Logical Fallacies

[GotR]

I didn't even insult the OP. And you are getting so worked up just because I'm trying to "belittle" an overly proud OP.

I'm just trying to tell the OP to be more humble, which is beneficial to him later on in life.

And why don't you just let people google the names of the fallacies themselves?
And let for example Wikipedia to do all the explaining?

That logic course bit was typed before I knew he was stydying in Cambridge, and I somehow didn't delete it.
But even so, is this one mistake so unforgivable?

Over value my own opinion? How?
What about those people who actually insult people for not being on their side?
You act like you have completely no problem when those people use abusive language (on the race thread), but every time I do a little something, you have to have an opinion about it?

It's bloody funny how you accuse me of so many things that are simply not true.
Narcissistic? lol.

People watching your debate aren't going to google stuff while watching your debate, that's a ridiculous argument. Further, saying 'this logical fallacy has happened' doesn't connect with why the argument is incorrect - you have to explain that anyway.

You overvalue your own opinion by systematically believing things that have been relevant to you, without taking into consideration the fact that your opinion doesn't hold really any weight on topics you're not an expert in, and you haven't backed up any of your wild claims with any actual proof. Yet, pretty much your entire post is based on your own - generally either false, misinformed, or underdeveloped - opinion.

The fact that I haven't shut other people down for their idiotic posts doesn't change the fact that your post wasn't backed up by anything. That has to be a logical fallacy, I just don't know what it's called. Further, this is the first time I've called you out on something, and frankly it was because you made a boat load of logical errors in a thread about calling out people's logical errors. Don't confused me with Soul Fly, who I believe has had an issue with you on other threads. I treat posts on a case by case basis; I don't specifically have a problem with you.

Finally, this post I'm responding to didn't contribute to healthy discussion in anyway way, aside from repeating your incorrect opinion that fallacies don't need to be explained in debates. They do, otherwise they're not relevant. Let's move on.

 

[gvmgvm40]

The fact that I haven't shut other people down for their idiotic posts doesn't change the fact that your post wasn't backed up by anything. That has to be a logical fallacy, I just don't know what it's called.

Nirvana fallacy? You have limited time and energy and can't correct everyone who is wrong on the internet, nor you are aiming to. Correcting just one is presumably better than doing nothing.

 

[Myzozoa]

Oh yes, there were a fair old few.



I don't know that this conforms to any kind of formal fallacy. The problem really was just that the analogy had a problem and that, if the analogy is fixed to match abortion more closely, then it actually yields the conclusion that abortion is not justified.

argument from analogy is always suspicious as it hinges on the relevance of the similarities between the situation at hand and the situation that is alleged to be analogous. so if you change the analogy again and again (i.e first the analogy is about the carrier of the baby and a life support at a hospital, then becomes a fetus to a cancer), you will find the validity of justifications for abortion changes.

Not sure if there is a latin phrase for the spotty introduction of analogies, but it will frequently lead to non-sequitur, and in a performative debate it is style of 'argument' that precipitates rhetoric, with possibly little introduction of additional evidences, as the terms of an analogy are evaluated and redefined. Just seems a susp method to me, but maybe this is just a personal feeling.

 

[GotR]

Nirvana fallacy? You have limited time and energy and can't correct everyone who is wrong on the internet, nor you are aiming to. Correcting just one is presumably better than doing nothing.

That seems right! I'm trying to think of other situations in which that one would be used, and it seems like it'd be relevant for basically any argument that revolves around 'Instead, you could be helping starving African children', or even, 'Instead of funding [insert thing the person arbitrarily doesn't like here], the money could go to something useful like cancer research'.

 

[Saz Chan >^-^<]

argument from analogy is always suspicious as it hinges on the relevance of the similarities between the situation at hand and the situation that is alleged to be analogous. so if you change the analogy again and again (i.e first the analogy is about the carrier of the baby and a life support at a hospital, then becomes a fetus to a cancer), you will find the validity of justifications for abortion changes.

Not sure if there is a latin phrase for the spotty introduction of analogies, but it will frequently lead to non-sequitur, and in a performative debate it is style of 'argument' that precipitates rhetoric, with possibly little introduction of additional evidences, as the terms of an analogy are evaluated and redefined. Just seems a susp method to me, but maybe this is just a personal feeling.

Analogy is problematic because all analogies break down eventually. It is in the nature of analogical language that it is imperfect. But, as long as it is crystal clear which parts of the analogy are relevant to the principle at hand, and which are not, then I think that it is an acceptable way to argue.

In the analogy I mentioned, for example, my opponent was trying to make the case that the fetus in the womb is analogous to the comatose person, since they are both lacking in consciousness, and both completely dependent on others. Since the comatose person may legitimately have their life taken from them, so may the fetus. My opponent's use of the analogy was, in my opinion, perfectly respectable, since she brought out precisely the aspects of the comatose case to which she was drawing a parallel.

The problem was with the strength of the analogy itself, since the reason why the comatose person's life may be taken away is not strictly because of the lack of consciousness or because of their complete dependence, but because of the permanence of these things. That which motivates pulling the plug is the lack of hope for the person's recovery, which of course would not apply if such a person were only temporarily in such a state.

The closer analogy to a pregnancy, in which a person is only temporarily comatose, and may therefore not have their life taken from them, actually demonstrates something quite important: that the mere fact of the fetus' lack of consciousness, as well as its total dependence, is insufficient to establish that it forfeits its right to life.

So, I believe that analogies can be powerful, as well as persuasive. I was once in a public debate, and during the cross-examination section, said "Let me try an analogy", and the audience instantly applauded. They are big crowd-pleasers.

 

[Myzozoa]

Analogy is problematic because all analogies break down eventually. It is in the nature of analogical language that it is imperfect. But, as long as it is crystal clear which parts of the analogy are relevant to the principle at hand, and which are not, then I think that it is an acceptable way to argue.

They are big crowd-pleasers.

I'm not saying they aren't persuasive, I'm saying they shouldn't be. Like ok cool, it's an 'imperfect' form of reasoning that somehow has a very powerful rhetorical effect, but it shouldn't because you know, reason is supposed to be reliable, right? Is the aim certainty/correctness or isn't it? If it isn't, why would we bother hashing things out in the debate? To persuade? But apparently not to persuade people of something that is true or logically thought out...


Analogies, such as the one mentioned about a life support system and a comatose person, must be sustained by evidence. The analogy given was used by your adversary in the debate, to precipitate a common, but completely unfounded project, of surveying 'common sense' moral intuitions. That their conclusion from the analogy was short-sighted is not at all the issue, the actual terms of the analogy are not sustained by evidence because a pregnant person's body is not like a life support system for a comatose person. There is no material way in which these cases resemble each other. Seriously. You can't draw a principle from an analogy before you check if their are relevant differences that break the analogy (like the fact that a life-support system isn't an embodied subject that suffers health consequences from supporting the person in a vegetative state). The analogy was proposed and then uncritically taken up as the new centre of the discourse/debate. Hence why I said that analogical reasoning will frequently precipitate non-sequiturs.

 

[Saz Chan >^-^<]

I'm not saying they aren't persuasive, I'm saying they shouldn't be. Like ok cool, it's an 'imperfect' form of reasoning that somehow has a very powerful rhetorical effect, but it shouldn't because you know, reason is supposed to be reliable, right? Is the aim certainty/correctness or isn't it? If it isn't, why would we bother hashing things out in the debate? To persuade? But apparently not to persuade people of something that is true or logically thought out...


Analogies, such as the one mentioned about a life support system and a comatose person, must be sustained by evidence. The analogy given was used by your adversary in the debate, to precipitate a common, but completely unfounded project, of surveying 'common sense' moral intuitions. That their conclusion from the analogy was short-sighted is not at all the issue, the actual terms of the analogy are not sustained by evidence because a pregnant person's body is not like a life support system for a comatose person. There is no material way in which these cases resemble each other. Seriously. You can't draw a principle from an analogy before you check if their are relevant differences that break the analogy (like the fact that a life-support system isn't an embodied subject that suffers health consequences from supporting the person in a vegetative state). The analogy was proposed and then uncritically taken up as the new centre of the discourse/debate. Hence why I said that analogical reasoning will frequently precipitate non-sequiturs.

Well, you insist that an analogy is an imperfect form of reasoning, but I think that this is a category error. Analogies are not a form of reasoning at all, they are just a comparison between two states of affairs. As such, analogies are not so much argued as stated. Analogies are not arguments in themselves; more often they are attempts to illustrate a principle, which may then be used to formulate an argument.

When I said that analogies are always imperfect (as they are) I simply meant that not all aspects of an analogy will match perfectly the situation to which a comparison is drawn. If every aspect were identical, it wouldn't be analogy at all. It would be a description. This does not mean that analogies are bad or illogical, it simply means that you need to be clear about precisely which aspects are relevant to the illustration and which are not. Analogies have every reason to be persuasive, because they press people into being consistent about what principles they hold to, across a series of varied situations.

I think that the "evidence" you bring up is a little bit of a red herring. Evidence for what? No empirical claim has been made. Moral claims are not motivated by gathering data and drawing conclusions therefrom. They are motivated by principles. Science can tell you that if you put strychnine in your grandmother's tea it will killer her. But it cannot tell you whether or not you should do so.

The question of whether a life-support machine is similar to a woman's body and its ability to house a fetus is irrelevant, since this is not the principle that the analogy was designed to illustrate. The significance of the analogy (unsuccessful as my opponent's use of it was) was that being unconscious and dependent on others is a sufficient condition for forfeiting one's right to life.

As I said above, analogies are imperfect, not in the sense that they constitute a logically sub-par form of reasoning (since an analogy as such is not a form of reasoning at all), but merely in the sense that no illustration will match its analogue in every detail. The appropriate use of an analogy is therefore to paint a picture that is identical to the situation at hand at least in those details which are relevant to the moral principle which you are arguing for.

 

[Myzozoa]

Well, you insist that an analogy is an imperfect form of reasoning, but I think that this is a category error. Analogies are not a form of reasoning at all, they are just a comparison between two states of affairs. As such, analogies are not so much argued as stated. Analogies are not arguments in themselves; more often they are attempts to illustrate a principle, which may then be used to formulate an argument.



I think that the "evidence" you bring up is a little bit of a red herring. Evidence for what? No empirical claim has been made. Moral claims are not motivated by gathering data and drawing conclusions therefrom. They are motivated by principles. Science can tell you that if you put strychnine in your grandmother's tea it will killer her. But it cannot tell you whether or not you should do so.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-analogy/#PhiFouForAnaRea

A category error? Not at all. but that was sexy that you tried.

"An analogy is a comparison between two objects, or systems of objects, that highlights respects in which they are thought to be similar. Analogical reasoning is any type of thinking that relies upon an analogy. An analogical argument is an explicit representation of a form of analogical reasoning that cites accepted similarities between two systems to support the conclusion that some further similarity exists. "

Evidence sustains the relevancy of analogies, not moral claims (although i would hope these would also be sustained by evidence, but that is an entirely separate topic that I'll leave alone. Although it seems like youre saying that moral claims aren't related to actual states of affairs with the talk of moral claims not being motivated by actual factual states of affairs... how odd) Evidence is needed to explain why the differences between the cases being related under the analogy are not relevant when concluding that, since two cases are similar in certain ways, they can be considered as similar in some other way (the conclusion of the argument). please read my post again.

 

[Saz Chan >^-^<]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-analogy/#PhiFouForAnaRea

A category error? Not at all. but that was sexy that you tried.

"An analogy is a comparison between two objects, or systems of objects, that highlights respects in which they are thought to be similar. Analogical reasoning is any type of thinking that relies upon an analogy. An analogical argument is an explicit representation of a form of analogical reasoning that cites accepted similarities between two systems to support the conclusion that some further similarity exists. "

Evidence sustains the relevancy of analogies, not moral claims. Evidence is needed to explain why the differences between the cases being related under the analogy are not relevant when concluding that, since two cases are similar in certain ways, they can be considered as similar in some other way (the conclusion of the argument). please read my post again.

I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or not. Certainly the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and I are on the same page here. "Analogy" and "analogical reasoning" are two different things. The former is an illustration, the latter is an argument which uses that illustration. That is what your link says, and I don't disagree with it.

Look carefully at the paragraph entitled Characterisation. From it, I take the following:

An analogical argument has the following form:

1. S is similar to T in certain (known) respects.
2. S has some further feature Q.
3. Therefore, T also has the feature Q, or some feature Q* similar to Q.

This argument is an example of analogical reasoning. But it is not an analogy as such. Only step 1 is an analogy. The argument uses the analogy, but is not identical with the analogy. To conflate these things is a category error.

Now compare this with what I said:

"Analogies are not arguments in themselves; more often they are attempts to illustrate a principle, which may then be used to formulate an argument." Sounds oddly similar, doesn't it?

Now, I don't wish to quibble over terminology for its own sake. This really is not terribly interesting stuff. But you stepped into my dojo.

 

[Myzozoa]

lot of semantics. Also I'm done trying to make these posts easy to read, now youre gonna get all lowercase letters.

if you can argue against an assertion, then that assertion is an argument. Seriously, you have to know that. Assertions are made without giving evidence or making arguments, but are you trying to play dumb? If someone doesn't agree or accept an assertion theyre going to ask you to make an argument or produce evidence to support it. If you can't produce an argument or evidence, then why would anyone accept the assertion?

You're posting in terrible faith. There is obviously a difference between reasoning involving an analogy and an analogy itself, I never said otherwise. I did say that there were more-so and less-so applicable analogies. And that the requirements of reason demand scrutinizing the analogy and the argument it is used in.

