The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Just My Opinion (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next]
Chessmann
View Profile
Inner circle
4159 Posts

Profile of Chessmann
Quote:
On 2007-12-17 10:45, JackScratch wrote:
Quote:
On 2007-12-16 11:06, Chessmann wrote:
Problem is, if I want an opinion on, say, lifestyles in ancient Rome, I am going to take the opinion on a scholar who has studied it for 30 years and is known for his accuracy over the opinion of 19 year-old Joe the Burger Flipper.


Fallacy: Ad Hominem: Attacking the person who presents an issue rather than dealing logically with the issue itself. A 19 year old Burger Flipper is entirely capable of being correct, and A Historical Specialist is entirely capable of being wrong. The logical approach is to listen to both thoughts and deal with the thoughts themselves, rather than judging correctness based solely or in part on the source of the information. In logical reasoning, the source of the thought has no merit, what so ever.


Your definition of Ad Hominem is not quite as valid here, as Joe BF and the Historical Specialist were not arguing the point against each other. Their experience was weighed by someone else so that a judgement (an initial judgement) could be made.

It was never stated that Joe couldn't be right, or the scholar couldn't be wrong. Joe the BF *is* entirely capable of being correct - but in this case he is not as *likely* to be correct. Joe BF might have an opinion on the cups and balls, but it is not as likely to be correct as Bill Palmer's.

"The logical approach is to listen to both thoughts and deal with the thoughts themselves"

Yes, but in a casual situation, going with the best source is not necessarily illogical. It may be less logical than other options, though. Just depends on how far one wants to take it.

"In logical reasoning, the source of the thought has no merit, what so ever."

Understand what you mean here. But I'll still take Bill Palmer's advice over Joe BF's advice in matters related to the Cups and Balls. It may not be the *most* logical way of deciding which cups to buy, but it is still a good bet. ;^)
My ex-cat was named "Muffin". "Vomit" would be a better name for her. AKA "The Evil Ball of Fur".
JackScratch
View Profile
Inner circle
2151 Posts

Profile of JackScratch
Actually, I should clarify. The important point is not to put a persons record or history before any fact they present. If Joe Burger Flipper presents a good case for something on the subject and Our historical expert can only present his credentials as rebutal, then I'm going with Joe Burger Flipper hands down. In the situation of going to a doctor when I'm sick, that isn't a subject of debate, rather a source of information. I go to a doctor as a likely source of information on illness, but if what he is saying makes no sense, then I get a second opinion, despite all the papers on his wall that say he knows his stuff. The point of an add hominem is not how you chose where to go for information, rather to evade incorrectly applying someones credentials when trying to decide correctness on a particular subject. Given no source other than credentials to decide correctness on a subject, then correctness can not be decided. I would also go to Bill Palmer for information about cups and balls, but I wouldn't assume every word out of his mouth on the subject is correct, he would simply be the best source to start with.
Jerrine
View Profile
Special user
Busking is work.
629 Posts

Profile of Jerrine
Quote:
On 2007-12-18 11:08, JackScratch wrote:
In the situation of going to a doctor when I'm sick, that isn't a subject of debate, rather a source of information.


I get it now. Logic only applies when a debate is in progress. Information is a totally different animal. I conclude, though perhaps not logically, that information is not logical, or need not be, so let's not drag logic out of the debate where it belongs. I'll buy that. Smile
JackScratch
View Profile
Inner circle
2151 Posts

Profile of JackScratch
I go to a doctor because I am ill and lack the resources to treat my illness correctly. A doctor has greater resources to treat an illness than I, or to the best of my knowledge, anyone else does, thus when I am unable to treat an illness, the doctor is a great place to start. I go to the doctor who then treats my illness in a way that for one reason or another seems wrong. Do I just assume that all doctors are correct on the subject of all illnesses, or do I further analyze the situation looking for alternative resources to resolve my illness and it's treatment? Further, if I find a resource other than a doctor, should the fact that the former resource is a doctor be the deciding factor between the two, or should the presented cases be weighed outside the credentials of those presenting them. Logic dictates that correctness of data is not based on the presenter. Correct is correct, despite the person presenting it. Is a doctor the most likely source for correct information on the subject of illness? Of course he is. Can a doctor be incorrect on the subject of illness? Of course he can. Can a source lacking a medical background be correct on a subject of illness that a doctor could be incorrect on? Without question. Thus we weigh the subject based on it's own merits. Not on the merits of those presenting the subject.

