Bad arguments and how to spot them

Please give this a quick read
bipedalhumanoid
Posts: 2675
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:55 pm

Re: Bad arguments and how to spot them

Post by bipedalhumanoid » Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:32 am

Patrick Fowke wrote:
bipedalhumanoid wrote:<Golf Clap> @ Ygern

Very well said. I'm all for the socratic method but you know it has been taken too far when you get to "what do you mean by 'burden of'".

This is one of two routes I've been sent down when debating Christians with some knowledge of philosophy. The other is to resort of solipcism and claim we don't really know anything and therefore all beliefs are faith based. The intended implication, of course, being that beliefs based on evidence are as valid as those not based on evidence.

I just wish I had your patience.


Bipedalhumanoid,

Don't forget that solipsism goes pretty much against the gist of Aristotlean philosophy, and Christian theology is heavily rooted in the philosophy of Aristotle (in particular that of Thomas Aquinas).

Christians are, by personal nature, as well as by the nature of their faith, as much empiricist as rationalist (in the philisophical sense of the word). I mention rationalism because solipsism is more connected to rationalism than empiricism.

Since solipsism can lead to being inward-looking (in a derogative sense / in a very detached sort of a way from other people), it is, in my view, inherently non-Christian (not forgetting that Christianity is very much about other people, i.e the Church or community - "LOVE thy neighbour", "OUR father" and so on.

I know that a crucial part of my belief in God is empirically-based (empirical in the philisophical sense of the word i.e experience of life - i.e the beauty / magic in the world around me, above all, in other people), the work and thoughts of other people (the arts, philosophy, theology) - not just rationalist (in philisophical sense of word - and, hopefully, in the more ordinary use of word ...).

Certainly not, solipsistic, I hope ..


My point wasn't that these christian debaters believed in solopsism but rather they used solipsistic arguments in an attempt to discredit the concept of 'evidence' and put their faith based beliefs on an even footing with an evidence based position.
"The fact of your own existence is the most astonishing fact you will ever have to face. Don’t you ever get used to it." - Richard Dawkins... being shrill and offensive again I suppose.
Patrick Fowke
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:34 pm

Re: Bad arguments and how to spot them

Post by Patrick Fowke » Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:55 am

Hi

bipedalhumanoid wrote:
My point wasn't that these christian debaters believed in solopsism but rather they used solipsistic arguments in an attempt to discredit the concept of 'evidence' and put their faith based beliefs on an even footing with an evidence based position.



Appreciate that. And I didn't suggest in my response that you did think 'these Christian debaters believed in solipsism.'
mkaobrih
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1601
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: Bad arguments and how to spot them

Post by mkaobrih » Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:37 am

There are three kinds of Ad hominem attacks, abusive (speaks for itself), circumstantial (being biased) and tu quoque (doing the opposite or what is said) only the abusive one is invalid. The other two a reasonable attacks.
The church complains of persecution when it's not allowed to persecute.
Patrick Fowke
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:34 pm

Re: Bad arguments and how to spot them

Post by Patrick Fowke » Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:48 am

Mkaobrih

mkaobrih wrote:There are three kinds of Ad hominem attacks, abusive (speaks for itself), circumstantial (being biased) and tu quoque (doing the opposite or what is said) only the abusive one is invalid. The other two a reasonable attacks.


If it is possible for an argument to be focused on a specfic quote / source, then:

1.that specific quote / source must be referenced
2. an explanation for that reference must be given.

You haven't made any sort of effort in either 1. or 2. As a result, just pure, subjective, heresay on your part.
mkaobrih
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1601
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: Bad arguments and how to spot them

Post by mkaobrih » Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Patrick Fowke wrote:If it is possible for an argument to be focused on a specfic quote / source, then:

1.that specific quote / source must be referenced
2. an explanation for that reference must be given.

You haven't made any sort of effort in either 1. or 2. As a result, just pure, subjective, heresay on your part.

Don’t need to – read the topic headline and Ygern’s initial post. That’s what I’m commenting on and not any specific argument. This is not your “spirituality” thread.
The church complains of persecution when it's not allowed to persecute.
Patrick Fowke
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:34 pm

Re: Bad arguments and how to spot them

Post by Patrick Fowke » Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:30 pm

mkaobrih wrote:
Patrick Fowke wrote:If it is possible for an argument to be focused on a specfic quote / source, then:

1.that specific quote / source must be referenced
2. an explanation for that reference must be given.

You haven't made any sort of effort in either 1. or 2. As a result, just pure, subjective, heresay on your part.

Don’t need to – read the topic headline and Ygern’s initial post. That’s what I’m commenting on and not any specific argument. This is not your “spirituality” thread.


Apologies. The only reason why I assumed you were addressing this to me was because of this:

'The other two a reasonable attacks' - i.e they were reasonable charges to lay against me (in my most recent set of posts). I tried to figure out in what other context you could have meant this, but couldn't figure out any based on this thread, other than the one already mentioned.
Max
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 7:09 am

Re: Bad arguments and how to spot them

Post by Max » Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:53 am

Hurrah. Great post but my frustration does not lay in understanding of logic. Which is essentially important, but in my emotional response. My frustration comes when some one tells me that 'My crystals helped me heal, and you can't tell me otherwise'. And my own lack of debating skill to counter that. I'm far too hot headed. For me its clear that if your not good in a debate then your argument however sound is worthless. It seems that for me the problem is not logic but the lack of emotional detachment that is crucial. I get so frustrated, and at that point logic is lost.

Edit:- I suppose my real point is, people have the right to be stupid, its their right. But why does that make me so angry?
born under the malignant influence of change
CatHerder
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: Bad arguments and how to spot them

Post by CatHerder » Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:22 pm

Max wrote:For me its clear that if your not good in a debate then your argument however sound is worthless.
Don't you just hate it when you come up with the right counter argument and they're gone :lol:

Max wrote:Edit:- I suppose my real point is, people have the right to be stupid, its their right. But why does that make me so angry?
Because they think they're being clever when they're actually being manipulative in regard to their own self deception.
Max
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 7:09 am

Re: Bad arguments and how to spot them

Post by Max » Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:21 pm

Eloquently put. Maybe I need to to stick a fork in my ear during debate as an aid to emotional displacement :lol:, that or fiddle with rosary beads :twisted:
born under the malignant influence of change
Max
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 7:09 am

Re:

Post by Max » Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:07 pm

inedifix wrote:As for Dr Seamus Murphy's letter, I doubt Galileo would have been impressed as his Inquisitors were stretching him on the rack had they roared: "recant your science and submit to the church's rule, even though we're not actually against your science because Catholicism is a Christian religion and Christianity is not hostile to science, it's just that all this moving earth business is really confusing."


pure Python :lol:
born under the malignant influence of change
Post Reply