Even when you're right - it's still possible to make bad arguments.

by Coded Logic 8 Replies latest social current

  • Coded Logic
    Coded Logic

    During heated debates people - who are normaly quite rational - often start employing bad reasoning. It's important that when we're emotionaly invested in a topic we don't let our feelings destroy our ability to put forth valid arguments. The best way to bring people to our side of a debate is by using good logic. Hopefully, shinning light on some fallacies will arm you for the future. Here's just a few I've spotted recently:

    .

    Darren Wilson hasn't been indicted - therefore Brown was lawfully shot by the officer

    (Tautology rhetoric - a self-reinforcing pretense) This arguement precludes the possibility that a person can do something unlawful and simultaneously not be indicted.

    .

    Some people looted a store in Furguson - therefore the Hands Up Don't Shoot movement is a farce

    (Biased Sample - drawing conclusions about a group of people from a non-representive sample) Just becasue some, if any, of the people involved in this movement looted a store it does not follow the movement is a farce.

    .

    Michael Brown robbed a convenience store - therefore we should not support his right to life

    (Non Sequitur - presenting evidence that is irrelevant to the conclusion) We still support peoples right to life regardless if they have or haven't robbed convenience stores.

    .

    Link
  • OneEyedJoe
    OneEyedJoe

    I'm glad this bothers someone other than myself. When people are debating something (this usually happens in online forums), and the person that I agree with most uses deeply flawed "logic" in support of his argument, it always makes me want to switch sides on principle. I actually touched on this in my opening post here - the rampant fallacy used by the WTS always had the same effect on me - I often found myself playing devil's advocate (I love the irony of that phrase when applied to considering the case against WT doctrine) in my head and finding that the argument against whatever was being said by the speaker seemed much more logical. This made me wildly uncomfortable during many a meeting and convention while I was still mentally indoctrinated.

    Link
  • Coded Logic
    Coded Logic

    It's a fundamental difficulty in epistomology, being right and being wrong feels exactly the same - because we only hold positions that we believe to be true. It's only when we realize we are wrong that we feel embarasment or disapointment.

    Link
  • Phizzy
    Phizzy

    It is also possible to make a "good" argument when you are wrong. You can start from a falsehood, and using logical argument not containing a fallacy you can seem to prove that falsehood.

    It is a well known Exercise when learning about Argument and Logic to do this. I think most Politicians seem to have learned this Dark Art.

    Scrutiny of the starting point, or basic premise, of an argument is important, I had this with a discussion I had with a Christian a while ago who said Jesus of Nazareth must be the Christ because "the Scriptures" convinced Paul that he was. Of couse, those same Scriptures are no authority for anything, the starting point of his argument is wrong/faulty.

    I do agree that it is important that our argumentation is of top quality when talking with Believers, especially JW's, who are taught to leap upon any error in argument as proving the whole premise to be wrong, in their mind.

    Link
  • Coded Logic
    Coded Logic

    There are only two places that an arguement can be wrong. Either the premises used to support a conclusion are not true - or the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

    That's it. That's the only two places you need look when addressing a claim. Once you understand this basic prinicple of logic it makes seeing the logical fallacies of politicians, and everyone else, infinitely easier.

    To your point Phizzy, the only time someone could make a "good argument when they're wrong" is if we were operating under false premises that we believed to be true. Though, once the premise was discovered to be false or not supportable, the wrong argument would cease to be a "good" argument.

    Link
  • vacaypioneer
    vacaypioneer

    Coded Logic, I am not sure if this thread would be the appropriat place to post this, but I can not create another thread for 13 hours and I really would like another persons take on this issue so I figured I would ask this question here. Feel free to ignore this if you feel it may derail your thread. What are your (or anyone else for that matters) views on how "tribalism" plays a role in preventing posters from making logical arguments and rational arguments.

    I spent some time yesterday going through a couple of threads and I realized that there was no way that either a free exchange of thought or a fair an unbiased discussion could continue. It was kind of dis heartening because I wanted to jump in but I then realized that it would be like walking in front of a moving train.

    Link
  • new hope and happiness
    new hope and happiness

    vacaypioneer, for what it is worth, i thought your points on that thread were balanced and reasonable.

    Sometimes on this board it's best to give a poster the " victory" and leave it at that.

    Hope you stick around.

    Link
  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    OneEyedJoe - "When people are debating something (this usually happens in online forums), and the person that I agree with most uses deeply flawed "logic" in support of his argument, it always makes me want to switch sides on principle. I actually touched on this in my opening post here - the rampant fallacy used by the WTS always had the same effect on me - I often found myself playing devil's advocate (I love the irony of that phrase when applied to considering the case against WT doctrine) in my head and finding that the argument against whatever was being said by the speaker seemed much more logical."

    That happened to me, too, particularly in many of the WTS arguments against evolution; it was a significant part of helping me wake up.

    I've always respected fair play, and once I realized that creationists - including the WTS- were all using "dirty-lawyer" tactics in their rejection of evolution... well... as far as I was concerned, that was a free pass for me to objectively examine the arguments and evidence of the "other side".

    Which, ultimately, led me to realize that if you have to cheat to defend your beliefs, your beliefs don't deserve to be defended.

    Link
  • Apognophos
    Apognophos

    Yes, that was my experience too, Vidiot. When I realized that the Society's arguments against evolution were specious, it led me to research the topic more fully. Unfortunately I allowed creationist sites to lead me astray. I think I still wanted to believe in creationism, so I let their arguments hold more sway with me than they deserved.

    That being said, the conclusion of my research was that I saw both sides of the issue as being equally likely, rather than deciding firmly on creationism. So it definitely was the beginning of a mental move away from the "truth", especially because I had to rely on non-Watchtower arguments to support my position once I had seen how little the Society's writers knew about evolution and how little interest they had in representing it fairly (Ken Ham makes those guys look bad, and that's saying a lot).

    I spent some time yesterday going through a couple of threads and I realized that there was no way that either a free exchange of thought or a fair an unbiased discussion could continue. It was kind of dis heartening because I wanted to jump in but I then realized that it would be like walking in front of a moving train.

    I would just suggest that people are this way everywhere. How many people have you seen discussing Ferguson rationally outside of this board? Five percent? So why should this forum be an exception to human emotionality? I don't actually know which discussions you're referring to, and you might not mean any of the more politically-charged ones, but in those cases at least, I'm not surprised when people cannot temper their emotions. It's sadly just humans being humans.

    Personally I don't even read those topics, much less participate. Once someone responds rudely to one's post, it's hard to remain calm and not retaliate, so I prefer to avoid emotionally-charged topics altogether (though sometimes I get caught in a topic that turns emotional, and it gets to me too). It's also true that there is probably more pent-up anger among the users here than on an average forum, just because of our experiences. See this topic for a very telling insight into the board's mindset, as an example: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/experiences/284727/1/I-loathe-authority

    That being said, sometimes it's fun to jump in front of (imaginary) trains It can't actually hurt you. Why not just dive in and offer your opinion? Expressing oneself freely is a nice change of pace from being a Witness, and especially from being at Bethel, right? Odds are, a few members will appreciate what you have to say. Sometimes it takes one person to speak up first; then they find that others chime in to support them. And even if the discussion goes south, don't worry; people generally don't seem to remember who said what a month later.

    Link

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit