Morgantown Atheists » discussion

Problems of Philosophy: MIT Lecture Notes Available

Neece — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 23:01:37 +0000

Butch found something we might want to explore. MIT Open Courseware Lecture Notes from Problems of Philosophy. Here are the topics covered and available (in pdf format):

Reason to Believe: Does God Exist?

Rationality and Belief

Mind and Body

Freewill, Determinism, and Responsibility

Morality and Right Conduct

In glancing over the different notes, I noticed they build on each other, so it might be best, if we’re interested, to go in order. There are other titles listed on the page, but they don’t have any links to pdf files, unfortunately. Is anyone interested? If so, what meetings would we have for these subjects? Your thoughts are welcome.

Some Great Advice by Robert Gula

Neece — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:19:58 +0000

Today (November 15) is our final look at Nonsense: Red Herrings, Straw Men and Sacred Cows: How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language by Robert J. Gula.

I really wanted to share part of chapter 17 with you. Mr. Gula lists the most important principles to be gleaned from the rest of the book. I highly recommend getting the book and reading it. It has really helped me think more logically. The other thing it’s helped me with is to realize when someone has used a logical fallacy on me. I might not remember the name, but I remember that it is nonsense. It sort of gives me a red flag when someone uses bad logic in an argument. I think that’s pretty invaluable.

So here’s the list of important principles from Robert Gula:

Be alert to anyone who speaks in absolutes: who uses words like all, none, no one, never, always, everyone, must, immediately, or who refers to a group of people as if all the members have identical characteristics, beliefs or attitudes.
Be alert to generalizations, especially ones that are unsupported or that are supported from just one or two specific, unusual or extreme examples.
Be alert to anyone who uses emotional language and evaluative words instead of objective, factual responses.
Do not confuse opinion, attitude, personal bias, speculation, personal assurance or unsupported generalization with hard, factual evidence.
Be sure that the issue under discussion is clear and precise, that its ramifications, complexities and goals have been identified, and that the words and concepts have been defined.
Be sure that the evidence is relevant to the specific topic of discussion, not to some related topic.
When an authority is referred to, do not automatically accept that authority unless their credentials are relevant to the issue under discussion.
Make sure that the conclusion follows from the evidence.
Be sure that you do not put others in a position where they have to make inferences, and that you are not put in a position where you have to make inferences. In other words, be sure that necessary steps are not omitted in argument. Avoid making assumptions.
Wherever possible, do not allow rational discussions to become heated arguments.
Make sure that the evidence is thorough, not selective.
Don’t quibble; don’t argue just for the sake of arguing.
Think critically. Never let a fallacy go by without making a mental note of it; even if you don’t say anything, say to yourself, “this is nonsense.”
Whenever you hear an argument, examine it before you accept its conclusions. As three questions:
1. Are the statements – the premises – the points being made and used as evidence – true?
2. Is the evidence complete? Or has the evidence been one-sided?
3. Does the conclusion come incontrovertibly from the evidence? Or might a different conclusion just as easily have come from the evidence?
Finally, no matter how skilled in argument you may become, never forget the opening sentence of Poe’s “The Cask of Amontillado”:
The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as best I could, but when he ventured upon insult, I vowed revenge.
The world does not need another smart aleck.

Taxonomy of the Logical Fallacies

Neece — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 06:53:47 +0000

Since we’re talking so much about logical fallacies, Brent found a site called Fallacy Files that handles things in an interesting way. They have something called a Taxonomy of the Logical Fallacies which shows how they are all related to each other. Here is a small version. Click on it to go to the site’s full size image.

After seeing how they are related, you can go to their How To Use page to read a bit more into it. For instance, you can see the logical relationships between them. Also as you get further to the right, you’ll see the colors fade from strong (more general) to faded (more specific).

The color and scheme is arbitrary, by the way, except how they blend. Red are formal fallacies. Blue are informal. Green is Loaded Question, which is not in either category.

Here is some of the reasoning behind this method:

The Taxonomy is more useful than the alphabetical index for studying the logical relationships between fallacies. To understand an individual fallacy, it may be helpful to move upward in the Taxonomy―that is, to the left―in order to understand the more general fallacy of which it is a subfallacy. Also, moving downward―that is, to the right―can help in understanding a general fallacy through seeing more specific versions of it. Some individual fallacies―such as Wishful Thinking―are leaves on more than one branch of the Taxonomy, because they are subfallacies of more than one type of fallacy.

In addition, fallacies that are subfallacies of the same general fallacy are like siblings, since they share the same parent. So, it may help to compare and contrast a fallacy with its siblings. As with human siblings, the likeness between sibling fallacies is stronger in some cases than in others. For instance, the causal fallacies Post Hoc and Cum Hoc are more similar to each other than they are to their other siblings, the Regression and Texas Sharpshooter fallacies. In the Taxonomy, this strong sibling relationship is indicated by a thicker, similarly-colored line connecting the two fallacies.

