy), it is still on the head of the debater to disprove their opponent, but calling the fallacy or argument does help to demonstrate that the argument being addressed isn't exactly new.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 07:07 AM
RE: Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
(19-11-2013 06:52 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I notice a trend that everyone is guilty of. Including myself. We name the argument our opponent is making.

"That's a god of the gaps arguement."
"Well hello there, argument from ignorance, good to see you."
"That's an argument from authority"


The list goes on and on. Does naming an argument make it invalid? Why do we do this?

I do make arguments from authority when in am weak on the subject matter. When I speak of the Big Bang, I make the argument from authority, that authority being astrophysists. I have a greater than layman understanding of the Big Bang, but I don't intricately understand it. It's vastness and complexity is beyond my grasp. There are stupid people, average, smart, and then there is the intellectually elite. I am not a member of the elite. Mensa won't return my phone calls. Sad

Or when someone said it more eloquently than myself.
Christopher hitchens was tremendously intelligent. Dawkins, Hubble and a million other scientists.

Therefore - does identifying the argument make it somehow invalid? And if so, how? And on a philosophical level, isn't the "argument identification argument" just another form of argument in a long line of arguments?

No, naming is just pointing out the invalid argument. It was already invalid.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Chas's post
19-11-2013, 07:09 AM
RE: Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
(19-11-2013 07:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, naming is just pointing out the invalid argument. It was already invalid.

That's why we keep you around. Thumbsup

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 07:22 AM
RE: Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
(19-11-2013 07:01 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  Naming an argument doesn't render it invalid, just as naming all the logical fallacies in an argument doesn't render it invalid (the Fallacy Fallacy), it is still on the head of the debater to disprove their opponent, but calling the fallacy or argument does help to demonstrate that the argument being addressed isn't exactly new.

But nothing we say is new either. I mean come on - none of us are slated to win any peace prizes for coming out with something new.

They parrot what they hear, we parrot what we hear. Everytime we address the god of the gaps argument, we are using "nothing new" to address it either.

Someone told me I was using the same old atheist arguments. Yeah? Your point? Thy are using the same old Christian arguments. I parrot Hitchens, they parrot Craig.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 07:28 AM
RE: Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
(19-11-2013 07:22 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Yeah? Your point?

One point being (in an ideal case, anyway) is that pointing out logical fallacies within the argument aids the philosopher in reassessing and restructuring that argument.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like houseofcantor's post
19-11-2013, 07:52 AM
RE: Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
(19-11-2013 07:28 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(19-11-2013 07:22 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Yeah? Your point?

One point being (in an ideal case, anyway) is that pointing out logical fallacies within the argument aids the philosopher in reassessing and restructuring that argument.

I guess I just never see that actually happen.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 07:55 AM
RE: Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
(19-11-2013 07:22 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(19-11-2013 07:01 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  Naming an argument doesn't render it invalid, just as naming all the logical fallacies in an argument doesn't render it invalid (the Fallacy Fallacy), it is still on the head of the debater to disprove their opponent, but calling the fallacy or argument does help to demonstrate that the argument being addressed isn't exactly new.

But nothing we say is new either. I mean come on - none of us are slated to win any peace prizes for coming out with something new.

They parrot what they hear, we parrot what we hear. Everytime we address the god of the gaps argument, we are using "nothing new" to address it either.

Someone told me I was using the same old atheist arguments. Yeah? Your point? Thy are using the same old Christian arguments. I parrot Hitchens, they parrot Craig.

By "isn't exactly new" I meant to imply that the arguments are well known to be hackneyed and tired.

It is true that we rarely come up with new arguments, but I think I can justify that somewhat; change inspires change. Through humanities combined history, tactical advance is often made because of conflict; one group (the primary/the antagonist) makes a slight change, and a counter-change appears on the opposite side (the Secondary/ the defender). The problem, from my view, is that the Antagonists in our respect don't often make advancements in their tactics. This leads to our own stagnation as we effectively have nothing to build off of to make new advancements of our own, leading to what is effectively nothing more than slight change of old and already well countered arguments; the changes we see are from the base instead of the branch-argument so it is already covered by previously established counters.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 07:56 AM
RE: Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
(19-11-2013 07:52 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(19-11-2013 07:28 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  One point being (in an ideal case, anyway) is that pointing out logical fallacies within the argument aids the philosopher in reassessing and restructuring that argument.

I guess I just never see that actually happen.

That's because I already fixed my arguments. Smartass

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
19-11-2013, 08:22 AM
RE: Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
"That's a god of the gaps argument."
Every one should wear a dog shock collar for this one, comes free with a Heywood name tag

"Argument from ignorance,"
If you want to avoid Chippy's shock jocking, you better avoid this one

"That's an argument from authority"
This is just lazy, flinging shit to see what sticks.

There is no excuse for any of them , other than trolling or, a last ditch childish defiance before conceding.
or Chippy bait.

"I do make arguments from authority when in am weak on the subject matter".
Your definition is wrong, if you use reliable, relevant sources then its supporting your argument.
There is a line there, a douche( Fallacious appeal to authority) bell curve.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like sporehux's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: