When Debate Doesn't Make Sense

[_Mercury]

About your comment - perhaps you can tell me which sorts of beliefs can violate the rules of logic and still be true. I'm curious.

I should really have pointed out here that beliefs themselves cannot be said to violate the rules of logic. Only the arguments; bodies or sets of statements claimed to be evidentially related to premises, can violate the rules of logic. When we critique a belief philosophically, unless it is demonstrably false on its face (Pyramids on Mars), we critique the arguments used to support the belief, not the belief as a whole.

We may attack the belief as a whole in the sense of deploying general statements or explanations against it, and these may be very effective for our purpose, but this is not logical argument per se

If I BELIEVE in a flying spaghetti monster, that belief is unsound, IE it is an illogical belief just as those hopped up on LSD have illogical beliefs about their environment, etc. A belief can be illogical.

[_Some Schmo]

Off the top of my head, I might say there are two primary constraints which our beliefs must conform to, if they are to have any chance of being true: one constraint is logic, the other is evidence.

Interesting point. Please provide evidence of its truth. I think it is accepted as a matter of course in epistemology that certain kinds of beliefs are warranted absent evidence. You are rejecting this here. Yet you are asserting a proposition that, as far as I can tell, has no evidence in its favor. If that is the case, how this this not trivially self-refuting?

Let me get this straight... you're saying there's no evidence that logic and evidence provide a guideline for what's true? Can I have some of what you're smoking?

As for the original post, the reason to watch what goes on here is on the off chance some dimwit will come along and say the kinds of things that Coggins and Light have said in this thread. It always makes me feel better about myself.

Coggins, you can't complain that nobody will engage you in serious debate when it's rather obvious you'll never hold up on your end of the bargain. What do you expect?

[_A Light in the Darkness]

If I BELIEVE in a flying spaghetti monster, that belief is unsound, IE it is an illogical belief just as those hopped up on LSD have illogical beliefs about their environment, etc. A belief can be illogical.

What's illogical about the FSM? Beliefs can be unsound and yet logical.

For instance:

If 2 +2 = 4, then God does not exist.
2 +2 = 4

Therefore, God does not exist.

This is a logical argument. It isn't a sound one.

[_Mercury]

If I BELIEVE in a flying spaghetti monster, that belief is unsound, IE it is an illogical belief just as those hopped up on LSD have illogical beliefs about their environment, etc. A belief can be illogical.

What's illogical about the FSM? Beliefs can be unsound and yet logical.

For instance:

If 2 +2 = 4, then God does not exist.
2 +2 = 4

Therefore, God does not exist.

This is a logical argument. It isn't a sound one.

how can something be logical yet unsound?

if one believes that if 2+2=4 then god exists, how is that in itself a logical statement? There is no context framing it within a logical construct.

you are putting the cart before the horse and in the end you are proving yourself wrong. But that's OK, I don't think you will ever realize that.

[Guest]

Let me get this straight... you're saying there's no evidence that logic and evidence provide a guideline for what's true? Can I have some of what you're smoking?

I'm saying that you cannot provide evidence that it is true that logic and evidence are required for any rationally warranted belief. If you think you can, then by all means ante up. Provide evidence that your reality is not an elaborate construct created by a scientist manipulating a brain in a vat. Do you think this belief is warranted? I think you do. However, it is unclear how evidence could be established in its favor. The position in epistemology that Tal wants to argue is widely regarded as misguided or incomplete, regardless of how you feel about the LDS faith or how many "skeptic" books you've read.

Certain beliefs about the nature of reality are necessarily prior to evidential reasoning and these beliefs are taken for granted by most of us. Such beliefs would include beliefs such as belief in the reliability of the senses, reliability of memory, that the future tends to resemble the past in such a way that inductive reasoning yields reliable conclusions, etc. Without these beliefs being taken for granted, almost all of our conclusions about the world based on sensory information become suspect. These beliefs, however, are not supportable through evidence. Any attempt to provide evidence of them becomes trivially circular as evidential reasoning depends on them in the first place.

Also, while I think it would be a mistake to think Tal is endorsing any formal philosophical position, as I don't think he has thought out what he is saying well enough to have a formal position, when he argues that debate is only meaningful when the statements being made are logically consistent and capable of support through evidence, he is in the ballpark of a logical positivist project long considered dead.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

how can something be logical yet unsound?

Logic isn't concerned with whether propositions are true or not per se. It concerns itself about the reasonableness of relationships between statements. This argument takes a logically valid form. Every step of reasoning is reasonable. It is an unsound argument because one of the premises is false.

if one believes that if 2+2=4 then god exists, how is that in itself a logical statement?

It might be a false statement, it is unclear how it is illogical. What rule of logic is it violating?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

It might be a false statement, it is unclear how it is illogical. What rule of logic is it violating?

The premise is false. The rest of the argument is logical, but it begins with a false premise, and it is actually a good example of how starting on a false premise can lead to faulty results.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

The premise is false. The rest of the argument is logical, but it begins with a false premise, and it is actually a good example of how starting on a false premise can lead to faulty results.

It is not a violation of logic to have a false premise. It's a violation of logic to make unreasonable inferences given a premise.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

It is not a violation of logic to have a false premise. It's a violation of logic to make unreasonable inferences given a premise.

This is why there is no such thing as a fallacy of "false premise." I think you, and others, fundamentally misunderstand what logic is.

[Alf'Omega]

The position in epistemology that Tal wants to argue is widely regarded as misguided or incomplete, regardless of how you feel about the LDS faith or how many "skeptic" books you've read.

Well, that wouldn't exactly surprise me. Given the number of people out there with a proclivity for the supernatural, it's hardly a shock that many will want to factor in things other than logic and evidence when trying to assess what's true. Just because the majority of people say they believe in god doesn't mean he suddenly exists, either.

By the way, what other things might we be talking about here? Gut feelings? Hearsay? Whisperings of the spirit? The position of the stars and a clear night? Voices in your head? Gnomes secretly stealing and carrying away your magic underwear in the middle of the night?

Just what are some worthy examples of ways to get at the truth aside from logic and evidence? This should be good.