To reason abductively, then, is to commit a logical fallacy.
Ha!
To reason inductively is to commit a logical fallacy too, Bryan.
Crow #1 is black
Crow #2 is black
Crow #3 is black
------------
Crow #4 will be black
... is a deductively fallacious argument.
Abduction is the form of argument that detectives use to determine who is most likely responsible for a crime. It is also the form of argument that scientists use to determine which theory is most likely the explanation of the given evidence. Yes, it is deductively fallacious, as is any inductive argument. But it is still a good form of argument, and indeed the only method we have of coming up with explanations of anything.
This is all really basic philosophy of science, sorry to say.
I must admit that this is the first time I’ve seen “hire” used where it doesn’t mean the person gets paid.
Do you know that the pastor was not paid?
I don’t. I misread you to say that the speaker was paid (you referred to “teacher").
Regardless, you should have some evidence that the pastor was paid before declaring that he was hired. If not, your position appears to be based on faith.
To reason abductively, then, is to commit a logical fallacy.
Ha!
To reason inductively is to commit a logical fallacy too, Bryan.
Crow #1 is black
Crow #2 is black
Crow #3 is black
------------
Crow #4 will be black
... is a deductively fallacious argument.
I like the way you stuck “deductively” in there. It’s almost like the informal fallacies don’t exist.
The problem with abduction is deeper than that because you can’t even wring a strong inductive argument out of it. And don’t forget that you denied that your reasoning was fallacious. If you knew it was fallacious all along then why did you deny having committed a fallacy?
Abduction is the form of argument that detectives use to determine who is most likely responsible for a crime. It is also the form of argument that scientists use to determine which theory is most likely the explanation of the given evidence. Yes, it is deductively fallacious, as is any inductive argument. But it is still a good form of argument, and indeed the only method we have of coming up with explanations of anything.
This is all really basic philosophy of science, sorry to say.
The deductive fallacies constitute only a portion of the logical fallacies. Champion smoke-blowing there, Doug.
You can’ t claim to have a strong argument for the priority of earlier clauses in law based on induction and you can’t claim that an argument based on abduction hasn’t committed a logical fallacy (that latter of which you did). Regardless of the smoke you blow, you lose the point.
C’mon Bryan, read your own post. Everyone commits deductive fallacies all the time, particularly when we use inductive reasoning. I clearly meant that I had not committed any fallacy of reasoning, since abduction is a good form of reasoning, as is induction.
C’mon Bryan, read your own post. Everyone commits deductive fallacies all the time, particularly when we use inductive reasoning.
In my own post I acknowledge the existence of informal fallacies, which you apparently would like to sweep under the rug together with your denial that you had committed a fallacy.
Review my challenge to your argument and you’ll see that I allowed you deductive and inductive options for making your case. I predicted a fallacy in the case of a deductive argument and a fallacy (obviously informal) in the case of an inductive argument. I summed up by saying that your argument was (pathetically) weak.
You can have a strong inductive argument even if you’ve got a deductive fallacy, but you’ve got the fallacy and a weak argument.
I clearly meant that I had not committed any fallacy of reasoning, since abduction is a good form of reasoning, as is induction.
Deduction is not a good form of reasoning when it includes fallacies. Inductive reasoning is not a good form of reasoning when it includes informal fallacies. Your argument amounts to a hypothesis that prior clauses supercede later clauses based on your analysis of three examples among the millions of laws. Abduction may be a useful form of reasoning, but it’s an exceptionally weak tool to use in order to try to advance the linchpin of your Constitutional argument that the ordering of the clauses makes it dandy as can be to prefer the establishment clause to the religious freedom clause.
It was no exaggeration to call your argument pathetically weak. Trying to pass off abduction as good reasoning in that context is bad reasoning.
Guys, please take the niggling over logical fallacies elsewhere, as it is off-topic and cluttering up the thread.
Bryan, as much as you love to deconstruct other people’s arguments, it isn’t a very effective strategy for presenting a position. From the posts here so far, I know that you think everyone else’s argument is stupid, but I have very little idea what you think. I also know that you are smart (though I doubt as smart as you think you are), and so should be smart enough to realize that your style is argumentative, condescending, and guaranteed to piss people off. Our goal here is to have constructive debate, and your participation in these debates is rarely anything but destructive. I highly doubt you care, but I thought I’d point out to you that people would likely be a lot more receptive to your positions if you presented them dispassionately, rather than simply denigrating and nitpicking evryone else’s positions.
Guys, please take the niggling over logical fallacies elsewhere, as it is off-topic and cluttering up the thread.
Bryan, as much as you love to deconstruct other people’s arguments, it isn’t a very effective strategy for presenting a position.
Is it permissible to simply critique the professed position of somebody else?
From the posts here so far, I know that you think everyone else’s argument is stupid, but I have very little idea what you think.
Hopefully I’ve gone beyond mere opinion in making my case as to the former. As to the latter, you’re allowed to ask.
I also know that you are smart (though I doubt as smart as you think you are), and so should be smart enough to realize that your style is argumentative, condescending, and guaranteed to piss people off.
Arguing is argumentative by definition, isn’t it? I disagree that I am condescending (qualification: I’m sure I must be at times since I’ve responded to arguments that make Doug’s legal priority approach look like sheer genius), but the present thread provides no unprovoked examples). I sincerely express my openness to any variety of opposing arguments and I treat the argument according to its content. In the current thread it was Doug who proceeded to condescend (albeit after he insinuated that I was antisemitic and racist):
“If you want to learn more about abduction, you can start, e.g., HERE.”
(additional context only enhances the condescension)
In making that statement, Doug apparently glossed over the fact that abduction is considered a type of inductive reasoning (his statement apparently made in support of some earlier condescension: “And BTW, if you think inference to the best explanation is an inductive argument, you don’t know what either of them are").
I’ve since demonstrated with an appropriate reference that “inference to the best explanation” is an inductive approach. How do you not count Doug as engaging in condescension without manifesting a bias in his favor?
Our goal here is to have constructive debate, and your participation in these debates is rarely anything but destructive.
I don’t think you’re fairly weighing the evidence. Would it be more constructive if I meekly assented to Doug’s false claim that calling his abductive approach “induction” serves to indicate that I don’t know what I’m talking about? I can’t see it. Should I be considering a different example?
I highly doubt you care, but I thought I’d point out to you that people would likely be a lot more receptive to your positions if you presented them dispassionately, rather than simply denigrating and nitpicking evryone else’s positions.
I appreciate your comment.
For myself, I appreciate it when somebody nitpicks and denigrates my position if the critique is well-reasoned. That way I can improve my position (or, failing that, adopt a new one). I think that my attitude is in keeping with the true spirit of inquiry and (if you like) the spirit of science. I do know that not everyone is like me in that respect, but I do know that secularists tend to pride themselves on it. As a result, typically when I engage in conversation with skeptics and atheists I can expect at least some of the participants to pursue vigorous disagreement without taking things personally.
You’re correct that I don’t overly concern myself with the feelings of others while discussing things online, other than by carefully avoiding personal insult (except in the context of challenge-riposte). To me, when somebody like Doug seeks to illegitimately undermine my credibility he opens himself up to a riposte, and that should be considered fair even if I’m moving in a mildly-to-moderately biased circle.
I do find it somewhat incredible that Doug can insinuate racism and antisemitism on my part while my comparatively mild responses get singled out as “sure to piss people off.”
Wouldn’t you ban me if I did to you what Doug did to me? Wouldn’t that be the excuse you were waiting for?
Dr. McKenzie, I am perfectly willing to try to work within whatever parameters you and the other moderators decide counts for “constructive” debate--it’s your (plural) forum. But if you wish to maintain an appearance of dispassionate objectivity it would behoove you to support the type of attack you just launched on me with specific examples that do not simultaneously indict site moderators. And I would think that this type of call for evidence should be expected to resonate in a forum that has “Center for Inquiry” in big letters at the top.
You say that my position isn’t known. Why should that be a concern? I’ve shown in the past that I am happy to describe my positions when asked. Sometimes, however, the attempt to get me to describe my position is used as a distraction by people who wish to escape critique of their own positions (psychologically understandable and forgiveable, but it is a red herring fallacy or sometimes a shift of the burden of proof in those cases).
You also say that the discussion of logical fallacies is off-topic. In this case, the discussion of fallacies surrounds Doug’s assertion that temporal order of the law corresponds to the priority of importance. I would think that the means used by one party to justify his claims respecting the topic would themselves be on-topic as well as the criticisms launched as a result. But I remain open to an explanation as to why that would not be the case. In the meantime, if there were a thread dedicated to the priority of law as it relates to the chronological ordering of the law, would this be the correct sub-forum? I’ll go ahead and start a new thread on the topic if that’s what you want (as moderator).
You know, this debate is getting a bit out of hand. However, Brennen is a mod also and since your post addresses him, I’ll leave it to him as to how to handle it, but I really don’t like the tone this is taking, Bryan. I haven’t for a while now.
I do find it somewhat incredible that Doug can insinuate racism and antisemitism on my part while my comparatively mild responses get singled out as “sure to piss people off.”