I'm just not sure if you're just purposely not responding to the relevant point or if it is just easier to continue with your weird interpretation of what I am saying:

I'm saying that introducing an analogy, or using it an an argument without evaluating whether there are relevant differences between the cases that indicate that a conclusion can not to be attained from the analogy, is irrational.

I'll try to stay out of your dojo of intentional misreading and myopathy I guess. I still don't think you're correct about how analogical reasoning can proceed. Analogies require evidence to be taken seriously, similarities make an analogy is reasonable to assert in the first place, but that is only the beginning: because one must also evaluate whether or there are relevant differences between the terms of the analogy, that make it dubious to draw an inference from the similarities. If all of these are ignored then, when making an analogical argument, due diligence to be considered a sensible way of arguing is absent, I would say such an argument is unreasonable. And in my other posts I suggested it was a non-sequitur, though I'm not sure that is a helpful, accurate use of the term, so I apologize for that.

"
3.1 Commonsense guidelines
Logicians and philosophers of science have identified ‘textbook-style’ general guidelines for evaluating analogical arguments (Mill 1843/1930; Keynes 1921; Robinson 1930; Stebbing 1933; Copi and Cohen 2005; Moore and Parker 1998; Woods, Irvine, and Walton 2004). Here are some of the most important ones:

(G1)
The more similarities (between two domains), the stronger the analogy.
(G2)
The more differences, the weaker the analogy.
(G3)
The greater the extent of our ignorance about the two domains, the weaker the analogy.
(G4)
The weaker the conclusion, the more plausible the analogy.
(G5)
Analogies involving causal relations are more plausible than those not involving causal relations.
(G6)
Structural analogies are stronger than those based on superficial similarities.
(G7)
The relevance of the similarities and differences to the conclusion (i.e., to the hypothetical analogy) must be taken into account." (emphasis mine)


This (G7) did not happen in the situation you mentioned in which your opponent used an analogy and you uncritically appropriated it. You were both contributing to an error. Further, the analogy did not involve causal relations (G5).

I think you should be open to the possibility that you aren't familiarized with the problems of analogy, analogies have to be treated carefully in their uses in arguments. I know the temptation of pleasing the crowd runs high, but alas, I aim to reveal the truth.

You said that an analogy does not have to meet the standards of a description, but this is not true. There are many ways in which it does if a rational conclusion is to be drawn from it. Thats just bull shit sorry.

Remember how you said it was analogies that persuade?

" Analogies have every reason to be persuasive"

How are they persuasive if they don't make an argument? If they persuade without making an argument thats not good.

You went on to say:

"because they press people into being consistent about what principles they hold to, across a series of varied situations. "

First of all, how? How does analogy force anyone to be consistent? And why is this desirable? It makes no sense to apply the same principle to situations that are 'varied', i.e, not the same. LOL.

Don't accuse of the category errors you made, I guess.

I'm not saying anything controversial in arguing that analogies have to be treated carefully and scrutinized before drawing wild conclusions from them, no matter how well that works at a debate.

 

[Nix_Hex]

I'll definitely read through this thread later, but I need to get this off my chest before I lose it.

I'm not too big on philosophy, but I enjoy it from a distance. I actually learned fallacies for the first time in a sophomore level gen ed communications class. One of my favorites and the easiest to understand is the red herring fallacy. This is a pretty common one on social networks, namely facebook (election seasons are a nightmare). It's a nice way to change the subject when you know that your opponent has smelled your bullshit, but you want that dopamine hit from the likes that you will receive from family or people you haven't spoken to since elementary school.

From what I understand, and maybe someone like King UU can explain it more formally, you say that problem A exists because C caused an unrelated problem B.

Another one he explained as the *ultimate* fallacy was shutting your opponent out by not rebutting, usually by completely changing the subject or telling them that they're "wrong"... Trump, anyone?

It's a shame, but I don't really have time for that kind of stuff anymore, as much fun as it was. I have exam questions asking me to use the convolution theorem to find inverse Laplace transforms, and being able to recite the ideals of Enlightment philosophers from memory won't help me solve differential equations or calculate current through every part of a circuit.

Ew your prof is making you find inverse transforms manually? Use tables man.

 

[Kink]

You guys are making this way too complicated. Analogies are a form of induction that attempt to illustrate similarities between two logical constructs. Analogies have to be scrutinized in content as well as form, since there are multiple inferences being made that can lead to unintended consequences of an analogy (pushing an analogy to its logical breaking point will reveal that it has no deductive claim beyond that of similar logical inference.)

We (humans) are not gonna stop using analogical reasoning, as it's one of the few inductive methods that even stupid people can understand, so yeah.

As for the previous stuff, every liberal academic field suffers from PR problems. No, it's not enough to simply be correct. The world does not operate on the beat of just one drum, even if you are correct. Winning an argument does you little good if no one will take anything from your logic. Emotional appeals are important, since we are humans and not boolean machines.

Godspeed.

 

[Nix_Hex]

We (humans) are not gonna stop using analogical reasoning, as it's one of the few inductive methods that even stupid people can understand, so yeah.

As a teacher, I appreciate this. Introductory circuit analysis (aka ECE 101) has concepts that are very tough to understand sometimes, but analogies make it easier. Voltage drops are like jumping to and from building rooftops, current is like cars on a freeway (cars are positive charge due to convention, the freeway itself is resistance). Capacitance in a dc circuit is like a bucket, the resistor is the hose, and the water is the current. This analogy eventually falls apart because unlike water, the current actually decreases as the capacitor fills up, and will not "overflow" (at least in most cases).

Inductors are like boulders rolling down a hill, requiring an opposing force (voltage) to stop it from accelerating (to stop current from increasing)... the resistor is the friction of the hill itself. I can go on and on but I ALWAYS tell my students that analogies are imperfect and to take them with a grain of salt. But since a formal understanding of electromagnetics, materials, valence electrons, quantum energy levels, and other high level bullshit is NOT required for an intro circuit class, the best I can do is give them analogies so they have something to visually conceptualize the these things because you can't see electrons moving unless you're Antman going susubatomic.

 

[Saz Chan >^-^<]

lot of semantics. Also I'm done trying to make these posts easy to read, now youre gonna get all lowercase letters.

if you can argue against an assertion, then that assertion is an argument. Seriously, you have to know that. Assertions are made without giving evidence or making arguments, but are you trying to play dumb? If someone doesn't agree or accept an assertion theyre going to ask you to make an argument or produce evidence to support it. If you can't produce an argument or evidence, then why would anyone accept the assertion?

You're posting in terrible faith. There is obviously a difference between reasoning involving an analogy and an analogy itself, I never said otherwise. I did say that there were more-so and less-so applicable analogies. And that the requirements of reason demand scrutinizing the analogy and the argument it is used in.

I'm just not sure if you're just purposely not responding to the relevant point or if it is just easier to continue with your weird interpretation of what I am saying:

I'm saying that introducing an analogy, or using it an an argument without evaluating whether there are relevant differences between the cases that indicate that a conclusion can not to be attained from the analogy, is irrational.

I'll try to stay out of your dojo of intentional misreading and myopathy I guess. I still don't think you're correct about how analogical reasoning can proceed. Analogies require evidence to be taken seriously, similarities make an analogy is reasonable to assert in the first place, but that is only the beginning: because one must also evaluate whether or there are relevant differences between the terms of the analogy, that make it dubious to draw an inference from the similarities. If all of these are ignored then, when making an analogical argument, due diligence to be considered a sensible way of arguing is absent, I would say such an argument is unreasonable. And in my other posts I suggested it was a non-sequitur, though I'm not sure that is a helpful, accurate use of the term, so I apologize for that.

"
3.1 Commonsense guidelines
Logicians and philosophers of science have identified ‘textbook-style’ general guidelines for evaluating analogical arguments (Mill 1843/1930; Keynes 1921; Robinson 1930; Stebbing 1933; Copi and Cohen 2005; Moore and Parker 1998; Woods, Irvine, and Walton 2004). Here are some of the most important ones:

(G1)
The more similarities (between two domains), the stronger the analogy.
(G2)
The more differences, the weaker the analogy.
(G3)
The greater the extent of our ignorance about the two domains, the weaker the analogy.
(G4)
The weaker the conclusion, the more plausible the analogy.
(G5)
Analogies involving causal relations are more plausible than those not involving causal relations.
(G6)
Structural analogies are stronger than those based on superficial similarities.
(G7)
The relevance of the similarities and differences to the conclusion (i.e., to the hypothetical analogy) must be taken into account." (emphasis mine)


This (G7) did not happen in the situation you mentioned in which your opponent used an analogy and you uncritically appropriated it. You were both contributing to an error. Further, the analogy did not involve causal relations (G5).

I think you should be open to the possibility that you aren't familiarized with the problems of analogy, analogies have to be treated carefully in their uses in arguments. I know the temptation of pleasing the crowd runs high, but alas, I aim to reveal the truth.

You said that an analogy does not have to meet the standards of a description, but this is not true. There are many ways in which it does if a rational conclusion is to be drawn from it. Thats just bull shit sorry.

Remember how you said it was analogies that persuade?

" Analogies have every reason to be persuasive"

How are they persuasive if they don't make an argument? If they persuade without making an argument thats not good.

You went on to say:

"because they press people into being consistent about what principles they hold to, across a series of varied situations. "

First of all, how? How does analogy force anyone to be consistent? And why is this desirable? It makes no sense to apply the same principle to situations that are 'varied', i.e, not the same. LOL.

Don't accuse of the category errors you made, I guess.

I'm not saying anything controversial in arguing that analogies have to be treated carefully and scrutinized before drawing wild conclusions from them, no matter how well that works at a debate.

Saying "that's just semantics" is a cop-out. "Semantics" is concerned with meaning. It is that branch of philosophy of language which deals with the study of meaning. I made a meaningful distinction between an analogy and an argument which makes use of an analogy, and you very helpfully provided a link to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which made exactly the same distinction. I really don't know why you took such great exception to this. If you react this way every time someone makes a nuanced distinction between closely related concepts, then philosophy really is not the subject for you, since we do it all the time.

I am not quite sure if you are arguing merely that analogies are imperfect and require caution, or that they are fallacious and should never be used. If it is the former, then I really don't know why you raised this as a point of contention, since I have never claimed otherwise.

Regarding the commonsense criteria, I don't understand your accusation that criterion G7 was ignored. G7 does not say that every element of the analogy must closely match the original case, it simply says that the relevance of the similarities and the differences must be taken into account. And this is what took place. My opponent's analogy was sloppy, since she did not take into account the fact that she had stipulated the permanence of the comatose state. On the other hand, my response to the analogy was precisely critical, and precisely in the spirit of criterion G7: I pointed out the detail of the analogy which had moral significance and yet had not been taken into account, and altered this aspect of the analogy to show how it yielded a different conclusion.

What is more, the analogy that we were left with does make the intended point; namely, that unconsciousness and complete dependence on others is not a sufficient condition for forfeiting one's right to life. Even if you were to add extra details to the analogy to make it match a pregnancy even more closely, this conclusion would remain the same. For example, if you altered the details to make the life-support machine more closely analogous to a woman's body, and this changed the conclusion, it would not be the unconsciousness and complete dependence which brought you to the conclusion. Therefore, it remains the case that these two things are not jointly sufficient.

As for G5, I think that some philosophical motivation needs to be provided for this. It cannot just be taken for granted, and the article seems not to address it. Moreover, even if G5 is granted, it does not follow that an analogy without causal relations is a poor analogy. All that follows is that it is not in the very strongest class of analogies. But not all strong philosophical arguments are equally strong.

Analogies simply are not descriptions, and for a very simple reason: an analogy, by definition, is a comparison between two situations that are somewhat similar, but are not identical in every respect. As such, it is definitional of an analogy that there be some differences in detail. If every aspect of an analogy matches perfectly the original case, then it is an analogy no longer. It is a description.

Analogies may be used in arguments, as I stated several posts back, but don't necessarily need to be. Sometimes, simply stating the terms of the analogy is sufficient to make people realise that they are being inconsistent with the application of their principles, especially on moral matters. The reason why it presses people to be consistent is because they are required to take a moral principle that they hold to, and make application of it in situations that are similar in relevant details, but perhaps are varied in irrelevant details. What good is a principle that can be applied to one very specific situation, and not to situations that are suitably similar in all relevant respects?

One of the most powerful tools in philosophy is the thought experiment. One encounters them in every sub-discipline of philosophy, even in formal logic. But, as far as I can tell, thought experiments are always analogical in nature. They take abstract principles and apply them to specific circumstances, on the understanding that, if the thought experiment is sufficiently robust, then some principle is established which may be applied to situations that match the thought experiment in all of the relevant details (though, obviously, there is no need for them to match to the irrelevant ones). If all you are saying is that analogies can have problems, then I agree 110%. Much of what philosophers do is modify and critique thought experiments, and very often this is done to match our intuitions, especially in moral philosophy. But if you are saying that analogies should not be used at all (I take this from your post in which you said that analogies should not be persuasive) then it seems as though you would not have thought experiments at your disposal in philosophical discourse, which leaves you rather short-handed.

 

[Myzozoa]

"I cant read therefore you are wrong?" I'd keep c/ping from the article, but, how much can I do?

if you don't question the mapping of an analogy you allow the flawed premises of an opponent's argument to become acceptable premises in yours. Not to mention the irrelevant conclusions that you seem to hold as being so dear. Like, it's cool you found out something through the analogy but not anything about the principles that concern the morality of abortion. You and your opponent just decided to talk about something else and pretend it was relevant.

Doing a long reply is literally not worth my time, you can see your professors at Cambridge if you want to know more (though what they've been teaching you other than egotism, I can only imagine) about it I guess, but don't bother them too much or they might get to know you and then you won't get those letters of rec for grad school.

 

[ManEaterThug]

I've not really had the chance to study much philosophy, but it annoys me when people make basic errors in argument. Kind of like the OP, I can usually pick up if something's off. Ad hominem is particularly common. I see it all the time (there may even be a little of it in this thread).

Saz-Chan, I was interested in what you said here, about your analogy:

What is more, the analogy that we were left with does make the intended point; namely, that unconsciousness and complete dependence on others is not a sufficient condition for forfeiting one's right to life. Even if you were to add extra details to the analogy to make it match a pregnancy even more closely, this conclusion would remain the same. For example, if you altered the details to make the life-support machine more closely analogous to a woman's body, and this changed the conclusion, it would not be the unconsciousness and complete dependence which brought you to the conclusion. Therefore, it remains the case that these two things are not jointly sufficient.

I think I get what you're getting at, but I'm not 100%. Could you maybe rephrase?

 

[Saz Chan >^-^<]

I've not really had the chance to study much philosophy, but it annoys me when people make basic errors in argument. Kind of like the OP, I can usually pick up if something's off. Ad hominem is particularly common. I see it all the time (there may even be a little of it in this thread).

Saz-Chan, I was interested in what you said here, about your analogy:



I think I get what you're getting at, but I'm not 100%. Could you maybe rephrase?

Sure. So first, there is the concept of sufficiency. Sufficiency, at least as it is used in philosophical logic, is a particular kind of relationship between propositions. If we take two propositions, P and Q, then P is sufficient for Q if, in every instance where P is true, Q is true also. You can abbreviate this to P --> Q, or "if P, then Q".

In principle, if someone states that P is a sufficient condition for Q, how would one disprove it? Logically, there is only one way: by imagining a logically coherent situation (i.e. a situation that is not self-contradictory) in which P is true, and Q is not. If no such situation exists, then P --> Q obtains. If there is at least one such situation, then P --> Q does not obtain. That may take a couple of reads, but it makes sense once you let it sink in.

So in the analogy my opponent used, she was trying to make a very specific point: that two propositions (let's call them X and Y) are, jointly, a sufficient condition for a third proposition (let's say Z).

In her analogy, X is: "Person P lacks consciousness".
Y is: "Person P is completely dependent on others to survive".
and Z is: "Person P forfeits their right to life".
where Person P is just any random person.

Her mission was to prove that (X ^ Y) --> Z. (^ just means "and").

If you believe this to be false, as I do, how would you disprove it? The only way to do it is to imagine a situation in which X is true, and Y is true, but Z is not. And that is all that is required.

This is where analogies put in work. Imagine a situation in which someone is in a comatose state (thereby satisfying X), is on a life-support machine and must be fed and cleaned etc. by medical staff (thereby satisfying Y). But, let us also imagine that this state is only temporary. Perhaps the Doctor predicts this person to make a recovery. In such a case, it is not at all clear that they forfeit their right to life. In general, the rationale that lies behind "pulling the plug" is the fact that the patient is passed all hope. There is no possibility that they will enjoy any significant quality of life again. But, such is not the case here. The person will recover, and perhaps they will do so very soon. It seems, then, that Z is not satisfied. The analogy has therefore shown that (X ^ Y) --> Z is false; that is, that a person's lacking consciousness and being completely dependent on others is not a sufficient condition for their forfeiting their right to life.

As for the point I was making in the snippet you quoted, it was simply this: it may be responded (as Myzozoa responded) that the analogy fails on the grounds that it does not sufficiently match a case of abortion in enough respects. This, however, is an ineffective criticism, as it fails to understand the point of the analogy. The point of the analogy was very specific: it was intended to show merely that (X ^ Y) --> Z is false. And this it did indeed do. The question of whether it succeeded in demonstrating the immorality of abortion in each and every case, or for any reason whatsoever, is besides the point, as this was not the purpose of the analogy. When critiquing an analogy, the intended purpose of the analogy must be kept firmly in mind.

But suppose that we took this criticism on board, and added further details to analogy, so as to make it match abortion in more respects (but it is important that we keep X and Y, or we can't prove anything about their joint-sufficiency). Having done this, one of two things would be the case. Either, the conclusion would have remained the same (i.e. Z is still false), or the conclusion would have changed (i.e. Z is now true).

If the conclusion remains the same, then the analogy continues to succeed: it is still the case that X and Y are not sufficient conditions for Z.

If the conclusion changes so that Z is now true, this has happened only because of the extra added details, and not because of X and Y. So even in this case, the analogy has not been shown to fail.

Think of an analogy sort of like a science experiment (there is a reason why philosophers call them "thought experiments"). In any good experiment, there must be controls, so as to limit the variables and thereby allowing the scientist to determine precisely which factors have affected the results. Analogies function similarly: if you are clear on what you want your analogy to prove, then there is no sense in bogging yourself down with a bunch of conceptual apparatus. Limit yourself only to those details which are relevant to the principle at hand. If you over-burden your analogy with details that are not relevant to the principle under scrutiny, then you can be far lass certain about your conclusions.

Hope that was something like what you wanted.

 

[Myzozoa]

I'm sorry, but what new bull shit is this?

No way, really? Seriously? Intention is more central than evidentiary accuracy (similarities/dissimilarities) when evaluating an analogy? Are you also a mind reader?


What has reason become in 2017? Does everyone get a prize just for trying?

I suggest disregarding this thread if you want to learn anything about the logic of analogies. Saz Chan >^-^< 's explanations are truly frightening and not at all in the mainstream understanding of analogical reasoning. She is bending over backwards to avoid admitting an outright error. Even if the intention to prove something is what matters, arguing from an irrelevant case demonstrates a conflict in intentions: the intention to prove something using the analogy and the (contextually assumable) intention to debate on a particular topic. If the analogy has nothing to do with the topic, grasping the intentions of the agent is truly an exercise in using reason to talk about madness...

I mean that :Even if you do grasp the agent's intention, you can always question whether the use of the analogy is suited to the agent's intention. And then you'll really need to be a mind reader. If you claim to grasp an agent's intention and it turns out that the intention you claim to grasp contradicts another graspable intention of the agent (sorry that phrasing is so awkward, I'm trying to write this fast), what then? Where do you go from there?


That there is concept called 'false analogy' is everything you need to know if you want to understand my posts. There is nothing 'ineffective' about declaring a false analogy.


From wikipedia now (which is a repetition of what Stanford refers to as the 'common sense view of analogies' which they attribute to aristotle):


Analyzing arguments from analogy[edit]
Strength of an analogy[edit]
Several factors affect the strength of the argument from analogy:

• The relevance (positive or negative) of the known similarities to the similarity inferred in the conclusion.[2][3]
• The degree of relevant similarity (or dissimilarity) between the two objects.[2]
• The amount and variety of instances that form the basis of the analogy.[2]

Counterarguments[edit]
Arguments from analogy may be attacked by use of disanalogy, counteranalogy, and by pointing out unintended consequences of an analogy.[1] In order to understand how one might go about analyzing an argument from analogy, consider the teleological argument and the criticisms of this argument put forward by the philosopher David Hume.

According to the analogical reasoning in the teleological argument, it would be ridiculous to assume that a complex object such as a watch came about through some random process. Since we have no problem at all inferring that such objects must have had an intelligent designer who created it for some purpose, we ought to draw the same conclusion for another complex and apparently designed object: the universe.[1]

Hume argued that the universe and a watch have many relevant dissimilarities; for instance, the universe is often very disorderly and random. This is the strategy of "disanalogy": just as the amount and variety of relevant similarities between two objects strengthens an analogical conclusion, so do the amount and variety of relevant dissimilarities weaken it.[1] Creating a "counteranalogy," Hume argued that some natural objects seem to have order and complexity --- snowflakes for example --- but are not the result of intelligent direction.[1] Finally, Hume provides many possible "unintended consequences" of the argument; for instance, given that objects such as watches are often the result of the labor of groups of individuals, the reasoning employed by the teleological argument would seem to lend support to polytheism.[1]

False analogy[edit]
A false analogy is a faulty instance of the argument from analogy. (emphasis mine)

An argument from analogy is weakened if it is inadequate in any of the above respects. The term "false analogy" comes from the philosopher John Stuart Mill, who was one of the first individuals to engage in a detailed examination of analogical reasoning.[2] One of Mill's examples involved an inference that some person is lazy from the observation that his or her sibling is lazy. According to Mill, sharing parents is not all that relevant to the property of laziness.[2]



I'm aware that it is pretentious of me to act so outraged about constructing philosophical concepts (i.e my rhetorical questions), but such a dubious philosophical concept as intention really has no place in considerations of analysis of arguments that use analogies (except to show how dubious the use of any analogy is). Or the analysis of any argument actually, intentions just don't count. As you can see (i hope) there is nothing about it on wikipedia, nor on the page in the encyclopedia, except when Stanford's entry points out that the introduction of any analogy is biased.

Finally, I would just mention that thought experiments and analogies are both treated with near-exclusionary suspicion by the most skeptical analytic philosophers/philosophers of mind publishing in the academy, such as Dennett (thought experiments) and some Bayesian analysts (analogies). Obviously philosophers, usually having little facility in fact-gathering disciplines, might be tempted to turn to analogies and thought experiments in order to demonstrate principles they want to argue for, but this is their own problem, and no one should be trying to change argumentation guidelines just to mask their ignorance in a domain... Certainly not in ways that prioritize 'intentions' (a very very unlikely philosophical conception) over evidence. Clearly, some of us don't feel weakened when 'unable to resort' to thought experiment or analogy. I certainly don't.

 

[Saz Chan >^-^<]

I'm sorry, but what new bull shit is this?

No way, really? Seriously? Intention is more central than evidentiary accuracy (similarities/dissimilarities) when evaluating an analogy? Are you also a mind reader?


What has reason become in 2017? Does everyone get a prize just for trying?

I suggest disregarding this thread if you want to learn anything about the logic of analogies. Saz Chan >^-^< 's explanations are truly frightening and not at all in the mainstream understanding of analogical reasoning. She is bending over backwards to avoid admitting an outright error. Even if the intention to prove something is what matters, arguing from an irrelevant case demonstrates a conflict in intentions: the intention to prove something using the analogy and the (contextually assumable) intention to debate on a particular topic. If the analogy has nothing to do with the topic, grasping the intentions of the agent is truly an exercise in using reason to talk about madness...

I mean that :Even if you do grasp the agent's intention, you can always question whether the use of the analogy is suited to the agent's intention. And then you'll really need to be a mind reader. If you claim to grasp an agent's intention and it turns out that the intention you claim to grasp contradicts another graspable intention of the agent (sorry that phrasing is so awkward, I'm trying to write this fast), what then? Where do you go from there?


That there is concept called 'false analogy' is everything you need to know if you want to understand my posts. There is nothing 'ineffective' about declaring a false analogy.


From wikipedia now (which is a repetition of what Stanford refers to as the 'common sense view of analogies' which they attribute to aristotle):


Analyzing arguments from analogy[edit]
Strength of an analogy[edit]
Several factors affect the strength of the argument from analogy:

• The relevance (positive or negative) of the known similarities to the similarity inferred in the conclusion.[2][3]
• The degree of relevant similarity (or dissimilarity) between the two objects.[2]
• The amount and variety of instances that form the basis of the analogy.[2]

Counterarguments[edit]
Arguments from analogy may be attacked by use of disanalogy, counteranalogy, and by pointing out unintended consequences of an analogy.[1] In order to understand how one might go about analyzing an argument from analogy, consider the teleological argument and the criticisms of this argument put forward by the philosopher David Hume.

According to the analogical reasoning in the teleological argument, it would be ridiculous to assume that a complex object such as a watch came about through some random process. Since we have no problem at all inferring that such objects must have had an intelligent designer who created it for some purpose, we ought to draw the same conclusion for another complex and apparently designed object: the universe.[1]

Hume argued that the universe and a watch have many relevant dissimilarities; for instance, the universe is often very disorderly and random. This is the strategy of "disanalogy": just as the amount and variety of relevant similarities between two objects strengthens an analogical conclusion, so do the amount and variety of relevant dissimilarities weaken it.[1] Creating a "counteranalogy," Hume argued that some natural objects seem to have order and complexity --- snowflakes for example --- but are not the result of intelligent direction.[1] Finally, Hume provides many possible "unintended consequences" of the argument; for instance, given that objects such as watches are often the result of the labor of groups of individuals, the reasoning employed by the teleological argument would seem to lend support to polytheism.[1]

False analogy[edit]
A false analogy is a faulty instance of the argument from analogy. (emphasis mine)

An argument from analogy is weakened if it is inadequate in any of the above respects. The term "false analogy" comes from the philosopher John Stuart Mill, who was one of the first individuals to engage in a detailed examination of analogical reasoning.[2] One of Mill's examples involved an inference that some person is lazy from the observation that his or her sibling is lazy. According to Mill, sharing parents is not all that relevant to the property of laziness.[2]



I'm aware that it is pretentious of me to act so outraged about constructing philosophical concepts (i.e my rhetorical questions), but such a dubious philosophical concept as intention really has no place in considerations of analysis of arguments that use analogies (except to show how dubious the use of any analogy is). Or the analysis of any argument actually, intentions just don't count. As you can see (i hope) there is nothing about it on wikipedia, nor on the page in the encyclopedia, except when Stanford's entry points out that the introduction of any analogy is biased.

Finally, I would just mention that thought experiments and analogies are both treated with near-exclusionary suspicion by the most skeptical analytic philosophers/philosophers of mind publishing in the academy, such as Dennett (thought experiments) and some Bayesian analysts (analogies). Obviously philosophers, usually having little facility in fact-gathering disciplines, might be tempted to turn to analogies and thought experiments in order to demonstrate principles they want to argue for, but this is their own problem, and no one should be trying to change argumentation guidelines just to mask their ignorance in a domain... Certainly not in ways that prioritize 'intentions' (a very very unlikely philosophical conception) over evidence. Clearly, some of us don't feel weakened when 'unable to resort' to thought experiment or analogy. I certainly don't.

I really don't know why you get so outraged by me. You can respond to my posts without throwing a hissy-fit, or by getting personal.

Don't get me wrong, I don't care about your feelings, and you shouldn't care about mine. But the mud-slinging really is unnecessary, and isn't to your credit.

What is more, much of what I have written in response to you has been ignored; and that which you have treated has been very poorly represented. I have dealt with the material content of your posts much more thoroughly and charitably than you have mine. A reader of our discussion would be forgiven for thinking that copy/pasting from Stanford and Wikipedia is all you can do. I'm not trying to be unkind here, but this kind of presentation wouldn't get you much credit in graded academic work.

First: intention. Readers of my previous post will notice that I used the phrases "intention" and "intended purpose" of the analogy itself, not of the person using the analogy. It is a very strange reading of my words to think that I was suggesting mind-reading. If you take an argument, it may be said that reaching the conclusion of the argument, by way of the argument's premises, is the purpose or intention of the argument. It may be rather anthropomorphic language, but it is perfectly acceptable. By these phrases, I simply mean that which the analogy is meant to prove or demonstrate. My opponent was quite clear about what she was using the analogy to prove (successfully or unsuccessfully), as I was about how the analogy should be improved so as to yield a more trustworthy conclusion. Arguments and analogies are meant to prove something, and if you mis-identify what it is meant to prove, then you will commit a straw-man fallacy. Case in point.

As you say, the content you have posted from Wikipedia, while very interesting, is largely a repetition of what was posted earlier from Stanford. If you are trying to formulate an effective criticism of an analogy, it is not sufficient merely to post a bunch of material about how analogies generally can be flawed. The criticism must be specific, otherwise no one will be able to see just what your criticism is.

So, let's get specific. I would very much like for you to address three questions:

1) Do you acknowledge that, as a matter of logical deduction, the proposition (X ^ Y) --> Z is proved false, if it can be shown that X obtains, and Y obtains, but Z does not obtain?

2) Do you acknowledge that the imagined scenario I suggested (which, logically, is perfectly conceivable) is one in which X obtains, and Y obtains, but Z does not obtain?

3) Do you acknowledge that, if an imagined scenario could be provided which successfully shows that (X ^ Y) --> Z is false, and as long as this and this alone was the purpose of the analogy, then the other details of the analogy are irrelevant to the argument at hand?

These really are the questions you should have been addressing all along. Believe it or not, students of philosophy, at least if they are studying at a reputable institution, do not receive very much credit for copying from Wikipedia and relying on the reader to piece an argument together from it. It is also not very respectful for those reading the thread and wishing to see an actual discussion.

 

[ManEaterThug]

I'm sorry, but what new bull shit is this?

No way, really? Seriously? Intention is more central than evidentiary accuracy (similarities/dissimilarities) when evaluating an analogy? Are you also a mind reader?


What has reason become in 2017? Does everyone get a prize just for trying?

I suggest disregarding this thread if you want to learn anything about the logic of analogies. Saz Chan >^-^< 's explanations are truly frightening and not at all in the mainstream understanding of analogical reasoning. She is bending over backwards to avoid admitting an outright error. Even if the intention to prove something is what matters, arguing from an irrelevant case demonstrates a conflict in intentions: the intention to prove something using the analogy and the (contextually assumable) intention to debate on a particular topic. If the analogy has nothing to do with the topic, grasping the intentions of the agent is truly an exercise in using reason to talk about madness...

I mean that :Even if you do grasp the agent's intention, you can always question whether the use of the analogy is suited to the agent's intention. And then you'll really need to be a mind reader. If you claim to grasp an agent's intention and it turns out that the intention you claim to grasp contradicts another graspable intention of the agent (sorry that phrasing is so awkward, I'm trying to write this fast), what then? Where do you go from there?


That there is concept called 'false analogy' is everything you need to know if you want to understand my posts. There is nothing 'ineffective' about declaring a false analogy.


From wikipedia now (which is a repetition of what Stanford refers to as the 'common sense view of analogies' which they attribute to aristotle):


Analyzing arguments from analogy[edit]
Strength of an analogy[edit]
Several factors affect the strength of the argument from analogy:

• The relevance (positive or negative) of the known similarities to the similarity inferred in the conclusion.[2][3]
• The degree of relevant similarity (or dissimilarity) between the two objects.[2]
• The amount and variety of instances that form the basis of the analogy.[2]

Counterarguments[edit]
Arguments from analogy may be attacked by use of disanalogy, counteranalogy, and by pointing out unintended consequences of an analogy.[1] In order to understand how one might go about analyzing an argument from analogy, consider the teleological argument and the criticisms of this argument put forward by the philosopher David Hume.

According to the analogical reasoning in the teleological argument, it would be ridiculous to assume that a complex object such as a watch came about through some random process. Since we have no problem at all inferring that such objects must have had an intelligent designer who created it for some purpose, we ought to draw the same conclusion for another complex and apparently designed object: the universe.[1]

Hume argued that the universe and a watch have many relevant dissimilarities; for instance, the universe is often very disorderly and random. This is the strategy of "disanalogy": just as the amount and variety of relevant similarities between two objects strengthens an analogical conclusion, so do the amount and variety of relevant dissimilarities weaken it.[1] Creating a "counteranalogy," Hume argued that some natural objects seem to have order and complexity --- snowflakes for example --- but are not the result of intelligent direction.[1] Finally, Hume provides many possible "unintended consequences" of the argument; for instance, given that objects such as watches are often the result of the labor of groups of individuals, the reasoning employed by the teleological argument would seem to lend support to polytheism.[1]

False analogy[edit]
A false analogy is a faulty instance of the argument from analogy. (emphasis mine)

An argument from analogy is weakened if it is inadequate in any of the above respects. The term "false analogy" comes from the philosopher John Stuart Mill, who was one of the first individuals to engage in a detailed examination of analogical reasoning.[2] One of Mill's examples involved an inference that some person is lazy from the observation that his or her sibling is lazy. According to Mill, sharing parents is not all that relevant to the property of laziness.[2]



I'm aware that it is pretentious of me to act so outraged about constructing philosophical concepts (i.e my rhetorical questions), but such a dubious philosophical concept as intention really has no place in considerations of analysis of arguments that use analogies (except to show how dubious the use of any analogy is). Or the analysis of any argument actually, intentions just don't count. As you can see (i hope) there is nothing about it on wikipedia, nor on the page in the encyclopedia, except when Stanford's entry points out that the introduction of any analogy is biased.