Should you pole your local garbage men for a solution when you are sick? No. If your doctor is treating your illness in a way that doesn't make sense and is not showing effectiveness and your local garbage man happens to have researched the subject and presents you with a solution and strong evidence showing that solution to to be an effective one in your particular case, do you discard that information because it came from your garbage man and not your doctor? That's the Ad Hominem Fallacy.
Josh Riel
View Profile
Inner circle
of hell
1999 Posts

Profile of Josh Riel
Quote:
On 2007-12-18 12:37, JackScratch wrote:
If your doctor is treating your illness in a way that doesn't make sense and is not showing effectiveness and your local garbage man happens to have researched the subject and presents you with a solution and strong evidence showing that solution to to be an effective one in your particular case, do you discard that information because it came from your garbage man and not your doctor?


Yes, we would discard the advice of your garbage men (You shouldn't). Simply because an argument "Makes sense" does not mean that it is correct. You would go to another doctor. Only a fool would go to a garbage man for medical advice. However Drew, I am completely prepared to hear you explain that a garbageman's intellect makes his understanding of the human anatomy nearly instinctual and an education is irrelevant.

Your opinion is self serving. You want everyone to listen to you (The burger flipper or garbageman, using our present analogies), instead of the Magician who can prove he has experience in what he teaches (The historian or the doctor, in same analogies). So of course you want us to listen to the uneducated burger flipper/garbageman.

However, a reasonable person will not do so. As you might see from this thread, most here are reasonable. If you wish to be reasonable, all your present misery and pain at what you perceive to be our bitter ignorance might show itself to be wisdom. But we know what the chances are of that..... Yes you can report us all for disagreeing with you, as before. My mothers favorite saying: I wish I could buy you for what your worth, and sell you for what you think your worth.

Your not always right Drew, you just are of that opinion.
Magic is doing improbable things with odd items that, under normal circumstances, would be unnessecary and quite often undesirable.
stoneunhinged
View Profile
Inner circle
3079 Posts

Profile of stoneunhinged
Drew, while I might agree with most of what you say, I still have a question:

Would a person who had studied logic for 30 years be more likely to know what is "logical" than the burger flipper?

You never define what "logical" means. And if you don't think that is a serious and legitimate question, maybe you should ask a few burger flippers.

The problem is that while "information" might be neutral, "logic" is not. There is a difference between an Aristotelian syllogism and Hegelian dialectic. Both are logic, and both are thus logical. One must choose a system, and one must have a reason for choosing a system.

You see, while your point sounds right, even you know that it somehow isn't completely right.

While it may be true that the scholar can be wrong, and that the burger flipper can be right, in what way do I assume that I am able to judge who is being more logical?

Let me give an example:

The Scholar: this is 8th century BC Greek pottery. Here's why: 1, 2, 3.
The Burger Flipper: No, this is 14th century Italian pottery. Here's why: 1, 2, 3.

Now I must decide. I'll be logical. But: what do I know about pottery?

I repeat (not for you, Drew, but for the others who might not understand the fallacy which you have run into): what do I know about pottery?

The fundamental flaw with your argument is that you have divorced logic from it's context. Logic has a context. That's why Hegel could disagree with Aristotle. Logic in the context of pottery is based upon a host of things that I--without any experience in the subject--might be incapable of evaluating.

Or perhaps you know more about logic than Hegel *or* Aristotle, because you have read the Harbrace College Handbook?

(That was an indirect, sarcastic ad hominem attack, because I'm known for my illogic and for being silly. Being Hegelian and all.)

The most interesting thing about this debate about ad hominem is that while it may be common in internet forums, it is still not the MOST common fallacy, which is the "either...or" fallacy. I see that fallacy in almost every debate on the internet. I've even written about it in the Right or Wrong forum.

One more thing: Socrates made his name by asking both scholars and burger flippers. What he showed is that they all fail to think things through completely. The philosopher--at least in the ancient Greek sense--is the guy who sees the holes in everybody's argument. Including Drew's.

And the last thing: there is probably more wisdom in Doug's entry than anyone else's here.

Doug: RESPECT.

I love you all. Drew included.

(But I love Matt the most.)

Jeff
stoneunhinged
View Profile
Inner circle
3079 Posts

Profile of stoneunhinged
And one last thing: Josh, your avatar is too small. I have trouble seeing it, even with my reading glasses on.

THAT is a fact. Well, it's a opinion. But it is a fact that it's my opinion. Which is totally logically true, syllogistically (but not dialectically, I suppose) speaking. I mean, it's a fact that I have trouble seeing. It's an opinion that it's too small. I am a giant of logic: and I flip burgers! Of course, I also studied. These days, Ph.D.s in philosophy flip burgers! That's a fact! And an opinion! It's all the same, really.

The joke of this thread is that it seems to imply that we--here in internet forums--are capable of being taught to be more logical. AS IF...!
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Here's everything you need to know about logic.

http://www1.asknlearn.com/ri_Ilearning/E......ge3a.htm

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Josh Riel
View Profile
Inner circle
of hell
1999 Posts

Profile of Josh Riel
It is a fact that -it is too small for you to read it-, it is an opinion that -it is too small-.

I stole this fabalus (Misspelling intentional) quote from our Mr. Townsend from the Food for Thought area (Motto: You're wrong!... No You're wrong!... No, You're wrong!)
Quote:
On 2007-12-16 19:56, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
And then we start to wonder about that presupposition of this being a discussion among reasonable socialized and well educated adults.
Magic is doing improbable things with odd items that, under normal circumstances, would be unnessecary and quite often undesirable.
P.T. Murphy
View Profile
Loyal user
224 Posts

Profile of P.T. Murphy
Quote:
On 2007-12-18 13:24, stoneunhinged wrote:
Drew, while I might agree with most of what you say, I still have a question:

Would a person who had studied logic for 30 years be more likely to know what is "logical" than the burger flipper?

You never define what "logical" means. And if you don't think that is a serious and legitimate question, maybe you should ask a few burger flippers.

The problem is that while "information" might be neutral, "logic" is not. There is a difference between an Aristotelian syllogism and Hegelian dialectic. Both are logic, and both are thus logical. One must choose a system, and one must have a reason for choosing a system.

You see, while your point sounds right, even you know that it somehow isn't completely right.

While it may be true that the scholar can be wrong, and that the burger flipper can be right, in what way do I assume that I am able to judge who is being more logical?

Let me give an example:

The Scholar: this is 8th century BC Greek pottery. Here's why: 1, 2, 3.
The Burger Flipper: No, this is 14th century Italian pottery. Here's why: 1, 2, 3.

Now I must decide. I'll be logical. But: what do I know about pottery?

I repeat (not for you, Drew, but for the others who might not understand the fallacy which you have run into): what do I know about pottery?

The fundamental flaw with your argument is that you have divorced logic from it's context. Logic has a context. That's why Hegel could disagree with Aristotle. Logic in the context of pottery is based upon a host of things that I--without any experience in the subject--might be incapable of evaluating.

Or perhaps you know more about logic than Hegel *or* Aristotle, because you have read the Harbrace College Handbook?

(That was an indirect, sarcastic ad hominem attack, because I'm known for my illogic and for being silly. Being Hegelian and all.)

The most interesting thing about this debate about ad hominem is that while it may be common in internet forums, it is still not the MOST common fallacy, which is the "either...or" fallacy. I see that fallacy in almost every debate on the internet. I've even written about it in the Right or Wrong forum.

One more thing: Socrates made his name by asking both scholars and burger flippers. What he showed is that they all fail to think things through completely. The philosopher--at least in the ancient Greek sense--is the guy who sees the holes in everybody's argument. Including Drew's.

And the last thing: there is probably more wisdom in Doug's entry than anyone else's here.

Doug: RESPECT.

I love you all. Drew included.

(But I love Matt the most.)

Jeff


Such a SEXY post! Bravo!

Sounds like the jury has reached a verdict on the Scratchian School of Logic.

I smell the Hemlock a brewin'...
P.T. Murphy
www.ptmurphy.com
Josh Riel
View Profile
Inner circle
of hell
1999 Posts

Profile of Josh Riel
I don't need to be taught logic, I AM logic.

The other day someone said I wasn't being logical so I slapped him, because I am logic. And that kind of thing offends me.
Magic is doing improbable things with odd items that, under normal circumstances, would be unnessecary and quite often undesirable.
Chessmann
View Profile
Inner circle
4159 Posts

Profile of Chessmann
Quote:
On 2007-12-18 13:24, stoneunhinged wrote:
One more thing: Socrates made his name by asking both scholars and burger flippers. What he showed is that they all fail to think things through completely. The philosopher--at least in the ancient Greek sense--is the guy who sees the holes in everybody's argument.


