|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 02/26/2006 : 20:07:47
|
I'm bringing this topic up here because we cite logical fallacies so often and because of a brief exchange with Halfmooner in the Roe v. Wade discussion. Half said, “Most of my life, it seems, I've been using too many fallacies, as I suspect most other people do.”
Why is it that it is so much easier for the average person to commit logical fallacies than it is to not do so? The easy answer is, perhaps, that emotion interferes. However, I think it is more than that. For instance, when I first read a good list of logical fallacies, I remember thinking that many things which are technically fallacies are in fact useful for getting to the truth. For example: appeal to authority. Most of us have done this in debates with Creationists by appealing to the authority of scientists. We do this because in general we feel we have good reason to trust the world of scientific study. It is not something based on blind faith, it is something based on each of our personal experiences that has lead to an intuitive sense for what is bullshit and what is sound. People who tend not to trust scientists also often tend not to know much about scientists.
I've been thinking on this topic a lot lately for a couple reasons. First, at one of my Humanist group meetings, a nice, intelligent man strongly expressed the opinion that science should be strictly applied to all fields of study and that, in fact, scientific method was the only way to obtain knowledge. I disagreed, suggesting that not only scientific approaches are utilized in the field of history, and for good reason. He continued to defend his position, and we both went away from each other politely agreeing to disagree.
I've been reading the book “The Culture We Deserve” by the historian Jacques Barzun, and he writes a lot about the misapplication of science to humanities, and the overapplication of science to soft sciences. He argues that the success of science after Darwin's theory caused all of academia to jump on the science band wagon, even when it wasn't useful or appropriate. When I had the discussion with a man in my Humanist group, I didn't have a well-spelled-out answer when he asked what were other methods for getting to truth that are not the scientific method. But Barzun writes clearly of one called “intuitive understanding”: quote:
It does not analyze, does not break things down into parts, but seizes upon the character of the whole altogether, by inspection. Since in this kind of survery there are no definable parts, there is nothing to count and there are no fixed principles to apply. The understanding derived from the experience is direct, and because it lacks definitions, principles, and numbers, this understanding is not readily conveyed to somebody else; it can only be suggested in words that offer analogies –by imagery. Hence no universal agreement is possible on these objects and their significance. (page 11 and 12)
So to sum up, what I'm saying is that the "limits of logic" are practical limits caused by the limitations of the human mind, experience, and knowledge.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
Edited by - marfknox on 02/26/2006 20:10:46
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2006 : 21:14:01 [Permalink]
|
One thing. My understanding of “appeal to authority” is when we appeal to a person who happens to be an authority in a particular field of study but not the one being discussed and so can not really speak from authority on the subject. Or, a chosen quote from an authority is old, and newer evidence suggests that the quote has no relevance anymore, no matter how great the authority was at the time of the statement. Quote mining or changing the context of a quote is also an "appeal to authority" as well as a lie.
I think that sourcing and quoting an expert in the field relevant to the debate is not committing the fallicy of “an appeal to authority” as long as we are careful not to misrepresent the quote and that it accurately represents (at least one side of the) current thinking on the subject being debated.
I suspect “Cherry Picking” is our greatest temptation when looking for sources and I suspect we all do it to one degree or another…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2006 : 21:56:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
For instance, when I first read a good list of logical fallacies, I remember thinking that many things which are technically fallacies are in fact useful for getting to the truth. For example: appeal to authority. Most of us have done this in debates with Creationists by appealing to the authority of scientists. We do this because in general we feel we have good reason to trust the world of scientific study. It is not something based on blind faith, it is something based on each of our personal experiences that has lead to an intuitive sense for what is bullshit and what is sound. People who tend not to trust scientists also often tend not to know much about scientists.
As Kil said, the vast majority of fallacious arguments from authority are fallacious because the authority in question isn't an authority in the correct field of study. For example, neither of Linus Paulings two Nobel Prizes were for his work with vitamin C and human disease, so anyone claiming that he was right about vitamin C because he was a double Nobel laureate is making a fallacious appeal to authority.
