Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-11-2013, 12:38 PM
RE: Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
(19-11-2013 08:22 AM)sporehux Wrote:  "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.

And its proper name is "Fallacious appeal to MISLEADING authority", which should give a further clue to its nature.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 12:43 PM
RE: Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
(19-11-2013 11:08 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Another nice thing is it can lead to a quicker, and better analysis of an argument if the other person if familiar with the names as well. On another forum, someone made a God of the Gaps argument and I called him on it, and that got him to better state his stance. Of course, it can lead to bickering on whether or not the accusation is accurate (and sadly, it did in this case), but it's often the quickest way to get the other person to abandon or modify their argument.

Theists tend to be really bad about hanging on to their fallacious arguments after being called on them, and quibbling like hell over them. It's a problem of intellectual dishonesty. If they were to analyze their arguments and ferret out the fallacies they built them on, they wouldn't have any arguments left, period.

And then they would have to look at their beliefs objectively, and see that they are built on a house of cards, which they don't want to do because that would lead them to reject their beliefs, and their beliefs say that rejecting their beliefs for ANY reason is a Bad Thing.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 12:48 PM
RE: Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
(19-11-2013 11:32 AM)alpha male Wrote:  God of the gaps is simply a label applied to a particular argument, and so does not invalidate it.

As was already noted, a god-of-the-gaps argument is invalid already; pointing it out merely stops it dead in its tracks. Or should, if the person pandering it is intellectually honest, which he or she is likely not, because otherwise he/she wouldn't be using it. Usually it turns into a huge denialfest. Pages and pages of Dead Parrot/Black Knight tomfoolery.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 12:50 PM
RE: Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
(19-11-2013 11:41 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  If a person tries to validate something that is actually true but their arguments for that thing are bad arguments, then yes the person needs to know that their arguments aren't helping their case. If they can't create a foundation for what they want to prove is correct then that's on them.

By pointing out the flaws in their thinking, you are helping them to think more critically about WHY this is false and why it doesn't support their main goal.

...this presumes intellectual honesty on the part of the debater, which is sadly lacking among theists.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 12:54 PM
RE: Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
(19-11-2013 11:58 AM)Adrianime Wrote:  I find it pointless to argue in this manner personally. I prefer to treat the person I am having a conversation with as an individual who has their own thoughts. If you treat people like idiots just because they are using an argument you have heard before...I dunno I don't see it being very productive. I think the explanation is more important than the result.

That's great if the person you are conversing with is intellectually honest and willing to discard fallacious arguments.

But you are also adding another dimension here. Pointing out fallacious arguments is NOT "treating people like idiots". That can be done too, and should be reserved for one who, out of intellectual dishonesty, refuses to discard the fallacious arguments and/or refuses to acknowledge the fallacy, etc. Which you happen to see here a LOT, because of the problem that so many theists have of intellectual dishonesty.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
19-11-2013, 02:40 PM
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?

Well put. Ad populum for example, calls to question the validity of facts in evidence, and does not win an argument. Most people believe oaks take years, not days, to reach maturity--and they do. Most believe something factual here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 04:24 PM
RE: Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
(19-11-2013 12:54 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(19-11-2013 11:58 AM)Adrianime Wrote:  I find it pointless to argue in this manner personally. I prefer to treat the person I am having a conversation with as an individual who has their own thoughts. If you treat people like idiots just because they are using an argument you have heard before...I dunno I don't see it being very productive. I think the explanation is more important than the result.

That's great if the person you are conversing with is intellectually honest and willing to discard fallacious arguments.

But you are also adding another dimension here. Pointing out fallacious arguments is NOT "treating people like idiots". That can be done too, and should be reserved for one who, out of intellectual dishonesty, refuses to discard the fallacious arguments and/or refuses to acknowledge the fallacy, etc. Which you happen to see here a LOT, because of the problem that so many theists have of intellectual dishonesty.
True, it's not exactly treating them like idiots, but it seems to often be treating them with a lack of respect. If I'm talking to somebody I'm trying to understand them, not trying to prove them wrong. I give my perspective to see if they can understand or agree with it. If I say (in essence), "Oh, well that is the argument from ignorance therefore everything you said is completely useless." Then what am I accomplishing besides showing them that I don't even respect them enough to address their opinions as an individual? I would prefer to try to show them (or guide them to) why it is an argument from ignorance, rather than just telling them that it is. You don't even need to use the words "argument from ignorance" to get the idea across.

Anyways that's just my style. I prefer to come out of a conversation feeling like I could still be friends with a person despite our disagreements, and I don't think pointing out fallacies is a very good method of actual communication.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 06:03 PM
RE: Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
I think it depends on the context. Pointing out logical fallacies can ground a rational person and make them stop to consider that they might actually be guilty of the aforementioned logical fallacy in that particular case. It's a learning experience that they can use to become a better debater with.

But if you point out the logical fallacy of someone who isn't friendly with logic, it will just upset them. I guess they think something along the lines of: you are using your evil, weird rules against them and it doesn't have anything to do with what they are trying to say. (Please note that I am not condoning this behavior. I'm just pretty sure this is the way a lot of people view it.)

THIS USER IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. THANK YOU, AND HAVE A GREAT DAY! http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...a-few-days
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Cephalotus's post
19-11-2013, 07:28 PM
RE: Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
(19-11-2013 02:40 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(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?

Well put. Ad populum for example, calls to question the validity of facts in evidence, and does not win an argument. Most people believe oaks take years, not days, to reach maturity--and they do. Most believe something factual here.

When PJ tells me my post is "well put", it makes me hear the lambs...screaming.

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, 07:47 PM (This post was last modified: 19-11-2013 08:04 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
(19-11-2013 12:22 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(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.

"Guilty"? It's effective debate.

Quote:"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?

Naming an argument doesn't make it invalid, no. Identifying its fallacious nature can. You do have to be right, and you do have to be able to back up your assertion that the argument is fallacious.


Quote: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.

That's not an argument from authority. You might want to peruse the Fallacy Files.

I know what the arguments are. I was being purposely being vague for the sake of participation. But it is an argument from authority if I were to defer to hitchens. The fallacy being if hitchens said it, it must be true. Now, I love hitch, but we at least have to acknowledge that we all have the capacity and ability for error. Doctors can give bad medical guidance, lawyers can give bad legal advice.

The point of the post is that we constantly name arguments. Why must we do this?
When we attack someone's debating style, it's ironic, because attacking someone's debating style is form of debating style in itself.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: