A Light in the Darkness wrote: First I was Ray Ago. Now I'm DCP.
I never said you were Ray. I've thought you were DCP since you came here and stunk up the joint, and said so a long time ago (by the way, your "review" of DCP's book is a dead giveaway - and what's funny is I saw that after this most recent declaration. I just about fell out of my chair laughing at that one. I can only laugh at you to protect myself from falling into the seductive trap of pitying your sorry ass). Lucky for you, I think smelly farts are funny, if not disgusting.
I think that is a very good guess, Schmo. Let's recap, by examining some of the things that stand out about ALitD:
---He uses italics for tonal emphasis (just like DCP)
---He demonstrates a powerful familiarity with this MB, including very small details, and a penchant for following the postings of certain folks such as myself and Beastie (just like DCP)
---He loves the anonymity (just like DCP-as-"Free Thinker")
---He is sharply critical of atheism (just like DCP)
Of course, ALitD could clear all of it up for us by simply being up-front and honest. Then again, if it *is* DCP, he will be exposed as an ugly, tremendously dishonest hypocrite. But what else is new? ; )
JAK wrote:PhysicsGuy stated in conclusion: A metaphysical elephant can hide in the details. A belief may seem illogical in one set of evidence and logic, and entirely logical in another set. It is entirely subjective in that you must choose how much you personally trust the scientific theories and assumptions relating to the belief in question.
I mention this because you again appear to give credibility to that which lacks it. You clearly support “a metaphysical.” You give no example to support your contention.
What’s an example of a reliable “metaphysical elephant”? Absent evidence for that metaphysical elephant, it should be disregarded.
Of course the conclusions must be correct. But you say the “assumptions.” Just what “assumptions” absent evidence do you regard as “correct”?
It appears as if you’re playing word games. Assumptions, what are some you make, and how do you determine that they are reliable?
I’m skeptical.
JAK
I have given a couple of examples for you in the celestial forum, but I'll give another one here I guess. If String Theory were to be correct (there are no apparent ways to test it directly at the moment), it would change a lot of what we understand about the fundamental nature of the Universe. This would happen even though they originally only discarded one assumptions of Quantum Mechanics (that all particles are point-like). Nothing would change in the outcomes of experiments, but the understanding of the universe would change. This would greatly affect any extrapolations people create that go beyond science into the realm of religion.
Little if any change in the evidence; enormous change in our fundamental understanding of the nature of the universe (metaphysics).
I don't think you can call an assumption "correct". By definition, assumptions are something that you are not prepared to address at the moment, but feel that it is valuable to continue on in you theory as if it were true. Most of the fundamental assumptions of science (e.g., the nature of time) are just that; things that seem perfectly fine, but we can't necessarily test if they are really the case. For example, even if it were shown that time was fundamentally different, it would not change how we have perceived it up to this point, so our theories would still predict the same experiments the same way. However, if this were the case, the theories about things like the fundamental nature of the universe would have to be discarded (this happened when Newtonian Mechanics was replaced by Relativity). Any extrapolations beyond science into the realm of religion would be incorrect.
Mister Scratch wrote:I think that is a very good guess, Schmo. Let's recap, by examining some of the things that stand out about ALitD: ---He uses italics for tonal emphasis (just like DCP) ---He demonstrates a powerful familiarity with this MB, including very small details, and a penchant for following the postings of certain folks such as myself and Beastie (just like DCP) ---He loves the anonymity (just like DCP-as-"Free Thinker") ---He is sharply critical of atheism (just like DCP)
Of course, ALitD could clear all of it up for us by simply being up-front and honest. Then again, if it *is* DCP, he will be exposed as an ugly, tremendously dishonest hypocrite. But what else is new? ; )
I thought ALITD was Ray
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
This is from Copi's 12 th edition. I believe that is the last and latest edition. The Fallacy of explanation is a subset of the fallacy of defective induction.
What? No it isn't. The fallacy of defective induction is when the the premise is too weak to support the conclusion. A hasty generalization like, "That swan is white, therefore all swans are white" is an example of this fallacy. The fallacy is in using too little to conclude too much. Arguments from ignorance are another example of this kind of fallacy. The fallacy is not in the premise being wrong; it is in the premise not being "enough" to warrant the following conclusion. It's weird that I'm explaining this to you, as the very link you offer explains the fallacy is a matter of the premise being inadequate to support the conclusion. I'm sorry, but you simply did not understand what you read.
marg previously: This is from Copi's 12 th edition. I believe that is the last and latest edition. The Fallacy of explanation is a subset of the fallacy of defective induction.
LD: What? No it isn't. The fallacy of defective induction is when the the premise is too weak to support the conclusion. A hasty generalization like, "That swan is white, therefore all swans are white" is an example of this fallacy. The fallacy is in using too little to conclude too much. Arguments from ignorance are another example of this kind of fallacy. The fallacy is not in the premise being wrong; it is in the premise not being "enough" to warrant the following conclusion. It's weird that I'm explaining this to you, as the very link you offer explains the fallacy is a matter of the premise being inadequate to support the conclusion. I'm sorry, but you simply did not understand what you read.
**********************
Hi LD,
From Copi 11th edition.
P 3: “Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning. There are objective criteria with which correct reasoning may be defined. If these criteria are not known, then they cannot be used. The aim of the study of logic is to discover and make available those criteria that can be used to test arguments and to sort good arguments from bad ones.”
If you’ll notice LD, Copi’s text is not restricted to formal logic it includes informal logic. Formal logic addresses structure of arguments, but inductive logic addresses content of argument.
The aim of logic is to reach conclusions which can be relied upon as true or at least probably true.
If we look at the argument you presented
If 2 + 2= 4, then God exists
2 + 2 = 4
Therefore God exists.
We know, with no difficulty that there is a problem in the reasoning in this argument. We know, that we can not rely upon the conclusion given those premises.
As you have noted the problem is not in its formal structure, as it is a valid deductively structured argument. So from the perspective of a logician, we still have to determine where the weakness is and why we should not rely upon the conclusion in this argument.
If we look at the first premise, it stems from a previous argument or claim which is, when 2 + 2 =4 , God exists. That where the fallacy in induction lies and John Mills specified it further as fallacy of observation..please reread quote. Where is the inductively accumulated observations which support the claim of the existence of a God? No evidence has been presented. We know math facts do not infer anything about a God. So incorrect reasoning has been used to assert the first premise. And note from the Copi quote above. “Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning.”
The reason fallacies are described and named is it helps identify as well as relate to others commonly recognizable reasoning errors. But fallacies mentioned in Copi are not inclusive of all fallacies which exist. Quote from Copi: 11ed p 138 There is no precisely determinable number of fallacies, however, since much depends, in counting them, on the system of classification used. We distinguish 17 fallacies here, the most common and most deceptive mistakes in reasoning – devided in 3 groups called A) fallacies of relevance, b) fallacies of presumption and C) fallacies of ambiguity. “
As you know in the latest edition Copi added a 4th group…fallacies of induction. The hasty generlization which you noted was a fallacy attributed to previously in the group under presumption. It was part of the subgroup fallacy of accident and converse accident.
Also note the following from p 138 of Copi “There are many ways in which reasoning can go astray, that is , there are many kinds of mistakes in argument. It is customary to reserve the term “fallacy” for argument that, although incorrect are psychologically persuasive. Some arguments are so obviously incorrect as to deceive and persuade no one.”
The argument you presented is obviously incorrect and shouldn’t require naming any fallacy to appreciate this. But since dyou requested what fallacy makes it illogical, the answer is that no evidence/observation for the claim God exists was provided and such a claim requires evidence. 2 + 2 = 4 is not an observation or evidence of a God, and one has no reason to infer from the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 that God exists.
If you look at the quote I gave you in my previous post, from John Stuart Mill, he addresses the problem of non observation as being a subset of the fallacy on induction.
He says: It will be convenient, however, to make only one class of all the inductions of which the error lies in not sufficiently ascertaining the facts on which the theory is grounded; whether the cause of failure be malobservation or simple non-observation, and whether the mal-observation be direct, or by means of intermediate marks which do not prove what they are supposed to prove. And in absence of comprehensive term to denote the ascertainment, by whatever means of the fact on which an induction is grounded, I will venture to retain for this class of fallacies, under the explanation already given, the title Fallacies of Observation."
So you see LD it is not just fallacious reasoning to assume too much on insufficient evidence, it is also fallacious reasoning to assume too much on no evidence..that too is insufficient evidence or observations obviously.
It is up to the logician to recognize arguments presented with too little or no evidence which should have evidence to warrant the conclusion.
P 3: “Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning. There are objective criteria with which correct reasoning may be defined. If these criteria are not known, then they cannot be used. The aim of the study of logic is to discover and make available those criteria that can be used to test arguments and to sort good arguments from bad ones.”
This is true.
If you’ll notice LD, Copi’s text is not restricted to formal logic it includes informal logic. Formal logic addresses structure of arguments, but inductive logic addresses content of argument.
This is not.
Both are concerned with the structure of the argument, or put another way, the relationship between statements. The difference between inductive and deductive logic is in the kind of leaps of reasoning made, not that one is considered with the truth-value of premises, while the other is not.
If we look at the first premise, it stems from a previous argument or claim which is, when 2 + 2 =4 , God exists. That where the fallacy in induction lies
No. You are wrong. A fallacy of induction, surprisingly, involves making an improper induction from a premise. A fallacy of induction would look like this, "I survived a car accident, therefore God exists." In the argument in question, this premise is wrong. It can be wrong for a variety of reasons, but the logic of the argument itself is fine. It just so happens that built into it is a faulty premise. When analyzing the reasoning of an argument, those premises are little black boxes. That's why we say it is logically valid. We say it is unsound, because soundness incorporates the reasonableness of the premises. Of course, we care whether it is a sound argument, because soundness is a property of true arguments. But logic itself is just concerned with the steps of reasoning. Oddly, you keep quoting material that is referencing this notion, yet you seem oblivious to it. It's unfortunate, but when combined with your approach, I don't see how this state of affairs will change.
As you know in the latest edition Copi added a 4th group…fallacies of induction. The hasty generlization which you noted was a fallacy attributed to previously in the group under presumption. It was part of the subgroup fallacy of accident and converse accident.
I was giving an example of the type of fallacy they are referring to under the classification. As noted in this link, hasty generalization is one such example. This is to contrast with your misuderstanding of what you were reading.
Coggins7 wrote:Schmo, any debate between you and DCP would be tantamount to dropping a ten megaton thermonuclear bomb on a small blob of grape jelly.
Now that's not very nice.....you know DCP rates at least as a jar of grape jelly ;)
Yeah, you should give DCP at least a little more credit than that... although I understand why you don't.
But yeah, I had to stop debating DCP because it was just too easy. The guy's just not that bright at all. He thinks he can fool people by regurgitating the thesaurus and silly things he's read and actually buys, but I've never been fooled by such pap. If your fundamental thinking is flawed, it just is. To re-word a liz favorite, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
I like you too, Cogs. You keep me laughing.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
In the interests of facilitating comprehension, I'm going to try confining my remarks to point form.
1.) I HAVE ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT PETERSON HASN'T DESCRIBED HIMSELF AS A "WORLD FAMOUS SCHOLAR"; as I have stated, my point here is that many members are under a misimpression about how regarded Mormon propagandists are in their respective academic disciplines. CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? Partly because of that misimpression, they see fit to turn off their critical thinking faculties. You seem to claim you're not like that - very well if you aren't. But others are. I view that as lamentable. Don't you?
2.) Certainly the FARMS page seems to be awash in self-congratulation over the Arabic translation project; and if that project is a success, and "makes Peterson" as a genuine contributor to the study of Islam, then great. It would be about time those guys did something useful academically (no, I don't consider thinking of new ways to explain away 9000 Native American DNA tests, or the Book of Abraham, or rocks in hats, "useful", except in perpetuating delusion). So, I'd be happy. Can you understand that? I'd be happy if the Mormon propagandist crew stopped wasting their time devising new mind games to play on themselves, new absurd pseudo-explanations to present to others, and started concentrated on something productive. And if "Muhammad, Prophet of God", is genuinely "something productive", that's great. So far, it seems to have done nothing. Perhaps the title didn't help it, I don't know.
3.) I don't know if you've ever heard of the cyrillic alphabet; it's an alphabet that benighted, primitive peoples use, who don't speak God's favourite, one true language, English (if it weren't his favourite, why did he choose the English-speaking Joseph Smith? Why did he use English to dictate all his revelations in D&C? Case closed!). Anyway, one of the ways we know Satan invented cyrillic was that it often does not transliterate neatly into God's favourite language. Hence, the prologue to Wikipedia's blurb on my man Teddy:
Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky (Russian: Фёдор Миха́йлович Достое́вский, IPA: sometimes transliterated Dostoyevsky, Dostoievsky, or Dostoevski.
Shocker, I know. By the way, you yourself might want to get with the program (formerly programme) and start following Noah Webster's Americanized English spellings, since America is also God's favourite country (why else would he have chosen America in which to restore the one, true religion?), and therefore its spellings the one, true spellings.
4.) About strictest obedience, even to giving up your life if God, directly or through his regent, commands it:
Supposedly...
Jesus Christ Isaac Stephen Joseph Smith
etc.
And about strictest obedience, even to taking life if God, directly or through his regent, commands it:
Supposedly...
Nephi Joshua David The Israelite soldiers in their war of conquest
etc.
Poor Ray - you seem never to have heard that according to Mormonism, "obedience is the first law of heaven". Maybe Joseph Smith explains it best (in his sly, secret letter to teenager Nancy Rigdon, trying to convince her to give it up):
"God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said 'Thou shalt utterly destroy'. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire".
5.) You mention that Peterson is still "relatively young", and so won't have had time to do much good scholarly work, and therefore, earn respect amongst Islamic Studies peers. But in saying this, you are only conceding my point, aren't you? He doesn't really have that standing so often attributed to him by Mormons.
And so, last point: I await the results of your attempt to prove me wrong, Ray. Keep us posted on how it's going. Who knows - a few emails and your own overly exalted view of your heroes might undergo a reality-induced adjustment. By the way, there's no necessary need to wait just because his book came out four months ago. Just start emailing. To hear too many members tell it, already "these guys are big names!".