If you just understood what I understand ...

[Mulder]

'If you just understood what I understand you'd realise you're wrong!' No one ever puts it quite like that, of course, because it would probably get people annoyed. However, I've noticed this sort of logic (if indeed it is logical) used a lot in contentious issues, sometimes between well-informed experts in the same field.

The assumption is that the other person is only disagreeing because they either know less or simply don't understand. Given the 'facts' they would quickly change their mind. They are, perhaps, just beuing stubborn or ignorant. Of course, the argument implicitly assumes that 'I' know more than them and / or understand better.

Is there a name for this sort of argument? It doesn't seem like sound logic to me as it contains far too many assumptions, any of which could be wrong.

[Mojo]

The implication they're often making is that personal experience, with all its possibilities of bias and error, trumps systematic research.

It's a favourite of CAM proponents, especially homoeopaths. They will routinely interrupt any discussion of the actual evidence by asking if critics of homoeopathy have tried using it or challenging them to try it. See, for example, here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2776669#post2776669) (note that he has to mistranslate Hahnemann's epitaph):
Finally...Hahnemann's gravestone says "Aude sapere"--dare to taste, to experience, to understand. He challenged everyone to simply try homeopathy. If you are really serious scientists, you will experiment with using homeopathics on yourself when you are ill. The medicines are basically safe. You may actually be surprised.

The "challenge" is often in the form of a threat that they will make the skeptic ill by making them produce "proving symptoms" through the use of these "basically safe" remedies.

[Pebble]

Depending on the situation it may be more of an insult than an argument or an admission of inadequacy.

In the first instance one is claiming that either the opposition is too stupid to understand the arguments, or that they are not worthy of the effort required to outline the actual argument.

In the second instance the person who says it, can develop their position no better than they already have, but have heard others put more convincing arguments in the past.

[Cuddles]

That sounds like an argument from authority. The trouble with this is that while it can be a logical fallacy, it can be a valid argument. The problem is knowing whether the argument is fallacious or not.

For example, in a conversation about quantum mechanics between physicist and a layperson who's read a couple of pop science books, it's rather likely that the physicist really does know more about it, and that the layperson would agree with him if he knew more about the subject. Pointing that out isn't a fallacy or an insult, it's simply the truth. Of course, providing evidence and references would be better, but that is not always possible, and it's likely that someone without the relevant background wouldn't understand the references anyway.

[Pebble]

For example, in a conversation about quantum mechanics between physicist and a layperson who's read a couple of pop science books, it's rather likely that the physicist really does know more about it, and that the layperson would agree with him if he knew more about the subject.

Not worthy of the effort! Still an insult if the individual is trying to engage, if they are simply point scoring then I might agree.

[Tim the Mage]

Not worthy of the effort! Still an insult if the individual is trying to engage, if they are simply point scoring then I might agree.

Surely the task should be to explain rather than put someone down? However, it's pretty difficult when explaining ideas that are counter-intuitative (the best example I know is the Theory of Comparative Advantage). Even when you show them the maths they still seem not to want to get it.

[Pebble]

Surely the task should be to explain rather than put someone down? However, it's pretty difficult when explaining ideas that are counter-intuitative (the best example I know is the Theory of Comparative Advantage). Even when you show them the maths they still seem not to want to get it.

My point, exactly. Though I find most people are good at counter intuitative concepts, they accept religion don't they?

[Tim the Mage]

My point, exactly. Though I find most people are good at counter intuitative concepts, they accept religion don't they?

Religion isn't counter intuitive?! Unless of course it's true?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

'If you just understood what I understand you'd realise you're wrong!' No one ever puts it quite like that, of course, because it would probably get people annoyed. However, I've noticed this sort of logic (if indeed it is logical) used a lot in contentious issues, sometimes between well-informed experts in the same field.

Context might help a bit here. What examples had you in mind?

[Mulder]

Context might help a bit here. What examples had you in mind?

I wouldn't want to make anyone blush ... :smiley:

[Pebble]

Religion isn't counter intuitive?! Unless of course it's true?

So the notion that there is an invisible 'man' observing and deeply interested in the every thought of each human in the world, who has created the universe as a plaything, where the game is that one single species must in the absence of any evidence decide to worship him, or he will get very angry - is not counterintuitive? Surely as a concept this must appear pretty weird to anyone and yet millions accept this as real.

All I am saying is that one's intuition should not lead us toward the Abrahamic version of religion. I fail to see why something should be 'true' to be counter-intuitive, i.e. lots of nonsense is also counter-intuitive.

[Matt]

So the notion that there is an invisible 'man' observing and deeply interested in the every thought of each human in the world, who has created the universe as a plaything, where the game is that one single species must in the absence of any evidence decide to worship him, or he will get very angry - is not counterintuitive? Surely as a concept this must appear pretty weird to anyone and yet millions accept this as real.

All I am saying is that one's intuition should not lead us toward the Abrahamic version of religion. I fail to see why something should be 'true' to be counter-intuitive, i.e. lots of nonsense is also counter-intuitive.

That's a specific insantiation of religion whihc has evolved over thousands of years. However I feel that the wider idea of religion itself, the feeling that a personality greater than us is responsible for a broad plan of which we are vital players, might well be a result of intuition taking precidence over more rational observtions

[Tim the Mage]

So the notion that there is an invisible 'man' observing and deeply interested in the every thought of each human in the world, who has created the universe as a plaything, where the game is that one single species must in the absence of any evidence decide to worship him, or he will get very angry - is not counterintuitive? Surely as a concept this must appear pretty weird to anyone and yet millions accept this as real.