Finally, I would just mention that thought experiments and analogies are both treated with near-exclusionary suspicion by the most skeptical analytic philosophers/philosophers of mind publishing in the academy, such as Dennett (thought experiments) and some Bayesian analysts (analogies). Obviously philosophers, usually having little facility in fact-gathering disciplines, might be tempted to turn to analogies and thought experiments in order to demonstrate principles they want to argue for, but this is their own problem, and no one should be trying to change argumentation guidelines just to mask their ignorance in a domain... Certainly not in ways that prioritize 'intentions' (a very very unlikely philosophical conception) over evidence. Clearly, some of us don't feel weakened when 'unable to resort' to thought experiment or analogy. I certainly don't.

I am just coming at this as a layman, but I have to be honest, I think Saz has a point. I've been reading through this thread because it seemed interesting (and it was!) but it seems like pretty much all you have done is quote from Wikipedia, or whatever. If you just saying "there are such things as bad analogies", then fine. I don't think anyone on God's green earth would disagree with that. And Saz has said numerous times, in agreement with you at first, (or so it seems to me) that this is so. But I think you need to do more than just that. You have to give reasons why a specific analogy is bad. But everything you have said has been really vague, like "you've got to take into account the differences and similarities!" But then when a clear and detailed explanation of the analogy was given (thanks for that btw!) it spelled out what the relevant parts of the analogy were, and what they were there to show.

Overall, I see Saz-Chan's posts as being very clear and precise, and Myzoza's as much more vague. Maybe there's nothing wrong with this. I honestly don't know, since I don't read much philosophy. But for the way my brain is wired, I like clarity and precision. I don't want to make an enemy out of anyone, this is just how it seems to me :^)

 

[Kink]

Not gonna comment on the other stuff because I literally talked about Analogies above and I don't get why we're still on this subject... however I do want to say one thing.

Don't get me wrong, I don't care about your feelings, and you shouldn't care about mine.

Put a big black 'X' on that thought, stick it in the deep frier and bury it. Care should be the first thing on your mind if you preach to be any sort of philosopher. Philosophy is not just a personal pursuit; it literally means "love of wisdom" in Greek and, frankly, I don't think any true philosopher can say that they can offer something of value without the presence of love and compassion in their hearts. Analytical philosophy is not the end-all of epistemology. Logic and solid reasoning only brings us to the level of a perfect machine. It certainly doesn't even help us scratch the surface of topics surrounding ethics or meta-ethics. You should definitively care about every person you debate with. Love is literally what makes Philosophy worth doing.

 

[Yoshi King]

Hi friends, reading this thread has been interesting and highly enlightening for me as I don't often engage in debate, formal or otherwise.

I'd like to ask for a bit of help identifying the logical fallacy taking place here, assuming there is one. The conversation was taking from a Facebook debate that I'd like to jump in on for what I hope are obvious reasons:

The exchange

Person 1 posts a video about Obama asking Republicans why it took them so long to disavow Trump.

Person 2: "if videos like this exist in circulation, I would at least expect the respective uploader to collect research from a credible source about the difference between Obama's treason, and Trump's words."

Person 1: "Would you be able to educate me about Obamas treason because I don't want to be an ignorant citizen... I didn't realize he was being charged with such a thing.
As for Trumps words...for someone to be in such a powerful position outwardly speaking harmfully and aggressively towards minority and underprivileged groups needs to be addressed. Obama is not attacking him personally in this speech but merely speaking the truth that having a president with such dangerous views of the treatment of women and immigrants is not okay."

Person 2: http://conservativetribune.com/has-obama-committed-treason/ (Weird website that defines treason in different ways from U.S. law then loosely applies Obama's actions to them)

Person 1: "IF everything this site lists about Obama is true it still is not relevant to what Obama is addressing in his speech. The things Trump has said and is currently doing are facts and a dangerous reality.
As for the link you posted... Conservative tribune is thought to be a questionable and untrustworthy website."

Person 2: "These are not facts made up by the conservative tribune. If bobs blog posted the same material, it would be factual. And the only relevance about the information I gave you is pertaining to my original opinion. One filthy person cannot cast a stone at another."

My mind jumped to moral equivalency, but upon researching it I found that the context I'm thinking of is inapplicable. A little help from more seasoned debaters would be appreciated!

 

[Yoshi King]

Are you trying to get this guy to see your side, or win? There's a difference between the two:

This guy might be using the conservative tribune, but this is a debate with a unique person with a unique perspective, and you'd be damned to not hear him out. If you approach this as a problem you can both mutually solve, I think you'd find there are far greater rewards than simply winning a debate. But that's just my opinion. Godspeed.

Unfortunately I have seen Person 2's posts before and they are generally derisive, holier-than-thou arguments veiled with so-called, "Intellectualism". While I agree with the notion that there deserves to be a unique conversation about his ideas, in this case I believe it is appropriate to first shut down the idea that either Trump or Obama are "filthy people" and put a stop to the weird argument that one cannot criticise the other for reasons that have very little to do with his own so-called 'treason'.

 

[Saz Chan >^-^<]

Not gonna comment on the other stuff because I literally talked about Analogies above and I don't get why we're still on this subject... however I do want to say one thing.

Put a big black 'X' on that thought, stick it in the deep frier and bury it. Care should be the first thing on your mind if you preach to be any sort of philosopher. Philosophy is not just a personal pursuit; it literally means "love of wisdom" in Greek and, frankly, I don't think any true philosopher can say that they can offer something of value without the presence of love and compassion in their hearts. Analytical philosophy is not the end-all of epistemology. Logic and solid reasoning only brings us to the level of a perfect machine. It certainly doesn't even help us scratch the surface of topics surrounding ethics or meta-ethics. You should definitively care about every person you debate with. Love is literally what makes Philosophy worth doing.

I appreciate the sentiments, but I think it is rather a lot to ask that compassion play a very big part in this discussion, given the personalities involved. I mean, I won't go into specifics, but you can read it for yourself. It also seems to me that you can formulate and critique arguments without caring anything for the feelings of the reader or listener. There is no methodological need for it at all, especially in formal academic work. I've got nothing against doing philosophy for the sake of humanity (though, I think that this is to romanticise and over-sentimentalise a fairly dry and dusty intellectual discipline), but caring about someone's feelings isn't necessarily doing what is best for them. There are lots of truths that are good and right, and yet will hurt people's feelings when they hear them. Even in ethics, feelings are not the be-all and end-all.

Plus I'm a hard-nosed bitch, so it's just not going to happen.

I think you are right about the discussion of analogies, though. It has probably gone on too long, and it should be moved elsewhere, if only for the sake of variety. Myzoza, if you plan to respond to my last post then do so, as this is only fair, but after that if you want to keep up the discussion then we should do it by PM.

 

[Kink]

See, you need to read some more Hume cause your writing seems devoid of his natural sauve. We're human beings, our sentiments LITERALLY define us.

Its not an intellectually dry discipline. Read a book on aesthetics or feminist epistemology.

There is absolutely a methodological need. You're proving there's a need for it in this thread by not being intellectually cooperative.

For sure it's a lot to ask for the personalities involved. That's why the goal is unbelievably rewarding when you're able to temper your "hard-nosed bitch" attitude.