Another use for the Taxonomy is in finding a fallacy whose name you do not know, but you do know what general type of mistake you are looking for. Start with a general fallacy, and “drill down” into the Taxonomy―that is, moving to the right―until you find what you’re looking for.

You can also go to their main page to look up fallacies by their alphabetical listing.

I hope you find this useful!

How To Argue

Neece — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 03:28:17 +0000

We’ve begun talking about logical fallacies and different arguments here and at the Freethinkers Morgantown Book Club. So hopefully this will be interesting and helpful to you.

Almost all of us argue or have discussions. But there’s actually a right way and lots of wrong ways to go about it. As an ethical person, I don’t really want to do it wrong because that’s being dishonest and unfair. I am definitely not a debater, which is where people actually use logical fallacies on purpose to win an argument. I don’t really care for debates because they seem forced to me. It’s about winning, not about finding out the truth. I think the main reason I hate arguing is because most people fight dirty. I am sure I’ve done it too, mainly out of ignorance. Now, with the following information, we can argue more logically.

Here is a pretty close transcript of a Skeptic’s Guide 5×5 podcast episode. It’s not exact, so you can listen to it to get everything I left out, which was where someone started a sentence or a thought and didn’t finish it, stuff like that. I also turned it into more of an article and less of a conversation. So really, it’s a companion to listening to the podcast (which is about 6 minutes) and for your convenience.

How To Structure A Logical Argument
by the Skeptics’ Guide 5×5, Episode 62, March 19, 2009

There are two components to any argument:

Premises – the facts you base your argument on

Logic – connects your premises to the conclusion that you’re trying to draw

Some important properties of logical systems should include:

Consistency: nothing in your argument should contradict one another.

Soundness: the system rules for proof will never allow false interference from a true premise

Completeness: there are no true sentences in the system that cannot be proved in the system

It’s very important that logical arguments are only about factual claims and not value judgments. Value judgments are by definition subjective and are not amenable to logical arguments.
Another important thing to keep in mind is what logical fallacies are and to look for them not just in your opponent’s argument in order to deconstruct that, but also to get them out of your own argument. It’s very easy to fall into certain traps without realizing it. Studying common logical fallacies can really help you tone up your own logical argument.
One key is that the purpose of an argument shouldn’t be to win. It should be to figure out what is valid, what is true. If two people disagree, then one or both people is making an unsound argument. So something would be wrong with one or both arguments.

Unsound argument: not based both on true premises and valid logic.

First Goal: Decide what the common ground is. What are the points you can both agree upon? What are the premises that are rock solid? Then proceed very carefully from there, examining each premise and all of the logic every step of the way to find out who is wrong here, who is making the incorrect assumption, who is making a hidden premise, who is committing a logical fallacy or are both of you?

Don’t neglect your own arguments. Don’t assume you’re right and the other person is wrong. Proceed in a careful manner.

If two people examining the same math problem came to a different answer they wouldn’t just start yelling at each other. They’d say OK, let’s go through it step by step and see who made a mistake, or maybe both of us made a mistake and we’ll figure out what the right answer is.

An argument is the same thing. It has a structure.

One important thing to note: if you start with premises that are true, and you make a valid logic, that is what is called a Sound Argument. The conclusion of a sound argument must be true, by definition. Therefore if two people disagree they can’t both be making sound arguments. And that includes yourself.

Also, you really do need to listen to the person you’re arguing with. A large portion of the discussion is going to be reacting to the other person. You’re going to be formulating your thoughts, ideas and responses as that person is telling you what they believe. You’re preparing your next statement as you go. You really do need to take into account what they’re saying, or else you’re having a one sided discussion.

A good component of a constructive argument: It’s very helpful to try to explain your position to someone else. When you are forced to make someone else understand your position, then it really exposes some of the holes and gaps in your logic and your thinking. You’re trying to make your position unambiguously understood. You’re exposing all of your premises, you’re not hiding them. You’re exposing all of your logic, you’re explaining it to yourself and the other person at the same time, and then you’re giving them the opportunity to do the same thing.

Again, a good place to start is, what is the common ground. What are the things we can agree upon?

Some discussions are about value judgments, and if you expose that, OK we’re talking about something that is a subjective opinion here, then you can at least agree to disagree and then you’re not wasting your time that can’t be resolved with facts and logic.

Cross-posted from Heaving Dead Cats

Morgantown Atheists » discussion

Problems of Philosophy: MIT Lecture Notes Available

Related posts

Some Great Advice by Robert Gula

Related posts

Taxonomy of the Logical Fallacies

Related posts

How To Argue

Related posts