Posts: 3634
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: New vid: argument from ignorance explained through mining
December 30, 2015 at 9:21 pm
(This post was last modified: December 30, 2015 at 9:21 pm by Simon Moon.)
(December 30, 2015 at 8:35 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: I agree that atheists tend to overuse these sorts of arguments with people who either can't grasp them or don't care to and thus poison the conversation for nothing. Theists are people, first and foremost, not philosophy minors who need their fallacies pointed out. You need to establish a common ground first, and then make them see for themselves why their arguments are not solid, if they aren't.
As long as it is pointed out why their argument is fallacious, and why it invalidates their argument, I see no problem pointing them out as soon as they are used.
I agree, common ground has to be established. And the most fundamental common ground is for all arguments being used to be valid and sound.
As far as I'm concerned, pointing out fallacies, and explaining why they are, will make the theist a better debater.
It's not our fault that the arguments used by theists are fallacious.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: New vid: argument from ignorance explained through mining
December 30, 2015 at 9:22 pm
Pointing out invalid reasoning before the invalid reasoning becomes 10 posts later may save a lot of hassle.
Posts: 9479
Threads: 116
Joined: July 5, 2015
Reputation:
23
RE: New vid: argument from ignorance explained through mining
December 30, 2015 at 9:41 pm
(December 30, 2015 at 9:21 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: (December 30, 2015 at 8:35 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: I agree that atheists tend to overuse these sorts of arguments with people who either can't grasp them or don't care to and thus poison the conversation for nothing. Theists are people, first and foremost, not philosophy minors who need their fallacies pointed out. You need to establish a common ground first, and then make them see for themselves why their arguments are not solid, if they aren't.
As long as it is pointed out why their argument is fallacious, and why it invalidates their argument, I see no problem pointing them out as soon as they are used.
I agree, common ground has to be established. And the most fundamental common ground is for all arguments being used to be valid and sound.
As far as I'm concerned, pointing out fallacies, and explaining why they are, will make the theist a better debater.
It's not our fault that the arguments used by theists are fallacious.
If you're looking for a debate, maybe. If you're looking to help them out though, not so much. Would you rather live in a more rational world or not? If you do, that's not always how you go about it.
Posts: 9479
Threads: 116
Joined: July 5, 2015
Reputation:
23
RE: New vid: argument from ignorance explained through mining
December 30, 2015 at 9:42 pm
Posts: 9479
Threads: 116
Joined: July 5, 2015
Reputation:
23
RE: New vid: argument from ignorance explained through mining
December 30, 2015 at 9:43 pm
Posts: 3634
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: New vid: argument from ignorance explained through mining
December 30, 2015 at 10:08 pm
(December 30, 2015 at 9:42 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8LYTy4D...t57oh_yL5r
Watch this video.
I've seen all of Anthony Magnaboco's vids.
They are great.
You seem to have the idea that when I discuss religion with theists, I am pointing out fallacies the entire time. Not true. I use the Socratic method in a similar manor to Anthony's (based on Peter Boghossian's technique) all the time. But if a theist uses a fallacy, I'm going to point it out. I am not going to try to argue against a fallacious argument.
I believe there are many ways to try to convince theists of their irrational beliefs. There's a place for most approaches.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 9479
Threads: 116
Joined: July 5, 2015
Reputation:
23
RE: New vid: argument from ignorance explained through mining
December 30, 2015 at 10:57 pm
(December 30, 2015 at 10:08 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: (December 30, 2015 at 9:42 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8LYTy4D...t57oh_yL5r
Watch this video.
I've seen all of Anthony Magnaboco's vids.
They are great.
You seem to have the idea that when I discuss religion with theists, I am pointing out fallacies the entire time. Not true. I use the Socratic method in a similar manor to Anthony's (based on Peter Boghossian's technique) all the time. But if a theist uses a fallacy, I'm going to point it out. I am not going to try to argue against a fallacious argument.
I believe there are many ways to try to convince theists of their irrational beliefs. There's a place for most approaches. Bold mine
You point them out in a manor?
![[Image: Bia%C5%82ystok,_Pa%C5%82ac_Branickich_(pn-wsch).jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Bia%C5%82ystok,_Pa%C5%82ac_Branickich_(pn-wsch).jpg)
Posts: 5436
Threads: 138
Joined: September 6, 2012
Reputation:
58
RE: New vid: argument from ignorance explained through mining
December 30, 2015 at 11:58 pm
(December 30, 2015 at 8:53 pm)Evie Wrote: I think it's fine to point out logical fallacies if all you are doing is pointing out that the reasoning they used is invalid.
Also, it's not the Fallacy Fallacy to point out their fallacy and not address their point, if you want to point out that their argument is invalid and not address their point then that's fine you haven't committed a fallacy. The Fallacy Fallacy is actually when you do that and then claim that their conclusion is necessarily wrong just because the reasoning that got them there is fallacious. Ironically it's important you understand what the Fallacy Fallacy actually is before you point out that people are wrong in pointing out logical fallacies, if you then back that point up by saying that they are committing the Fallacy Fallacy when they aren't unless they insist the conclusion must be wrong no matter what just because the reasoning that got them there is fallacious.
By not addressing the point and just pointing out the fallacy, most of the time the person is implying that the argument is wrong because of that, if not outright stating it. If they aren't implying that it's wrong then pointing out a fallacy with no other point is just being a pointless nitpicker.
![[Image: dcep7c.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i46.tinypic.com%2Fdcep7c.jpg)
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: New vid: argument from ignorance explained through mining
December 31, 2015 at 12:02 am
I don't think it's pointless. I do it myself if I'm watching two people debate, on these open forums where everyone is welcome to chip in... I will point out when someone is committing a fallacy.
What's the harm in pointing out fallacious logic and then moving on?
I agree it's pedantic but sometimes I think pedantic is good. It often means technically correct.
And it avoids things like saying a person is implying something when they're not. It doesn't imply that the argument is wrong because of it at all. That would be to make an assumption about their intentions, which is one of the things that causes misunderstandings and strawmen in the first place.
Posts: 5436
Threads: 138
Joined: September 6, 2012
Reputation:
58
RE: New vid: argument from ignorance explained through mining
December 31, 2015 at 12:22 am
(December 31, 2015 at 12:02 am)Evie Wrote: I don't think it's pointless. I do it myself if I'm watching two people debate, on these open forums where everyone is welcome to chip in... I will point out when someone is committing a fallacy.
What's the harm in pointing out fallacious logic and then moving on?
I agree it's pedantic but sometimes I think pedantic is good. It often means technically correct.
And it avoids things like saying a person is implying something when they're not. It doesn't imply that the argument is wrong because of it at all. That would be to make an assumption about their intentions, which is one of the things that causes misunderstandings and strawmen in the first place.
I think the reality, from what I've observed here and else where on the internet, is that what it mostly does is piss off the person who is accused of using a fallacy and sidetrack the debate. You never hear professional debaters nitpick the fallacies of the other person. If it happened in a presidential debate the person doing it would just look like a douche.
|
