How to argue using bullshit abstract terms

[Neo-Scholastic]

…Always use the word 'prove' rather than talk about demonstrating, convincing, providing evidence of etc.

Who does that? I almost always refer to the 5 Ways as demonstrations. SteveII talks about the preponderance of evidence. I don’t recall Alphmale or Roadrunner calling their arguments proofs.

It is also possible to use your conclusion as your first premise and 'prove' it using a tautology.

Without an example you are just making a baseless accusation.

First, you can break any causal concept into four parts: material, formal, efficient, and final…Using these words will make you feel more intelligent. And this will be conveyed in your tone and demeanour to make it sound like you know what you are talking about. You will therefore be more likely to either convince your audience if non-sceptical, or get their respect otherwise.

Rather than confront the very precise meanings those terms have in Scholasticism, you impugn the integrity of people using those terms, which is just a blatant ad hominem attack.

If anyone questions you on what exactly you are referring to then respond with ask if they are seriously asking such a question when the answer is obvious and billions of other people use such a word.

Many fields, from architecture to economics to zoology, have highly specific nomenclatures that do not exactly match up with the everyday folk definitions of words. Moreover, the meanings of words change over time such that what a certain word meant in the 12th century will imply something completely different to modern ears.
The Scholastic philosophical tradition is no different. Personally, I have gone to great lengths trying to convey what certain terms meant to the medieval thinkers and how those terms were used often differed from how those words are used today. All you are doing is justifying your own laziness with the belligerent assertion that you cannot be bothered to understand archaic technical terms and how they were used.

He [Feser] goes into triangularity to describe an abstract concept;

People often do not think very much about what the process of abstraction entails. Sensible objects have both form and substance. Yield signs are triangular. Yield signs are metal. And yet, why do some people consider triangular an abstraction and metal something concrete? Neither is alienable from the other without destroying the sign.

a ball breaking a window to account for instantaneous (read timeless) causation…

That is his usual example to show the fallacious thinking of causation in terms of successive accidental events (i.e. Hume). And it is perfectly valid. The event of a ball striking a glass window and the event of the window’s glass shattering are not discrete events in succession; but rather, simultaneous actions within a single event. Modern notions of causality retain the term “efficient” cause but not the original meaning of it. In Scholastic philosophy an efficient cause is a thing, a thing whose presence was instrumental to the event. For example, wherever one finds someone bleeding Mack the Knife is found sneaking round a corner. From this we conclude that Mack the Knife was the efficient cause of the bleeding victim.

This is precisely why it is difficult to have a real conversation about something like the 5 Ways. I always confront the insistence that these have been “refuted” when if fact the arguments against them are grounded in misunderstanding the underlying concepts. The critics seem to always ague against claims that were never made or dispute premises that were not actually put forth. I’ve largely given up because the critics generally do not seem interested in knowing how the demonstrations were carefully crafted with very precise nomenclature having underlying assumptions that were taken for granted at the time.

He does seem to have a better book called "Five Proofs for the Existence of God". Maybe that one is easier to remain level-headed. The one I'm reading seems like it was written by an angry guy.

I've read a few entries of his blog.  I think he's just rather...... combative in general.

He also uses some very unfortunate, and i think inapplicable, examples. As for his tone, I believe he feels that he is primarily responding so so-called "New Atheists".

[RoadRunner79]

…Always use the word 'prove' rather than talk about demonstrating, convincing, providing evidence of etc.

Who does that? I almost always refer to the 5 Ways as demonstrations. SteveII talks about the preponderance of evidence. I don’t recall Alphmale or Roadrunner calling their arguments proofs.

---

It is also possible to use your conclusion as your first premise and 'prove' it using a tautology.

Without an example you are just making a baseless accusation.

First, you can break any causal concept into four parts: material, formal, efficient, and final…Using these words will make you feel more intelligent. And this will be conveyed in your tone and demeanour to make it sound like you know what you are talking about. You will therefore be more likely to either convince your audience if non-sceptical, or get their respect otherwise.

Rather than confront the very precise meanings those terms have in Scholasticism, you impugn the integrity of people using those terms, which is just a blatant ad hominem attack.

If anyone questions you on what exactly you are referring to then respond with ask if they are seriously asking such a question when the answer is obvious and billions of other people use such a word.

Many fields, from architecture to economics to zoology, have highly specific nomenclatures that do not exactly match up with the everyday folk definitions of words. Moreover, the meanings of words change over time such that what a certain word meant in the 12th century will imply something completely different to modern ears.
The Scholastic philosophical tradition is no different. Personally, I have gone to great lengths trying to convey what certain terms meant to the medieval thinkers and how those terms were used often differed from how those words are used today. All you are doing is justifying your own laziness with the belligerent assertion that you cannot be bothered to understand archaic technical terms and how they were used.

He [Feser] goes into triangularity to describe an abstract concept;

People often do not think very much about what the process of abstraction entails. Sensible objects have both form and substance. Yield signs are triangular. Yield signs are metal. And yet, why do some people consider triangular an abstraction and metal something concrete? Neither is alienable from the other without destroying the sign.

a ball breaking a window to account for instantaneous (read timeless) causation…

That is his usual example to show the fallacious thinking of causation in terms of successive accidental events (i.e. Hume). And it is perfectly valid. The event of a ball striking a glass window and the event of the window’s glass shattering are not discrete events in succession; but rather, simultaneous actions within a single event. Modern notions of causality retain the term “efficient” cause but not the original meaning of it. In Scholastic philosophy an efficient cause is a thing, a thing whose presence was instrumental to the event. For example, wherever one finds someone bleeding Mack the Knife is found sneaking round a corner. From this we conclude that Mack the Knife was the efficient cause of the bleeding victim.

This is precisely why it is difficult to have a real conversation about something like the 5 Ways. I always confront the insistence that these have been “refuted” when if fact the arguments against them are grounded in misunderstanding the underlying concepts. The critics seem to always ague against claims that were never made or dispute premises that were not actually put forth. I’ve largely given up because the critics generally do not seem interested in knowing how the demonstrations were carefully crafted with very precise nomenclature having underlying assumptions that were taken for granted at the time.

I've read a few entries of his blog.  I think he's just rather...... combative in general.

He also uses some very unfortunate, and i think inapplicable, examples. As for his tone, I believe he feels that he is primarily responding so so-called "New Atheists".

---

I am very much against the mis-use of the terms "prove" or "proof" in regards to science or inductive arguments; so I do not often use them.

[polymath257]

He [Feser] goes into triangularity to describe an abstract concept;

People often do not think very much about what the process of abstraction entails. Sensible objects have both form and substance. Yield signs are triangular. Yield signs are metal. And yet, why do some people consider triangular an abstraction and metal something concrete? Neither is alienable from the other without destroying the sign.

Why? Because being 'triangular' isn't a physical thing: it is how physical things are *arranged*. Being metal, however, *is* a physical thing: it is the properties of the physical materials that are there.

a ball breaking a window to account for instantaneous (read timeless) causation…

That is his usual example to show the fallacious thinking of causation in terms of successive accidental events (i.e. Hume). And it is perfectly valid. The event of a ball striking a glass window and the event of the window’s glass shattering are not discrete events in succession; but rather, simultaneous actions within a single event. Modern notions of causality retain the term “efficient” cause but not the original meaning of it. In Scholastic philosophy an efficient cause is a thing, a thing whose presence was instrumental to the event. For example, wherever one finds someone bleeding Mack the Knife is found sneaking round a corner. From this we conclude that Mack the Knife was the efficient cause of the bleeding victim.

No, the striking of the glass occurs very slightly before the breaking of the glass. The breaking occurs because the force of the ball striking the glass is sufficient to overcome the forces between the atoms in the glass itself. because of that, the glass loses its structural integrity: it breaks. The process is NOT instantaneous. It is just faster than people can typically see because our nervous systems are so slow.

This is precisely why it is difficult to have a real conversation about something like the 5 Ways. I always confront the insistence that these have been “refuted” when if fact the arguments against them are grounded in misunderstanding the underlying concepts. The critics seem to always ague against claims that were never made or dispute premises that were not actually put forth. I’ve largely given up because the critics generally do not seem interested in knowing how the demonstrations were carefully crafted with very precise nomenclature having underlying assumptions that were taken for granted at the time.

Well, at least part of the problem is that the scholastic concepts are either incredibly vague or circular in definition. For example, the definition you gave above for an efficient cause as being 'instrumental' to the event is simply circular: how do you tell if something is instrumental? because it caused the event!

[Edwardo Piet]

Lots of them sound like Deepak to my ears anyway.

Don't be silly. For Deepak to come up with a bullshit argument he'd have to come up with an argument.

Deepak is more like this: "Your movement belongs to subjective human observation. Quantum physics constructs the door of molecules. The ego is the continuity of potential images. A formless void is the path to infinite reality. Evolution drives subtle balance. The soul is inside new life. Our consciousness is in the midst of pure self-knowledge. Nature is the ground of incredible destiny."

It doesn't even reach BAD argument level