Similarly, any appeal to authority which takes the form of "person X is correct because person X is a leading scientist in the field" can be shown to be on shaky ground simply by citing authorities who, in their own field of expertise, went way beyond what the evidence suggested and ended up looking the fool. There should be better evidence than "person X said it, so I believe it," for example the vast consensus of scientists within the same field.
Similarly, any appeal to authority which relies on a person who appears to be an authority but really isn't (like "doctor" Kent Hovind) can be fallacious.
The point is that logical fallacies are only logical fallacies when one can show why they rely on fallacious logic.
For example, take the "argument from ignorance." Obviously, "we don't know every evolutionary step, therefore God did it" rings hollow when it comes from the likes of Intelligent Design proponents, but "we don't know what this drug will do, so let's not test it on humans" is a perfectly reasonable argument from ignorance.
To sum up, whether most of the "logical fallacies" are actually fallacious or not depends a lot on their contexts. Some, like "assuming the consequent," always represent faultly argumentation, but many are perfectly viable logical constructs when applied properly.
quote:
I've been thinking on this topic a lot lately for a couple reasons. First, at one of my Humanist group meetings, a nice, intelligent man strongly expressed the opinion that science should be strictly applied to all fields of study and that, in fact, scientific method was the only way to obtain knowledge. I disagreed, suggesting that not only scientific approaches are utilized in the field of history, and for good reason. He continued to defend his position, and we both went away from each other politely agreeing to disagree.
I've been reading the book “The Culture We Deserve” by the historian Jacques Barzun, and he writes a lot about the misapplication of science to humanities, and the overapplication of science to soft sciences. He argues that the success of science after Darwin's theory caused all of academia to jump on the science band wagon, even when it wasn't useful or appropriate.
What you're describing is what I've referred to here (in other threads) as "scientism," or the belief that science can answer any question posed, given enough time |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2006 : 21:58:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
For example: appeal to authority. Most of us have done this in debates with Creationists by appealing to the authority of scientists.
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy only when you appeal to an authority who isn't qualified to speak to the subject.
For example: Citing Tom Cruise when you call all of psychiatric medicine bullshit.
If I cite Ken Miller concerning cellular biology, it is not a logical fallacy.
quote:
I didn't have a well-spelled-out answer when he asked what were other methods for getting to truth that are not the scientific method. But Barzun writes clearly of one called “intuitive understanding”:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It does not analyze, does not break things down into parts, but seizes upon the character of the whole altogether, by inspection. Since in this kind of survery there are no definable parts, there is nothing to count and there are no fixed principles to apply. The understanding derived from the experience is direct, and because it lacks definitions, principles, and numbers, this understanding is not readily conveyed to somebody else; it can only be suggested in words that offer analogies –by imagery. Hence no universal agreement is possible on these objects and their significance. (page 11 and 12)
A better question for your humanist friend to have asked, perhaps, would have been: "What other way, than the scientific method, is there to determine objective truth?"
"intuitive understanding" seems fairly useless for that.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2006 : 22:28:40 [Permalink]
|
I believe that most of the fallacies that are used in rhetoric are used simply because they do appear legitimate to readers and audiences.
In general, we use many of these all the time, usually without problems, such as the "appeal to authority" which you mentioned, marfknox. When sick, we appeal to the authority of a physician, putting our lives in his or her hands, and crossing our fingers. Likewise, the "slippery slope" can be a useful analogy, rather than a fallacy. There must be dozens of such examples. We all know of people who both are drug addicts, and also lie habitually. We tend not to trust the word of a known addict, even though we have no direct reason to think he's a liar. That's a sort of "ad hoc ad hominem" reflex that probably is more often useful than harmful in the real world. But it's also rather stereotypical thinking, which is its inherent danger.
So, my idea is that a dishonest debater, or one with a weak case, may seize upon mental techniques that people commonly have in their mental armories, then twist those techniques, making a fallacies out of them in the process. The appeal to authority, as Kil mentioned, is twisted into a false appeal, as in citing the Pope's pronouncements when discussing abortion law. Instead of discussing, say, the "slippery slope" of theocracy, we are instead presented with a distracting "slope," one intended to shock us by the false implication that allowing the abortion of a fertilized egg would logically conclude by justifying the murder of one's toddlers. Instead of arguing an opponent both neds to and has not proved his case against a Creator, the opponent is simply dismissed, along with science itself, as "atheistic." In the appeal to authority arena, Creationists sometime cite, as if they were "scientific experts," people with "Doctor" in front of their names, despite the fact these doctorates may be in religion, or from mail-order diploma mills.
