When Debate Doesn't Make Sense

[_Mercury]

Logic isn't concerned with whether propositions are true or not per se.

This sentence alone points out the fact you have no idea what you are talking about.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

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.

I think you are intentionally making something more complicated than it needs to be (something apologists are famous for). Compare your comments on this thread to something like Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. Sagan says, "If there's a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) -- not just most of them." That makes sense. You say, "It is not a violation of logic to have a false premise." That's confusing. Maybe you are simply trying to educate us on the precise definition of the word "logic," if so, I think you miss the point of the original poster.

[_beastie]

I think you are intentionally making something more complicated than it needs to be (something apologists are famous for). Compare your comments on this thread to something like Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. Sagan says, "If there's a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) -- not just most of them." That makes sense. You say, "It is not a violation of logic to have a false premise." That's confusing. Maybe you are simply trying to educate us on the precise definition of the word "logic," if so, I think you miss the point of the original poster.

Eric Hoffer:

If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible or vague, it has to be unverifiable. One has to get to heaven or the distant future to determine the truth of an effective doctrine. When some part of a doctrine is relatively simple, there is a tendency among the faithful to complicate and obscure it. Simple words are made pregnant with meaning and made to look like symbols in a secret message. There is thus an illiterate air about the most literate true believer. He seems to use words as if he were ignorant of their true meaning. Hence, too, his taste for quibbling, hair-splitting and scholastic tortuousness.

[NorthboundZax]

I can quite conclusively prove that Unicorns exist with a neat little syllogism.

How daft you sound, Coggins7.

I suppose if you want to regard a sentiment as a belief, or even several beliefs in some degree of coherence or incoherence with each other, you may. You have entirely missed the point on this, I think. Let's say feelings are actually beliefs (spoken like a true Mormon). This doesn't change what I said at all. Consider this expression of sentiment (or belief if you prefer):

"I don't love people who aren't kind; but even though my wife isn't kind, I still love her".

This statement is incoherent. As such, even if it could be considered intelligible, it could make no claim to being true. We don't have to know anything about how you really feel to know that this "belief", as it stands, is untrue. It seems so clear; I wonder why that should seem confusing to you. You seem like a smart man who has played so many mind games on himself, consciously, semi-consciously, or unconsciously, for so long, that you no longer can think clearly about these things. And it all seems to start with the notion that the creator of the universe told you that a young, desperate, talented, and amibitious young chap never told any fibs, or whoppers, about his experiences. Fortunately for you, there are worse things than spending one's life believing in Mormonism. And who knows, at this point in your life, though of course Joseph Smith didn't tell the truth about his experiences, maybe you need his church.

This isn't an implausible scenario. You yourself said on that other thread, that without Mormonism, all is meaningless. I used to say the same thing, over and over, to myself and to others. I was as incapable as you are now of imagining how that could not be true. And perhaps, you never will be able to imagine such a thing. Perhaps you are the kind of person who could watch a videotape of Joseph Smith roasting and eating a child, looking up at the camera with human blood dripping from his mouth, saying, "I made it all up", and still think, "A prophet is only a prophet when he is speaking as such; no one ever said prophets were perfect; just because Joseph may have moments of doubt doesn't mean I have to; after all, God told me himself that Joseph DIDN'T make it up, so even if he confesses and shows me evidence that he did, I know he's wrong, and I'm right - I KNOW it's true; I KNOW IT".

Seems like it, anyway. And if so - if you are that far gone - maybe you do need the church.

My advice, judging from your posts, is go with it all the way then.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

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.

What I said is as true of atheist philosophers as it is of philosophers who believe in God. Also, it's like you completely ignored this post I wrote:

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]

Logic isn't concerned with whether propositions are true or not per se.

This sentence alone points out the fact you have no idea what you are talking about.

That you think this statement is mistaken, sadly, is really an indication that you have no idea what you are talking about. But you don't have to take my word for it. Read any respected entry level college text on logid and/or epistemology ever.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

I think you are intentionally making something more complicated than it needs to be (something apologists are famous for). Compare your comments on this thread to something like Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. Sagan says, "If there's a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) -- not just most of them." That makes sense. You say, "It is not a violation of logic to have a false premise." That's confusing. Maybe you are simply trying to educate us on the precise definition of the word "logic," if so, I think you miss the point of the original poster.

Eric Hoffer:

If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible or vague, it has to be unverifiable. One has to get to heaven or the distant future to determine the truth of an effective doctrine. When some part of a doctrine is relatively simple, there is a tendency among the faithful to complicate and obscure it. Simple words are made pregnant with meaning and made to look like symbols in a secret message. There is thus an illiterate air about the most literate true believer. He seems to use words as if he were ignorant of their true meaning. Hence, too, his taste for quibbling, hair-splitting and scholastic tortuousness.

How on earth is it quibbling to point out someone's fundamental assertion is completely and totally wrong?

[_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.

I think you are intentionally making something more complicated than it needs to be (something apologists are famous for). Compare your comments on this thread to something like Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. Sagan says, "If there's a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) -- not just most of them." That makes sense. You say, "It is not a violation of logic to have a false premise." That's confusing. Maybe you are simply trying to educate us on the precise definition of the word "logic," if so, I think you miss the point of the original poster.

What Sagan is saying is true. So is what I am saying. The term "logic" refers to the inferences made between premises. It does not refer to the truth-value of any given premise. This is not hair-splitting. This is crucial to understanding what logic is and what its role in the nature of knowing is. The point of the original poster I was conversing with was conflation between unsound beliefs and illogical ones. A square-circle is something illogical to believe in. A 300 foot tall giraffe is not. This matters because it cuts to the very heart of his naïve understanding of how we know things. He's just calling things he thinks are unreasonable illogical.

[_beastie]

How on earth is it quibbling to point out someone's fundamental assertion is completely and totally wrong?

Unless you are totally clueless, which I doubt, you understood what posters meant when they talk about sound logic. It is quibbling to turn this into a discussion of the academic rules of logic, wherein logic is not violated just because an element is a false premise. I think it is a textbook case of scholastic tortuousness.

[_guy sajer]

Logic isn't concerned with whether propositions are true or not per se.

This sentence alone points out the fact you have no idea what you are talking about.

That you think this statement is mistaken, sadly, is really an indication that you have no idea what you are talking about. But you don't have to take my word for it. Read any respected entry level college text on logid and/or epistemology ever.

For what it's worth, I took a college course in logic at BYU from James (I think) Faulkener (sic), faculty in the philosophy department. Almost the entire course was spent in learning how to critique arguments by examining their underlying (explicit and implied) premises.

So, just to be sure I understand; your position is that if an argument is internally consistent (e.g., all the conclusions follow from the premises), but the premises themselves are silly and quite easily demonstrated to be false, this is a logically sound argument?