Personally, I was enjoying the debate. Points by both, Bryan and Doug, made me think (a few, “hmm, good point” moments). Also, IMHO, Doug offered one of the finer arguments I’ve seen in the sometimes gladiatoral forum arena. So, I want to get back to the regular schedule programming and have this not deteriorate into a debate about debate.
With that said, unless I missed something, Doug did nothing of the kind that you mention in that quote, Bryan. It’s frankly disheartening to see you say such a thing.
I do feel that the in-depth debate about logical fallacies has gotten beyond the reasonable range of the thread, so if you and Doug (and I did address that portion of my comment to both of you) wish to continue it, I think another thread would be best.
I also believe you are being disingenuous in claiming that you see bias in my comments (and I would not agree with your characterization of them as an “attack."). Perhaps you are simply not aware of the impression your style of posting creates, but I give you more credit than that, in which case you must understand what I was referring to and why I don’t think it applies equally to Doug’s posts. You are correct that you avoid ad hominem attacks, for which I applaud you. However, it is possible to critique another person’s position without doing so in what I frankly regard as a provocative and hostile manner. Argument need not be argumentative in that it need not have a combative tone, and yet your style of argument generally does (and I am not referring only to this thread but to others we have both participated in).
As for asking you to state your position, it is in my case at least merely an attempt to understand what you actually believe. I do wonder if you so rarely state a position just because that would force you to defend one rather than simply continue attacking other people’s posts, but that’s just a conjecture on my part. Your posts are far more concerned with destroying other people’s positions than stating one of your own, and this does, IMHO, make your posts more destructive than constructive. It discourages participation in the discussion by anyone who is not as combative and confident as yourself, and I don’t frankly think people’s opinions are only as valuable as the certainty and confidence with which they are willing to present them in a forum like this. Other members have complained to me that they are reluctant to participate in threads with you since having their posts (as distinct, I might add, from their ideas) dissected as you do it is unpleasant and not helpful. So while you should take note that I am not presenting this as an official warning of any kind (which by convention would be in blue type), I feel personally that you can make your own points and conter the arguments of others without conveying as hostile an impression.
As for banning, that is a red herring for sure. If I thought you’d done anything to justify banning, or even if I thought you honestly had nothing intelligent and worthwhile to say, I wouldn’t be bothering with these comments. It’s only the members I think actually have something to contribute despite the problems they cause that I bother talking to in this way.
So for specifics, what am I asking? Well, I’m not going to go through your posts and cull examples because I think that would just degenerate into exactly the line-by-line squabbling over minutiae that I see as problematic in your posts. In general, try to apply your critiques to the fundamental point other people make as much or more than the details of their sentances. Posts are more useful if they appear as part of a point/counterpoint debate rather than, as yours often strike me, as a formal detailed critique of an essay by a grumpy teacher. Also, try to acknowledge that you understand the other person’s point, and even that it may have some legitimacy, even if you then proceed to point out where you disagree and why. You are not infallable or unerring on every point, and yet you very rarely ever concede someone you disagree with has said something sensible. In general, try to withold sarcasm or use it sparingly and only after you’ve been given cause. Even if it is just a stylistic choice, sarcasm creates a negative atmosphere which I think quashes the open exchange of ideas. Simply put, I think you could be a little nicer, at least to those who have not given hyou cause to be harsh, and if you did so I think people would pay more attention and take more seriously what you have to say.
Yes, I agree, banning is a red herring. I’m not sure what Doug did to you, Bryan. I’ve read the posts and well, frankly, 1. I just don’t see it 2. IF he did, he is the admin and 3. It takes a lot more than that for a person to be banned. A person can disagree adamantly with a mod or admin on a topic and not be banned for it, as long as they are not perpetually verbally abusive, degrading, or combative about it. We all make occassional mistakes and when called on it, we need to take a step back and do some deep breathing or even drop out of a topic, if need be for whatever reason, even if it’s just for a day or two.
I do feel that the in-depth debate about logical fallacies has gotten beyond the reasonable range of the thread, so if you and Doug (and I did address that portion of my comment to both of you) wish to continue it, I think another thread would be best.
OK, I’ll do that. And thank you for attempting to spell out your complaints against me. I do sincerely appreciate it (and I say “attempt” simply because I do prefer to deal in specifics).
I also believe you are being disingenuous in claiming that you see bias in my comments (and I would not agree with your characterization of them as an “attack."). Perhaps you are simply not aware of the impression your style of posting creates, but I give you more credit than that, in which case you must understand what I was referring to and why I don’t think it applies equally to Doug’s posts. You are correct that you avoid ad hominem attacks, for which I applaud you. However, it is possible to critique another person’s position without doing so in what I frankly regard as a provocative and hostile manner. Argument need not be argumentative in that it need not have a combative tone, and yet your style of argument generally does (and I am not referring only to this thread but to others we have both participated in).
I disagree with your assessment, but regardless of that I will increase my effort to appear obviously more charitable than my debate opponents.
As for asking you to state your position, it is in my case at least merely an attempt to understand what you actually believe. I do wonder if you so rarely state a position just because that would force you to defend one rather than simply continue attacking other people’s posts, but that’s just a conjecture on my part. Your posts are far more concerned with destroying other people’s positions than stating one of your own, and this does, IMHO, make your posts more destructive than constructive.
I’d call the reasoned destruction of bad arguments a constructive pursuit. Participating in an argument that degenerates into mutual recrimination while losing sight of the topic would be destructive, in my view. I try to stick with the tradition of blocking shifts of the burden of proof in a present argument while making clear that I’m willing to discuss other topics (including my views) in a separate thread. I’ve done that twice already in this forum, according to my recollection (last time was when Doug discovered that my secret agenda was to speak out for ID--I invited him to start a thread on it and PM me the URL--still waiting).
It discourages participation in the discussion by anyone who is not as combative and confident as yourself, and I don’t frankly think people’s opinions are only as valuable as the certainty and confidence with which they are willing to present them in a forum like this. Other members have complained to me that they are reluctant to participate in threads with you since having their posts (as distinct, I might add, from their ideas) dissected as you do it is unpleasant and not helpful. So while you should take note that I am not presenting this as an official warning of any kind (which by convention would be in blue type), I feel personally that you can make your own points and conter the arguments of others without conveying as hostile an impression.
I haven’t assumed that you were writing as a moderator as such, but it certainly wasn’t lost on me that you do serve as a moderator.
I just spent some time reviewing my posting history, and I have trouble seeing the hostility.
My preferred approaches in countering the arguments of others are probing for self-contradiction (can the position be fairly expressed in a self-stultifying manner?) and the Socratic method (asking questions to increase my understanding of the other’s position, frequently leading to other questions and/or counterexamples that challenge the argument). I had no difficulty finding threads where I engaged in these methods with no apparent problem with other participants.
I’m sympathetic regarding your concern about people who might be intimidated about posting simply because they don’t want to get into the nitty-gritty details. All I can really say about that is that I strongly prefer to engage in conversation with those willing to engage in difficult discussion. I’m much more likely to call an argument foolish if it seems apparent that my opponent really ought to know better. I think I have a solution in mind.
As for banning, that is a red herring for sure. If I thought you’d done anything to justify banning, or even if I thought you honestly had nothing intelligent and worthwhile to say, I wouldn’t be bothering with these comments. It’s only the members I think actually have something to contribute despite the problems they cause that I bother talking to in this way.
Aw, shucks.
My point, for what it’s worth, was to prompt you to consider how my board interactions compare with those of others. But I admit that the sentence to the effect that you’d have been waiting for certain behaviors to ban me likely did much to produce that perception on your part. My bad.
So for specifics, what am I asking? Well, I’m not going to go through your posts and cull examples because I think that would just degenerate into exactly the line-by-line squabbling over minutiae that I see as problematic in your posts.
You might be surprised.
You’re right that I’ll question it if I strongly disagree, but I try to focus on the purpose. I want to find out what you think it takes for me to get along peacefully here, and specific examples help me get there better than anything else.
In general, try to apply your critiques to the fundamental point other people make as much or more than the details of their sentances. Posts are more useful if they appear as part of a point/counterpoint debate rather than, as yours often strike me, as a formal detailed critique of an essay by a grumpy teacher. Also, try to acknowledge that you understand the other person’s point, and even that it may have some legitimacy, even if you then proceed to point out where you disagree and why. You are not infallable or unerring on every point, and yet you very rarely ever concede someone you disagree with has said something sensible. In general, try to withold sarcasm or use it sparingly and only after you’ve been given cause. Even if it is just a stylistic choice, sarcasm creates a negative atmosphere which I think quashes the open exchange of ideas. Simply put, I think you could be a little nicer, at least to those who have not given hyou cause to be harsh, and if you did so I think people would pay more attention and take more seriously what you have to say.
I think I may be doing those things more consistently than you think but regardless I will intensify my efforts across the board (no pun intended). Sometimes perception is almost as good as reality. So I’ll work on your perception.
It’s almost like the informal fallacies don’t exist.