So in my thinking, the "fallacy" come in when our existing rough-and-ready, rule-of-thumb thinking techniques are deliberately hijacked by dishonest debaters.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/26/2006 22:37:03 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 01:27:41 [Permalink]
|
Wow! Lots of responses pretty quickly. Glad this is an interesting topic.
Kil wrote:quote:
One thing. My understanding of “appeal to authority” is when we appeal to a person who happens to be an authority in a particular field of study but not the one being discussed and so can not really speak from authority on the subject. Or, a chosen quote from an authority is old, and newer evidence suggests that the quote has no relevance anymore, no matter how great the authority was at the time of the statement. Quote mining or changing the context of a quote is also an "appeal to authority" as well as a lie.
There is also just saying that an authority is right because of their authority, while not bringing up the details of their argument. For example, saying “Evolution is a fact because it is accepted by all credible biologists.” The right argument would be “Evolution is a fact because of all the evidence (and then one would have to name all the evidence) and that is also why evolution is accepted by all credible biologists.”
The problem comes in when someone is either not intelligent enough to understand all the evidence, or just doesn't have the time in their life to properly do all the necessary research to come to a conclusion on their own. Then they tend to side with experts, and often rightly so (such as when we trust doctors), because there is no better alternative given that person's specific situation. This is the same as the usefullness so well articulated by Halfmooner.
Dave W. wrote: quote:
To sum up, whether most of the "logical fallacies" are actually fallacious or not depends a lot on their contexts. Some, like "assuming the consequent," always represent faultly argumentation, but many are perfectly viable logical constructs when applied properly.
A good point. That's the problem I originally had when skeptics starting re-directing me to simplistic list of fallacies. Understanding logical fallacies is difficult and even counter-intuitive for many people. Often it is less confusing to just spell out in plainer language why an argument is fallacious rather than labeling it “straw man” or “slippery slope”. I've misused logical fallacies and I've seen other people do it. Sometimes it feels like even though the listings are helping, the rhetoric can get in the way of better communication. This, of course, isn't a problem with the logic itself, just with the way that people understand it and try to implement it.
quote:
What you're describing is what I've referred to here (in other threads) as "scientism," or the belief that science can answer any question posed, given enough time and resources.
Barzun doesn't use that word, but I'm familiar with that term and I think it does fit.
quote:
I would not, however, go so far as to put "intuitive understanding" anywhere close to the same usefulness as science in terms of moving us towards an objective truth.
Oh, I absolutely agree! I didn't mean to downgrade science's position as the best tool we have for understanding objective reality. Perhaps at some point in the distant future we'll actually be able to deal with the complexities of history and the soft sciences in a completely scientific wa |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/27/2006 01:31:56 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 02:29:54 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
Intuitive understanding may be problematic (in comparison with scientific method) because it is not universal, but it has often proven useful in the search for objective truth.
Er....?
This: quote:
this understanding is not readily conveyed to somebody else; it can only be suggested in words that offer analogies –by imagery. Hence no universal agreement is possible on these objects and their significance. (page 11 and 12)
Is not anything like a "hunch". And obviously nothing objective.
I'll agree that human intuition, which is often just our brain putting together several pieces of a puzzle and discerning a pattern (something the human brain does exceedingly well), is very usefull.
But "intuitive understanding", as described, is useless for determining objective truths. The definition you quoted seems fairly clear on that part.
quote:
There is also just saying that an authority is right because of their authority, while not bringing up the details of their argument. For example, saying “Evolution is a fact because it is accepted by all credible biologists.” The right argument would be “Evolution is a fact because of all the evidence (and then one would have to name all the evidence) and that is also why evolution is accepted by all credible biologists.”
Stating somehting is a fact because an authority (or group) accepts it, is indeed a fallacy of logic.
To borrow from your example:
“Evolution is a fact because it is accepted by all credible biologists.” Is a logical fallacy.
"All credible biologists accept evolution as a fact." Is not a fallacy of logic.
quote:
Sometimes it feels like even though the listings are helping, the rhetoric can get in the way of better communication. This, of course, isn't a problem with the logic itself, just with the way that people understand it and try to implement it.
Basic critical thinking skills should be mandatory in our public school system.
It is easier to link to a good explanation of logical fallacies than it is to explain them. There are very good resources out there that can provide all the info you need to learn about the most common 20 ro so fallacies. www.skepdic.com is great.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 02:38:09 [Permalink]
|
Recycling part of a post I made over a year agoquote:
An other thing.
A common misunderstanding (not just by you) is that appeal to authority always is a false argument. This is not true. The experts in a field are usually right on questions regarding their field.
This doesn't mean that they always are right, but it could still be a valid argument, if not so strong.
It is appeal to false authority that is fallacious.
Examples: The authority speaks outside his field (Dr Sarfati on anything other than superconductor chemistry).
The experts are divided on the subject or the referred authority holds a minority view (Dr. Alan Feduccia on bird evolution).
The expert was joking (Sen. John Glens appearance on the Frasier show).
Sometimes the false authority can be correct, but to appeal to them as authorities is fallacious.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 04:01:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I believe that most of the fallacies that are used in rhetoric are used simply because they do appear legitimate to readers and audiences.
The use of logical fallacies are separate from rhetoric.
Rhetoric is simply the art of convincing your audience that you are right. As such, it is a double-edged sword: it does not matter if what is said is true or false, or perhaps more importantly a matter of perspective. To make your opponent see from your perspective.
Rhetoric works best in spoken word, where your audience is not given time to analyse your message. Thus, logical fallacies can very effectively be deployed. Just look at any Kent Hovind lecture.
But when it comes to written fora, the reader can now analyse the message and thus will be able to identify logical fallacies, and double check statements of fact. This is the reason why you will never ever get Kent Hovind to agree to a written debate. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 14:32:12 [Permalink]
|
I've always had a problem with the way Rhetoric, or, as it is called in US public schools, Speech, is taught. In teaching the subject, a deliberate effort is made to separate truth from expression.
Being convincing, not being right, is what's taught. For instance, students are routinely assigned positions on topics at random, either pro or con. This seems to me to be teaching a habit of ignoring ethics and truth.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/27/2006 14:32:49 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 14:50:27 [Permalink]
|
In response to Dude: quote:
marfknox said:
quote:
Intuitive understanding may be problematic (in comparison with scientific method) because it is not universal, but it has often proven useful in the search for objective truth.
Er....?
This:
quote:
this understanding is not readily conveyed to somebody else; it can only be suggested in words that offer analogies –by imagery. Hence no universal agreement is possible on these objects and their significance. (page 11 and 12)
Is not anything like a "hunch". And obviously nothing objective.
What I said does not contradict the Barzun quote. Someone can have an intuitive understand about something that is part of objective reality – whether right or wrong, they are making an objective claim. When Barzun says that no universal agreement is possible, he is speaking of subjects where science cannot come in and confirm anything. What Barzun is saying is that even though intuition is inferior to science, sometimes we can't apply science, and so we must turn to intuitive understandings to do our best to come up with what we think might be objective truth regarding history and many aspects of the soft sciences.
quote:
I'll agree that human intuition, which is often just our brain putting together several pieces of a puzzle and discerning a pattern (something the human brain does exceedingly well), is very usefull.
But "intuitive understanding", as described, is useless for determining objective truths. The definition you quoted seems fairly clear on that part.
Because the method of intuition is not objective or universal, it cannot be used to confirm its own conclusions. Science is superior in this way. But intuition is applied to the discovery of objective truths, and again, it has shown (as proven by science confirming enough intuitive claims) to be more useful in the discovery of objective truths than mere chance. Thus it is useful for discovering objective truths. Doesn't mean it is right all the time or that it doesn't need science to confirm its conclusions. Just that it is useful.
I absolutely agree with you that students should be taught how to properly understand logical fallacies in school. Our public schools are still strikingly poor in the realm of developing critical thinking skills, and there seem to be few pushes to change things in that direction.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