All I am saying is that one's intuition should not lead us toward the Abrahamic version of religion. I fail to see why something should be 'true' to be counter-intuitive, i.e. lots of nonsense is also counter-intuitive.

Your point would be right were we starting with a blank canvas but, in the case of religion, this is not so. I assume that mankind had very sound reasons for inventing religion - indeed given the lack of evidence the only source must be intuition. To many millions of people to argue against the existence of god (or gods) is profoundly counter-intuitative.

My point was that persuading people of a counter-intuitative fact is difficult (after all the Theory of Comparative Advantage has a scientific basis even if it is mere economics - this is more than can be said for religion). By way of further illustration: research has shown that if you give people smaller waste bins they generate less rubbish, a point I made to some friends down t'pub. They dismissed this argument because their intuition said that this was nonsense since the amount of rubbish produced was a factor of what was used not the size of the bin (a point that was 'proved' using a straw poll of three).

[Pebble]

Tim,
No problem with the second half of your argument.

As to the first half! The pixies are loose surely. I would reinterpret using the old Jesuit saying: give me a boy till he is seven and he is mine for life. In other words no matter how ludicrous the ideas to be inculcated, children will generally accept them without skepticisism and if the brainwashing is thorough enough, defend them to the death as adults.
As to the origins of religion per se, that is a whole different argument.

[Tony Williams]

Tim,
I would reinterpret using the old Jesuit saying: give me a boy till he is seven and he is mine for life. In other words no matter how ludicrous the ideas to be inculcated, children will generally accept them without skepticisism and if the brainwashing is thorough enough, defend them to the death as adults.

That isn't reliably the case, because there's a contrary factor at work: the impulse most adolescents have to rebel against their parents.

I recall girls educated in convents having the reputation of being really "hot", they were so keen to throw off the shackles and party!

[Tim the Mage]

Tim,
No problem with the second half of your argument.

As to the first half! The pixies are loose surely. I would reinterpret using the old Jesuit saying: give me a boy till he is seven and he is mine for life. In other words no matter how ludicrous the ideas to be inculcated, children will generally accept them without skepticisism and if the brainwashing is thorough enough, defend them to the death as adults.
As to the origins of religion per se, that is a whole different argument.

There was an interesting piece of research reported on in the economist that reported a correlation between the numbers of religions in a place and the numbers of parasitic diseases. Although in these cases causality is very hard to prove the suggestion was that religion, language variation and xenophobia developed as media of group protection. I'm not convinced by an article that reports research but it was an interesting contention.

As to the pixies, I amy not believe in god but there are fairies at the bottom of my garden!

[Pebble]

I recall girls educated in convents having the reputation of being really "hot", they were so keen to throw off the shackles and party!

This was the 1940's and the jesuits were particularly persuasive as a group, anything but complete submission was likely to result in your finding out about the afterlife sooner rather than later.
From the 1960's on the loss of control became only too evident.

[Tim the Mage]

This was the 1940's and the jesuits were particularly persuasive as a group, anything but complete submission was likely to result in your finding out about the afterlife sooner rather than later.
From the 1960's on the loss of control became only too evident.

Speaking as a 'good catholic boy'...b******s

[Pebble]

Speaking as a 'good catholic boy'...b******s

Had guessed.

[Pebble]

http://www.gnosticteachings.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t5066.html

An infant is defined : "...as a human child at the youngest stage of life, specifically before they can walk and generally before the age of one".

Do you recall the way you perceived life as a newborn and small baby?

The personality is formed within the first seven years in accordance with the three factors of the: Genotype (influence of the genes/karma), Phenotype (the education we get from our family, friends, teachers etc) and the Paratype (circumstances of life).

The old (jesuit?) saying: "Give me a boy till he is seven and I will show you the man" is apt.

We get shaped by both the efficacy and incompetence of those around us

[Cuddles]

Phenotype (the education we get from our family, friends, teachers etc)

That's not what phenotype means. Technically, phenotype simply means any observable characteristic of an organism. However, it is often used to simply mean the observable characteristics caused by a particular genotype without taking environment into account.

Your definition of phenotype would simply be a component of what you call paratype. However, although I've not heard of paratype before, it does not appear to have anything to do with your definition either.

Edit: Also, there's no such thing as karma.

[Pebble]

That's not what phenotype means. Technically, phenotype simply means any observable characteristic of an organism. However, it is often used to simply mean the observable characteristics caused by a particular genotype without taking environment into account.

Your definition of phenotype would simply be a component of what you call paratype. However, although I've not heard of paratype before, it does not appear to have anything to do with your definition either.

Edit: Also, there's no such thing as karma.


Direct quotation from a religious web site, not something I would personally wish to defend.

Simply used because of the point about moulding the personalities and belief systems of young children. While no controlled trials of this type of behavior management have been undertaken, I think the wealth of observational evidence from many communities, shows that there is a large measure of 'truth' to this statement.

[Tony Williams]

Simply used because of the point about moulding the personalities and belief systems of young children. While no controlled trials of this type of behavior management have been undertaken, I think the wealth of observational evidence from many communities, shows that there is a large measure of 'truth' to this statement.
But there is at least as much evidence in support of the point I made: that adolescents routinely rebel against adult authority figures and often do the exact opposite of what they want, taking their lives in a different direction. I suspect that the more rigid the adult control in early childhood, the stronger this reaction is likely to be. They are, I suppose, still influenced by such childhood indoctrination, but in a negative way.

I also suspect that this is much more common than it used to be, because there are so many other influences affecting adolescents today; especially peer-group pressure. If adults want to keep their children under control, they'd better educate them at home, not allow them any friendships and censor their TV and internet use.