Philosophy used to be more involved in the natural sciences for this reason.
My ex-cat was named "Muffin". "Vomit" would be a better name for her. AKA "The Evil Ball of Fur".
magicgeorge
View Profile
Inner circle
Belfast
4299 Posts

Profile of magicgeorge
Which is funny because I've just been slapping your tiny avatar head back and forth with my finger.
Tom Fenton
View Profile
Inner circle
Leeds, UK (but I'm Scottish)
1471 Posts

Profile of Tom Fenton
It is my opinion that someone who has been trained in or has studied something for some time would have a more valid opinion than a relative newcomer to the subject.
They know more about the subject.
"But there isn't a door"
Leland Stone
View Profile
Inner circle
1204 Posts

Profile of Leland Stone
Quote:
On 2007-12-18 12:37, JackScratch wrote:
...do you discard that information because it came from your garbage man and not your doctor? That's the Ad Hominem Fallacy.



No, it's not. If information is assessed according to its origin rather than its merits, the error is known as the GENETIC fallacy.

Be that as it may, perhaps there exists in some corner of our big wide world, a garbageman who is well-informed regarding diseases and cures, whose knowledge would put the doctors to shame and who, in Lorenzo's Oil improbability, might offer miraculous insight beyond that imagined by the learned-but-hidebound MDs.

Perhaps. But in my corner of that world, "About bricks, the brickmakers give good advice, but regarding diamonds, their words are not so sure." [Clason]
stoneunhinged
View Profile
Inner circle
3079 Posts

Profile of stoneunhinged
AND ONE VERY LAST THING, Josh...

No Lincoln (or in this case, Lincoln's wife) anymore?

I'm going to bed depressed.

Good night.

(Avatar too small, no quotes from Lincoln's wife...I'm making a list and checking it twife....)
JackScratch
View Profile
Inner circle
2151 Posts

Profile of JackScratch
I'm not disputing statistics, a fact which should have been made quite clear by my previous post. My Harbrace College Handbook offers no reference to the "Genetic Fallacy", perhaps you could offer your source.

A fallacy is a collapse in logic during a discussion. A point at which there is a flaw in the logical thought process. Do Doctors tend to know more about illness than garbage men? Yes. Irrelevant. Let us suppose that a Doctor says something known by all to be incorrect, and a garbageman offers a rebuttal known by all to be correct, does that mean that incorrect becomes correct because it comes from a superior source? No one disputes that people with credentials on a subject are more likely to offer not only correct answers, but the support basis to back up that answer. None the less, credentials do not make anything that anyone ever says correct, nor does a lack of credentials ever make anything that anyone ever says incorrect. Thus we may establish that to use credentials as the basis for an argument is a logical fallacy. I didn't make this stuff up, we as a society have been held to it for centuries. Those wishing to better themselves may feel free to consult your local bookstore for the Harbrace College Handbook, or equivalent literary textbook of choice and read all about it.

"Fallacies are faults in reasoning. They may result from misusing or misrepresenting evidence, from relying on faulty premises or omiting a needed premise, or from distorting the issues."
-Harbrace College Handbook
Josh Riel
View Profile
Inner circle
of hell
1999 Posts

Profile of Josh Riel
Cre·den·tial (krĭ-dìn'shəl) Pronunciation Key
n.
1) That which entitles one to confidence, credit, or authority.
2) credentials Evidence or testimonials concerning one's right to credit, confidence, or authority

Quote:
Thus we may establish that to use credentials as the basis for an argument is a logical fallacy.


We may establish that your use of the term "credentials" is a logical fallacy.... Credentials do not make a person correct, true. Credentials are however evidence that the holder has experience or authority on a subject, therefore more likely to be correct. We can safely establish here that credentials are in fact a appropriate basis for an argument.
Magic is doing improbable things with odd items that, under normal circumstances, would be unnessecary and quite often undesirable.
Leland Stone
View Profile
Inner circle
1204 Posts

Profile of Leland Stone
"The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy," Robert Audi, general editor. Cambridge University Press, 1995.

I didn't mention statistics, I rebutted your previous informal error, which was followed after my post by another informal error known as the "Straw Man." In your post on credentials you ascribe to me a position I do not affirm; it is not my view that credentials in one field qualify all one's views on every subject as authoritative and true.
Jerrine
View Profile
Special user
Busking is work.
629 Posts

Profile of Jerrine
Quote:
On 2007-12-18 21:41, Leland Stone wrote:
"The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy," Robert Audi, general editor. Cambridge University Press, 1995.

I didn't mention statistics, I rebutted your previous informal error, which was followed after my post by another informal error known as the "Straw Man." In your post on credentials you ascribe to me a position I do not affirm; it is not my view that credentials in one field qualify all one's views on every subject as authoritative and true.


Yeah, but you didn't apply the special logic.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Just My Opinion (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.21 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL