Levi wrote:Tal: Are you the same guy who said on PBS that you were willing to kill yourself in the name of Mormonism?
Yeah it's the same guy.
When Debate Doesn't Make Sense
-
_Bond...James Bond
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4627
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:49 am
-
_Levi
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Bond...James Bond wrote:Levi wrote:Tal: Are you the same guy who said on PBS that you were willing to kill yourself in the name of Mormonism?
Yeah it's the same guy.
Well, I know a lot of educated Mormons on a professional level. I can't imagine that they really believe that, but I'll ask. My books on the subject indicate Mormons are good people led by a good man, and are no more and no less than that, Jon Krakauer aside.
If they don't really believe that, then why would a Mormon like Mr. Bachman make such a claim?
Levi
-
_harmony
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18195
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am
Levi wrote:Well, I know a lot of educated Mormons on a professional level. I can't imagine that they really believe that, but I'll ask. My books on the subject indicate Mormons are good people led by a good man, and are no more and no less than that, Jon Krakauer aside.
If they don't really believe that, then why would a Mormon like Mr. Bachman make such a claim?
Levi
You might want to first find out if your educated Mormons are endowed, especially if they were endowed prior to 1990.
Believe me, it's pertinent.
-
_marg
Sorry, LD to not get back to this earlier but other matters took priority.
Addressing your last response to me;
Previously I had quoted Copi’s intro to logic text 11th ed. 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.”
LD’s response: This is true.
Ok LD, so given the above explanation of what logic entails, what in the discipline of logic which you have studied enables you to distinguish the incorrect reasoning in the argument which you have been claiming is a logical one? If the study of logic is to make available criteria to sort good arguments from bad as Copi points out, what criteria in this argument enables you using your knowledge of logic to sort it out and conclude it is not a good argument but a bad one?
If 2 + 2 = 4, then god exists
2 + 2 =4
Therefore God exists.
A good argument by the way, is one in which the conclusion can be relied upon as either conclusively true or probably true.
previously marg: 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.
LD: "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."
Both inductive and deductive (logical) reasoning are concerned with truth value of premises. In both cases the reasoning to any conclusion is useless unless true premises are used. However true premises does not guarantee a true conclusion, except in deductive reasoning in which the conclusion follows conclusively from the premises.
Copi Chap 8 p322 in discussing refuting arguments by logical analogy for deductive arguments, points out "This method is based upon the fact that validity and invalidity are purely formal characteristics of arguments, which is to say that any two arguments having exactly the same form are either both valid or both invalid, regardless of any differences in the subject matter with which they are concerned. This is what I had said LD, deductive reasoning addresses or in concerned with the structure or the form of the argument.
This is not the case in inductive reasoning. Science employs inductive reasoning. There is no particular form in which a scientific argument can be plugged into. The subject matter in inductive reasoning is unique in each case. It matters in inductive reasoning, what the contents of the argument is, as to what conclusion one is able to draw from those contents.
As I said to you previously though it’s not the logicians task to do the experiments or make the observation but it is the logician’s task to determine why a conclusion can not be relied upon as being true. It is the logician’s task to determine where the eror in reasoning lies.
Content of arguments are also important in logic, in determining fallacies. You have been arguing that logic is not concerned with content of argument. That is incorrect.
Your focus on form of deductive argument only as being the sole scope of what logic entails is incorrect. Logic entails much more to enable one to sort good arguments from bad as copi points out is the purpose of logic.
by the way the way the difference in deductive and inductive logic is of whether the conclusion follows conclusively or probably from the premises..deductive conclusively, inductive probably. It so happens that a conclusion can only be conclusive when it is presented within a structured form of an argument in logic called valid, ( I appreciate this small part you understand), which guarantees if the premises are true the conclusion necessarily follows as true. Since inductive is not in a structured form but is based on observations, data, it leads at best to probable conclusions not conclusive.
Previously I wrote: 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.[/color]
LD: "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. "
You say “I survived a car accident therefore God exists, is fallacious due to making an improper induction., and you say that can be called a fallacy of induction. I agree.
However you have not argued against my point you have only reinforced it. The claim or argument of If or when, 2 + 2 = 4, god exists…is also in an improper induction. Just as surviving one car accident doesn’t follow that God exists..it’s not enough or relevant evidence for such a claim, it also doesn’t follow that if 2 + 2 = 4, God exists. The reasoning of 2 + 2 = 4, is not enough nor relevant reasoning to justifiy that God exists. Sure there are other fallacies involved but the problem is not one of form or structure of the argument but rather tthat the ustification given obtained inductively does not warrant the conclusion. It is the inductive reasoning which fails and the reason that the conclusion God exists in both cases can not be relied upon as true. Given the claim being made, God exists, we have to look at the content of the argument and determine if enough evidence or reasoning has been given to warrant the claim.
You say: "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."
Your argument "I survived a car accident therefore God exists" is not a deductive formal argument, nor is 2 + 2 = 4, therefore God exists, so validity is not relevant. Those are arguments presented through inductive reasoning. Sure they are fallacious and we’ve discussed why. Because the argument or claim "if 2 + 2 = 4, God exists" is fallacious, as a premise it is useless in any deductive argument. Any argument which uses that premise can only be logical in a very narrow limited sense, which is that it can be put into a deductive form argument as a premise. But that’s all that can be done with it, and doing that does not make the argument it is put into a logical one. Let’s look up the word logical.
1. Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic.
2. Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable: Rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year.
3. Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner.
And we agreed that logic is about criteria which helps to differentiate bad from good arguments. Logic is not solely about learning logical structural form which guarantees true conclusion only if premises are true, but it’s about learning criteria to enable one to differentiate bad arguments from good. Just because an argument is in a valid form does not make it a good argument.
"2 + 2 = 4, god exists, 2+ 2 = 4 therefore god exists" is a bad argument, it’s fallacious, it’s illogical and only in a very limited minor sense is it considered logical in that it is presented in valid structural form. Valid structural form is of no value logically , unless premises are true.
Addressing your last response to me;
Previously I had quoted Copi’s intro to logic text 11th ed. 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.”
LD’s response: This is true.
Ok LD, so given the above explanation of what logic entails, what in the discipline of logic which you have studied enables you to distinguish the incorrect reasoning in the argument which you have been claiming is a logical one? If the study of logic is to make available criteria to sort good arguments from bad as Copi points out, what criteria in this argument enables you using your knowledge of logic to sort it out and conclude it is not a good argument but a bad one?
If 2 + 2 = 4, then god exists
2 + 2 =4
Therefore God exists.
A good argument by the way, is one in which the conclusion can be relied upon as either conclusively true or probably true.
previously marg: 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.
LD: "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."
Both inductive and deductive (logical) reasoning are concerned with truth value of premises. In both cases the reasoning to any conclusion is useless unless true premises are used. However true premises does not guarantee a true conclusion, except in deductive reasoning in which the conclusion follows conclusively from the premises.
Copi Chap 8 p322 in discussing refuting arguments by logical analogy for deductive arguments, points out "This method is based upon the fact that validity and invalidity are purely formal characteristics of arguments, which is to say that any two arguments having exactly the same form are either both valid or both invalid, regardless of any differences in the subject matter with which they are concerned. This is what I had said LD, deductive reasoning addresses or in concerned with the structure or the form of the argument.
This is not the case in inductive reasoning. Science employs inductive reasoning. There is no particular form in which a scientific argument can be plugged into. The subject matter in inductive reasoning is unique in each case. It matters in inductive reasoning, what the contents of the argument is, as to what conclusion one is able to draw from those contents.
As I said to you previously though it’s not the logicians task to do the experiments or make the observation but it is the logician’s task to determine why a conclusion can not be relied upon as being true. It is the logician’s task to determine where the eror in reasoning lies.
Content of arguments are also important in logic, in determining fallacies. You have been arguing that logic is not concerned with content of argument. That is incorrect.
Your focus on form of deductive argument only as being the sole scope of what logic entails is incorrect. Logic entails much more to enable one to sort good arguments from bad as copi points out is the purpose of logic.
by the way the way the difference in deductive and inductive logic is of whether the conclusion follows conclusively or probably from the premises..deductive conclusively, inductive probably. It so happens that a conclusion can only be conclusive when it is presented within a structured form of an argument in logic called valid, ( I appreciate this small part you understand), which guarantees if the premises are true the conclusion necessarily follows as true. Since inductive is not in a structured form but is based on observations, data, it leads at best to probable conclusions not conclusive.
Previously I wrote: 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.[/color]
LD: "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. "
You say “I survived a car accident therefore God exists, is fallacious due to making an improper induction., and you say that can be called a fallacy of induction. I agree.
However you have not argued against my point you have only reinforced it. The claim or argument of If or when, 2 + 2 = 4, god exists…is also in an improper induction. Just as surviving one car accident doesn’t follow that God exists..it’s not enough or relevant evidence for such a claim, it also doesn’t follow that if 2 + 2 = 4, God exists. The reasoning of 2 + 2 = 4, is not enough nor relevant reasoning to justifiy that God exists. Sure there are other fallacies involved but the problem is not one of form or structure of the argument but rather tthat the ustification given obtained inductively does not warrant the conclusion. It is the inductive reasoning which fails and the reason that the conclusion God exists in both cases can not be relied upon as true. Given the claim being made, God exists, we have to look at the content of the argument and determine if enough evidence or reasoning has been given to warrant the claim.
You say: "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."
Your argument "I survived a car accident therefore God exists" is not a deductive formal argument, nor is 2 + 2 = 4, therefore God exists, so validity is not relevant. Those are arguments presented through inductive reasoning. Sure they are fallacious and we’ve discussed why. Because the argument or claim "if 2 + 2 = 4, God exists" is fallacious, as a premise it is useless in any deductive argument. Any argument which uses that premise can only be logical in a very narrow limited sense, which is that it can be put into a deductive form argument as a premise. But that’s all that can be done with it, and doing that does not make the argument it is put into a logical one. Let’s look up the word logical.
1. Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic.
2. Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable: Rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year.
3. Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner.
And we agreed that logic is about criteria which helps to differentiate bad from good arguments. Logic is not solely about learning logical structural form which guarantees true conclusion only if premises are true, but it’s about learning criteria to enable one to differentiate bad arguments from good. Just because an argument is in a valid form does not make it a good argument.
"2 + 2 = 4, god exists, 2+ 2 = 4 therefore god exists" is a bad argument, it’s fallacious, it’s illogical and only in a very limited minor sense is it considered logical in that it is presented in valid structural form. Valid structural form is of no value logically , unless premises are true.
-
_A Light in the Darkness
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 3:12 pm
Both inductive and deductive (logical) reasoning are concerned with truth value of premises. In both cases the reasoning to any conclusion is useless unless true premises are used. However true premises does not guarantee a true conclusion, except in deductive reasoning in which the conclusion follows conclusively from the premises.
The quality of the logic does not depend on whether true premises are used. The truth of an argument does. The fallacy of defective induction you referenced refers to a situation where the premise is inadequate to support a conclusion. It doesn't concern the truth of that premise. Some roses are red, therefore flowers are red is an example of this fallacy even though the premise is true, for instance. In truth, it is apparent you don't get this and are too stubborn and/or unintelligent to think it through. Perhaps tact should prevent me from saying this, but I'd feel remiss if you never heard it. I don't see how this is going to change. By the way, I am certain there is more than one of your fellow sketpic/critics who sees this and refrains from saying anything because you're on their "team."
And, as I already stated, if having a premise that is unsupported by sufficient evidence is an example of being illogical, then what would be the point of saying debate is only meaningful if one's assertions are logical and supported by evidence? The term logic would already include the notion of "supported by evidence."
-
_marg
A Light in the Darkness wrote:marg: Both inductive and deductive (logical) reasoning are concerned with truth value of premises. In both cases the reasoning to any conclusion is useless unless true premises are used. However true premises does not guarantee a true conclusion, except in deductive reasoning in which the conclusion follows conclusively from the premises.
The quality of the logic does not depend on whether true premises are used. The truth of an argument does.
We already agreed on what Copi says about logic, that “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.”
And we know intuitively that this argument "if 2+2=4, God exists, 2 + 2=4, therefore God exists is a bad argument. You didn't answer my question, how do we use logic to know it's a bad argument? Because that is the purpose or goal of logic.
The fallacy of defective induction you referenced refers to a situation where the premise is inadequate to support a conclusion. It doesn't concern the truth of that premise.
Exactly and I pointed out to you that the first, the initial claim or argument upon which the second one is based upon is faulty ..inductively. The difference between a deductive argument and inductive is whether the conclusion is conclusive or probable. If it is not conclusive, then the only alternative left is probable. Any argument with a probable conclusion is an inductive one. The argument " when , 2 + 2 = 4, God exists" , is an inductive argument. That argument is used in the validly constructed deductive argument. The reason the deductive argument is fallacious is not because of form/structure. It is because of fault in the inductive reasoning used to arrive at the first premise. And yes logician are concerned about defective inductive reasoning, however it occurs.
Some roses are red, therefore flowers are red is an example of this fallacy even though the premise is true, for instance. In truth, it is apparent you don't get this and are too stubborn and/or unintelligent to think it through.
This can also be put into a deductive categorical syllogism and shown to be faulty.
All roses are flowers,
some roses are red
therefore all flowers are red..It is AIA - 3 , and is invalid because from Copi "any term distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in the premises" All flowers in the conclusion is not distributed in the premises.
One can also appreciate there is an inductive problem. One can not say something about "all flowers" when one has only observed a subset of the group, flowers in order to draw a conclusion.
Perhaps tact should prevent me from saying this, but I'd feel remiss if you never heard it. I don't see how this is going to change. By the way, I am certain there is more than one of your fellow sketpic/critics who sees this and refrains from saying anything because you're on their "team."
LD, in my previous post I explained methodically that the study of logic is not limited to the very narrow sense of appreciating deductive valid form of argument. It appears you've pretty much ignored what I argued. I can not force you to appreciate that there is more to appreciating logic than knowing about deductive valid forms. Intuitively you must appreciate if 2+ 2=4, God exists, 2 +2=4 , therefore god exists is a bad argument. So you must appreciate that if logic is about sorting out what makes an argument good from bad, there must be more to it, than just learning "forms". It is ridiculous LD, to say that argument is logical. It is only in cast in a valid deductive form, that's all. And "valid form" does not make an entire argument logical.
And, as I already stated, if having a premise that is unsupported by sufficient evidence is an example of being illogical, then what would be the point of saying debate is only meaningful if one's assertions are logical and supported by evidence? The term logic would already include the notion of "supported by evidence."
If you have a premise unsupported with evidence, that is an argument in an of itself. It so happens that the premise is carried forward to another argument. But if you go back to what supports the premise initially and determine that inductively it is not warranted, then any deductive argument that premise is used in becomes fallacious.
-
_Tommy
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:10 am
Dear Sister Marg,
You are again in open rebellion against the teachings of the Book of Mormon I see.
The premise "if 2+2=4 then God exists" is most likely the result of what Latter-Day Saints know of as a non-sequitur. It strains the imagination to account for such a belief on inductive grounds. How one could too strongly infer from simple mathematical tautologies that God exists without comitting the formal fallacy known to the LDS people as a non-sequitur is beyond me.
It seems that you believe all informal fallacies are instances of poor induction. The Spirit bears witness this is false. How can you fit a Red Herring or a Strawman into errors of statistical reasoning or even poor observation?
I don't think brother Copi believes as you do that form=deduction and content=induction. Content is a mix of a number of different factors. If brother Copi is in fact teaching such a thing, I will need to arrange a meeting with him in my office immediatly.
You are again in open rebellion against the teachings of the Book of Mormon I see.
The argument " when , 2 + 2 = 4, God exists" , is an inductive argument. That argument is used in the validly constructed deductive argument. The reason the deductive argument is fallacious is not because of form/structure.
The premise "if 2+2=4 then God exists" is most likely the result of what Latter-Day Saints know of as a non-sequitur. It strains the imagination to account for such a belief on inductive grounds. How one could too strongly infer from simple mathematical tautologies that God exists without comitting the formal fallacy known to the LDS people as a non-sequitur is beyond me.
It seems that you believe all informal fallacies are instances of poor induction. The Spirit bears witness this is false. How can you fit a Red Herring or a Strawman into errors of statistical reasoning or even poor observation?
I don't think brother Copi believes as you do that form=deduction and content=induction. Content is a mix of a number of different factors. If brother Copi is in fact teaching such a thing, I will need to arrange a meeting with him in my office immediatly.
-
_marg
A Light in the Darkness wrote:
And, as I already stated, if having a premise that is unsupported by sufficient evidence is an example of being illogical, then what would be the point of saying debate is only meaningful if one's assertions are logical and supported by evidence? The term logic would already include the notion of "supported by evidence."
I'm addressing this part again in more depth.
Let's look at Tal's argument:
"We live in a universe of laws. That means we live in a universe of constraints. It seems to me that it is only when our beliefs conform to those constraints that they have any real chance of being true.
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. It seems to me that any belief which requires the disregard of either, or both, is almost certainly wrong (certainly by definition, it would be irrational)."
This is an inductive argument regarding beliefs. The argument is that in order for a belief to be probably true, it must be constrained at the very least by having evidence to warrant the belief and logic. The word logic here means "good reasoning". it doesn't mean LD, the sense you took it as the restricted valid deductive forms of logic.
Now you can argue against the argument and say logic or good reasoning includes having evidence and say Tal is just being redundant. But reasoning does not necessarily include evidence, particularly value or policy type arguments. It depends what the belief is about. If it's about a value judgment or an opinion, it doesn't require evidence but if it's a claim about the physical world of things existing then reasoning alone is not sufficient to warrant the claim. The term "modern rational empiricism" is the term employed for today's scientific method approach. It doesn't guarantee absolute conclusions but the combination of evidence and good reasoning as taught in logic results in better conclusions with regards to the physical world than merely willy nilly opinions or claims not warranted with evidence along with good reasoning.
Keep in mind LD that in deductive arguments regarding the physical world, the truth of each premise used is arrived at inductively. Each premise in order to be established as true, had or has to go through the inductive process of reasoning. And that process is a part of the discipline of logic, inductive informal logic. The study of logic has evolved over the centuries. In the past it may have been that informal inductive logic was not recognized as "logic" but it is today. The scientific method is an application of informal inductive logic. It seeks best probable conclusions, best fit conclusions... not absolute conclusions. We know the scientific method approach of reasoning works practically. It gets practical useful consistent results.
-
_marg
Tommy wrote:
It seems that you believe all informal fallacies are instances of poor induction. The Spirit bears witness this is false. How can you fit a Red Herring or a Strawman into errors of statistical reasoning or even poor observation?
I don't think brother Copi believes as you do that form=deduction and content=induction. Content is a mix of a number of different factors. If brother Copi is in fact teaching such a thing, I will need to arrange a meeting with him in my office immediatly.
If you argue against what I say please quote and address my words. I very well may have said something incorrect which upon reflection I might change but I'd have to have it pointed out that I said it.