How not to argue

[Dr B]

I have copied below a funny link from the net....you may have seen it, it is repeated on a few sites, but it does make me laugh........

A humorous example taken from the internet on exactly how not to use critical thinking!

How to argue effectively
By Dave Barry

I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win on argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me. You too can win arguments. Simply follow these rules:

Drink Liquor
Suppose you are at a party and some hotshot intellectual is expounding on the economy of Peru, a subject you know nothing about. If you are drinking some health-fanatic drink like grapefruit juice, you'll hang back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hotshot enthrals your date. But if you drink several large martinis, you'll discover you have strong views about the Peruvian economy. You'd be a wealth of information. You'll argue forcefully, offering searing insight and possibly upsetting furniture. People will be impressed. Some may leave the room.

Make Things Up
Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove that Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that you are underpaid, and you'll be damned if you're going to let a bunch of Peruvians be better off. Don’t say: "I think Peruvians are underpaid." Say instead: "The overage Peruvian's salary in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 below the mean gross poverty level.” NOTE: Always make up an exact figure. If on opponent asks you where you got your information, make that up too. Say: “This information comes from Dr. Hovel T. Moon's study for the Buford Commission published an May 9, 1982. Didn't you read it?" Say this in the some tone of voice you would use to say, "You left your soiled underwear in my bathroom."

Use Meaningless Rut Weighty -Sounding Words and Phrases
Memorize this list:
Let me put it this way
In terms of
Vis-a-vis
Per se
As it were
Quo
So to speak

You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations sued as “Q.E.D.”,”e.g.” and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you don'" Here’s how to use these words and phrases. Suppose you want to say: "Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don't have enough money." You never win argument talking like that. But you WILL win if you say, "Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians quo Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se as it were. Q.E.D." Only a fool would challenge that statement.

Use Snappy and Irrelevant Comebacks
You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevant phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are:
You're begging the question.
You're being defensive.
Don't compare apples to orange.
What are your parameters?

This last one is especially valuable. Nobody other than engineers and policy wonks has the vaguest idea what "parameters " means. Here's how to use your comeback:
You say: "As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873…” Your opponent says: “Lincoln died in 1865.” You say: "You're begging the question."

Compare Your Opponent to Adolf Hitler
This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say: "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say." or "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler.”
So that's it. You now know how-to out-argue anybody. Do not try to pull any of this on people who generally carry weapons.

;D ;D ;D....sounds like John....... :eek:

[Admin]

;D ;D ;D....sounds like John....... :eek:


Oi >:( - It's comments like that which led to the rise of Hiltler! ;D

That's a good piece. O0


Funnily enough, I've made some notes for writing a short article on how to spot whether you're arguing against a woo. It's all about the tactics they use to avoid an objective argument, but more extreme cases are just like that given above. :o

[tkingdoll]

Ha ha!

I must say, I get REALLY annoyed when people trot out the old 'you're comparing apples with oranges'. UGH! Stop it! It's a cliche and no-one ever uses it properly!

[/rant]

[Dr B]

I agree - but sometimes, it is appropriate.

On a similar note building on Teek's points - I remember reading a Jamie Whyte book where he was talking about the old saying "Hark at the kettle calling the pot black" (remember that one?).

Whyte's point was, that the statement is illogical simply because, sometimes the kettle is black and so its factually correct (within the context of the argument's metaphor).

Another nice example he uses (and others use as well) is when you say to your partner "You have been putting weight on recently"...to which they reply "Oi....you cannot talk look at you!" The point is, it may be true.....you may have put weight on. The retort is irrelevant.

(note to all - it is generallly considered to be a bad thing to accuse ones wife of putting weight on. The considered approach of the greatest thinkers in the world is simple - don't do it....ever! In addition, her bum never looks big in anything and 'fine' will never do to describe how she looks... ;D ;D)

[Araneus]

In addition, her bum never looks big in anything and 'fine' will never do to describe how she looks... ;D ;D)

I've never been asked the question, but I think I would have a hard time deciding whether someone's bum looked big. I would want to normalise the scale, by insisting that they define "big" relative to some fixed reference point or other.

[median]

So the line, 'I'm not saying you've put on weight but light seems to curve around the gravitational pull of your arse' is not a good one? ;D

[Dr B]

;D ;D ;D

I think we are all talking from experience here ;D

Median - fantastic.....but before you ever try that lock the knife drawer in the kitchen..... 8)

[tkingdoll]

Dearie me you men are in some trouble :D

Although a friend did once asked me if her new jeans made her look fat, and I replied "no, your huge arse makes you look fat". ;D

Not really, but it's a good gag.

The apples and oranges thing is sometimes appropriate, but it's become quite trendy to trot it out for everything and most people get it wrong. I can't stand people using the wrong phrase or misquoting - or even misspelling. Someone recently said to me (in writing) that they were going to bear their teeth at an enemy!

I know, I have no patience. But...arrrgggh! How does bearing your teeth make any sense at all? What, they are usually unbearable? And that your new tolerance of your own dentures will somehow make your enemy cower?

I also get annoyed with certain phrases. Just little pet hates for no reason, such as 'mea culpa'. It winds me up whenever I see it used. It's pretentious and arrogant, I find. But then I use equally fancy phrases myself and don't think anything of it.

Well, I never claimed to be consistent...

[chillzero]

On a similar note building on Teek's points - I remember reading a Jamie Whyte book where he was talking about the old saying "Hark at the kettle calling the pot black" (remember that one?).

Whyte's point was, that the statement is illogical simply because, sometimes the kettle is black and so its factually correct (within the context of the argument's metaphor).

I'm confused.

I thought the whole point of saying this was because both parties are the same. I thought it was supposed to identify the idiocy of using a particular phrase to insult someone (the pot says the kettle is black - therefore dirty), when the insulter is in the same postion - usually more so (i.e., the pot is clearly much blacker than the kettle).

Like, if I was 20stone and eating a ton of burgers, and I was with my 12stone friend, who bought a big jammy doughnut, and I said "hey - all that junk food's making you fat".
(Can't think of a great example just now)

It's the illogic of the statement that is supposed to make the point. No? :confused:

[Araneus]

Like, if I was 20stone and eating a ton of burgers, and I was with my 12stone friend, who bought a big jammy doughnut, and I said "hey - all that junk food's making you fat".
(Can't think of a great example just now)

That's the whole point. The fact that you may be 20 stone does not in any way affect the validity of suggesting your 12 stone friend eats less junk food. A statement does not become inaccurate or illogical just because it applies to the speaker as well as the audience.

[chillzero]

Like, if I was 20stone and eating a ton of burgers, and I was with my 12stone friend, who bought a big jammy doughnut, and I said "hey - all that junk food's making you fat".
(Can't think of a great example just now)

That's the whole point. The fact that you may be 20 stone does not in any way affect the validity of suggesting your 12 stone friend eats less junk food. A statement does not become inaccurate or illogical just because it applies to the speaker as well as the audience.


Ah...gotcha.
Never thought of it that way. :)

[Dr B]

Yes thats it. O0

The fact it applies to all does not make it false - it still applies, as made, in the original assertion. O0

Hence, the objection from the 'Kettle' to the 'Pot' (or vice versa) is irrelevant to the original claim.

[tkingdoll]

Isn't the quality of one's advice diminished if one does not follow it oneself, though? If I am very fat, and tell a very person to eat less junk food, what weight of authority does my advice carry? None, as far as the other person can tell. So by saying "pft, you can't talk, you bloater", they are pointing out that the advice could in fact be rubbish because the advisor clearly isn't prepared to follow it themselves.

[chillzero]

Isn't the quality of one's advice diminished if one does not follow it oneself, though? If I am very fat, and tell a very person to eat less junk food, what weight of authority does my advice carry? None, as far as the other person can tell. So by saying "pft, you can't talk, you bloater", they are pointing out that the advice could in fact be rubbish because the advisor clearly isn't prepared to follow it themselves.


That's why I was confused - because that is always how I thought it was supposed to be used.

[Araneus]

Isn't the quality of one's advice diminished if one does not follow it oneself, though? If I am very fat, and tell a very person to eat less junk food, what weight of authority does my advice carry? None, as far as the other person can tell. So by saying "pft, you can't talk, you bloater", they are pointing out that the advice could in fact be rubbish because the advisor clearly isn't prepared to follow it themselves.


That wouldn't be a logical argument though, it is an ad hominem or an appeal to (lack of) authority. Maybe you are fat because you have a medical problem, or you have terminal cancer and don't care about your health -- it is still perfectly good advice to your friend to eat less junk food.

[Admin]

This sounds like the Tu Quoque (you too) fallacy see: Tu Quoque (http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/index.php/topic,457.msg6086.html#msg6086)

Just because someone doesn't follow their own advice does not mean that such advice is wrong.

A person giving advice and claiming to be an authority however, makes them guilty of hypocrisy even though their advice may be good.

[tkingdoll]

Isn't the quality of one's advice diminished if one does not follow it oneself, though? If I am very fat, and tell a very person to eat less junk food, what weight of authority does my advice carry? None, as far as the other person can tell. So by saying "pft, you can't talk, you bloater", they are pointing out that the advice could in fact be rubbish because the advisor clearly isn't prepared to follow it themselves.


That wouldn't be a logical argument though, it is an ad hominem or an appeal to (lack of) authority. Maybe you are fat because you have a medical problem, or you have terminal cancer and don't care about your health -- it is still perfectly good advice to your friend to eat less junk food.


What world is this you describe? Most fat people are fat from overeating and/or lack of exercise, it makes no sense to withold judgement on your friend who is calling you out for what is likely to be the same thing. Who would say to a friend with terminal cancer "you can't talk, fatty"? It doesn't happen. If they know you well enough to tell you to stop eating so much, then you know them well enough to know if they are fat for medical reasons (rare) or because they do the thing they're preaching to you about.

I think it's perfectly fair to judge the quality of a person's advice on their own ability to take it. It's likely that you are similar enough to that person to be able to tell that it won't work for you either. What other methods do you suggest on an everyday basis? Social creatures rely on judgement factors like how well they know the advice-giver, whether the advice giver is perceived as knowledgeable or authoritarian, etc. And it varies depending on the topic of advice. In marketing, research shows that we are more likely to take advice about wine from a neighbour than a family member, and less likely to take advice about buying a car from a male spouse than a friend. These influences are based on many factors, not least the perceptions about the advice-giver's own life. If you want advice on losing weight then you go to someone you know who has lost a lot of weight. Putting your money where your mouth is is the best way to get your views taken seriously, and personal testimony is the most convincing sales argument. "I stopped eating ten cheeseburgers a day and I lost five stone!" will do more than "you should stop eating five cheeseburgers a day, I've read that's what makes you fat." Think about it - if the advice is so good, why isn't that person taking it themselves?

The only times it works in reverse is if someone is giving you advice on what not to do if you don't want to end up like them.

[Araneus]

What world is this you describe? Most fat people are fat from overeating and/or lack of exercise, it makes no sense to withold judgement on your friend who is calling you out for what is likely to be the same thing. Who would say to a friend with terminal cancer "you can't talk, fatty"? It doesn't happen. If they know you well enough to tell you to stop eating so much, then you know them well enough to know if they are fat for medical reasons (rare) or because they do the thing they're preaching to you about.

I am not making any claims regarding the likely reasons for somebody being fat; this is just the example that was given and the details are not relevant.


I think it's perfectly fair to judge the quality of a person's advice on their own ability to take it. It's likely that you are similar enough to that person to be able to tell that it won't work for you either. What other methods do you suggest on an everyday basis? Social creatures rely on judgement factors like how well they know the advice-giver, whether the advice giver is perceived as knowledgeable or authoritarian, etc.

Whether somebody is knowledgeable or authoritative is certainly a useful heuristic if you don't otherwise know the quality of their advice -- this is why I would trust a doctor, even though I probably know nothing of the medical basis for their suggestions. However I do not see how the person's willingness to take their own advice should have any bearing on its value; by that argument, the qualified medical doctor advising you to lose weight should be ignored if they are overweight themselves.


And it varies depending on the topic of advice. In marketing, research shows that we are more likely to take advice about wine from a neighbour than a family member, and less likely to take advice about buying a car from a male spouse than a friend. These influences are based on many factors, not least the perceptions about the advice-giver's own life. If you want advice on losing weight then you go to someone you know who has lost a lot of weight. Putting your money where your mouth is is the best way to get your views taken seriously, and personal testimony is the most convincing sales argument. "I stopped eating ten cheeseburgers a day and I lost five stone!" will do more than "you should stop eating five cheeseburgers a day, I've read that's what makes you fat." Think about it - if the advice is so good, why isn't that person taking it themselves?

I don't doubt any of this, but this doesn't support the logical validity of the argument. Human beings are notoriously irrational creatures, and the marketing examples you give are further evidence in support of that, not against it.

[Cuddles]

Whether somebody is knowledgeable or authoritative is certainly a useful heuristic if you don't otherwise know the quality of their advice -- this is why I would trust a doctor, even though I probably know nothing of the medical basis for their suggestions. However I do not see how the person's willingness to take their own advice should have any bearing on its value; by that argument, the qualified medical doctor advising you to lose weight should be ignored if they are overweight themselves.

Not ignored, but would you really take diet advice from an obese doctor as seriously as from a healthy one? I certainly wouldn't. No matter how qualified they are supposd to be, if someone is trained how to eat healthily but is clearly incapable of doing so it seriously calls their authority into question. Would you take DIY advice from someone who keeps electrocuting themselves just because they are an electrician?

I think possibly the problem is that you are assuming the quality of the advice is already known. We all know that eating less will help you lose weight, so whether a fat person or a thin person says it, we all know it is true. I think Teek, and the discussion as a whole, was about advice in general. If you have no idea what is a good way to lose weight and then a fat person tells you to eat less burgers, why would you take it seriously when they clearly haven't used that advice themselves? It's the reverse of a valid appeal to authority. If someone is knowledgeable about a subject then their advice should have a high value, but equally, if someone is clearly unable to do something you should not take their advice about how to do it too seriously.

[Dr B]

Just to return to some earlier points - none of the above speaks to whether the statements are true or not....and thus, that lies at the bottom of this problem.

A black kettle calling a pot black is quite right to do so - if it is indeed black. It matters not, and is totally irrelevant to the truth of that statement, as to whether the kettle itself is black. The pot is still black and that is all the kettle ever claimed. O0

All you need to ask yourself is; "is the pot black or not?"

I find anything that lies outside of this (discussed above) largely irrelevant to the actual logic of the statement as it was originally made. I guess it shows just how powerful these mind traps are. O0

[Cuddles]

Just to return to some earlier points - none of the above speaks to whether the statements are true or not....and thus, that lies at the bottom of this problem.

A black kettle calling a pot black is quite right to do so - if it is indeed black. It matters not, and is totally irrelevant to the truth of that statement, as to whether the kettle itself is black. The pot is still black and that is all the kettle ever claimed. O0

All you need to ask yourself is; "is the pot black or not?"

But that's not all you need to ask youself. The other important question is "How can I determine if the pot is blakc or not?". This is what I was getting at. In the case of the cleanliness of a kettle it is not really a question that many of us think of, but if all you have to go on is the word of a very dirty pot you have to question how reliable the testimony is. Obviously the objective facts do not change depending on who is saying things, but our ability to determine the facts is very dependent on the credibiltiy of sources. If a fat person gives you diet advice, then in the absence of other information you would be a fool to take it because of the obvious fact that it hasn't worked for them. In a absolutely factual, logical world your point is valid, but as Teek said, this is the real world and it simply doesn't work like that.

[Dr B]

But that's not all you need to ask youself.

No - it is all you need to ask yourself within the context of the example. Everything else is tangential (very interesting - but tangential). We need to be clear on this before adding other stuff to the debate. Its an example only concerned with the truth of the statement. The example takes two known truths (pot and kettle are black) and merely shows that one calling the other is valid and sound.

I think you are taking the example beyond what it is designed to show. Obviously, it is more problematic if we are not dealing with known truths....but thats nothing to do with the original argument. To what extent is the pot not black - when we know it is and the kettle merely states it?



The other important question is "How can I determine if the pot is blakc or not?". This is what I was getting at.

I understand and totally agree O0 - but its tangential because my example (well Whyte's really) is based on known properties (deductive) not unknown ones.



but our ability to determine the facts is very dependent on the credibiltiy of sources.

To some extent - but Einstein would still have been correct if he were a tramp. There are two issues here - both useful - and I am merely saying - dont fudge them.



If a fat person gives you diet advice, then in the absence of other information you would be a fool to take it because of the obvious fact that it hasn't worked for them.

I totally disagree - a facutal claim remains factual no matter who makes it. Concentrate on the message not the messenger. However, if the message were slightly different (as John noted above) people can become hypocrites - but not when dealing with factual claims.

If Stalin said Hitler was a mass murderer - he is not wrong because Stalin has his own shortcomings.....



In a absolutely factual, logical world your point is valid, but as Teek said, this is the real world and it simply doesn't work like that.


Thats my whole point - your making a different argument completely which is tangential to and irrelevant to the logic of the initial example. I never said you did not have a point within the context of your own example - just that its meaningless in relation to the original one O0

[Araneus]

It takes more than just giving advice to become a hypocrite -- there has to be an element of pretense involved regarding one's own behaviour. It is perfectly valid to say "My life has been ruined by alcoholism, so don't become an alcoholic" without being a hypocrite, but it would be hypocrisy to act in a superior or judgemental manner towards alcoholics when you yourself are one.

[Dr B]

I agree....(not sure your example qualifies as hypocrisy anyway...but I take your point) but that's still tangential to the main point.

[chillzero]

Not ignored, but would you really take diet advice from an obese doctor as seriously as from a healthy one?

I'm not qualified to judge why he is obese, so it wouldn't affect my ability to take the advice.

I picked a really bad example, it seems. :(

[Admin]

I picked a really bad example, it seems. :(


Or a pretty good one. ;)

There was a post on the Bad Science forum where Ben Goldacre was wondering whether to include the fact that the health-quack he was going to write about was not only giving pseudoscientific advice but was also fat himself.

The fact that he's fat does not invalidate his advice in any way (assuming it were sound) but his obesity is a relevant factor when he's speaking from a position of (self-proclaimed) authority.

It can be very difficult to separate the logic and the fallacy though.

The MMR vaccine is perfectly safe - this is now accepted as sound advice. Tony Blair gave that very advice to parents but refused to answer the question as to whether his son was given the MMR vaccine or single jabs. So we assume that Blair chose to give his son single jabs.

Now, if he were to criticise parents who didn't use the triple MMR jab, it would be perfectly valid for parents to yell, "hark at the pot calling the kettle black," but that doesn't mean his advice is wrong, it merely illustrates his hypocrisy.

So the question arises - can a hypocrite be an authority on a subject? ???

[Cuddles]

No - it is all you need to ask yourself within the context of the example. Everything else is tangential (very interesting - but tangential). We need to be clear on this before adding other stuff to the debate. Its an example only concerned with the truth of the statement. The example takes two known truths (pot and kettle are black) and merely shows that one calling the other is valid and sound.

I think you are taking the example beyond what it is designed to show. Obviously, it is more problematic if we are not dealing with known truths....but thats nothing to do with the original argument. To what extent is the pot not black - when we know it is and the kettle merely states it?

I think you are not taking the example far enough. Your point is only true if you assume that all the facts are known in advance, but this was not actually stated. In the general case we cannot assume that all the facts are available, so we must concern ourselves with how likely statements are to be true, since we can no longer be absolutely sure. In this case , if we don't know how clean the kettle is we have to wonder what the pot means by its statement. Does it mean "the kettle is even dirtier than me", in which case it could be given a lot of weight? Does it simply mean "the kettle is dirty"? with no regard for its own condition? This is what you are assuming but is not generally true, especailly when people are involved. Does it mean "the kettle is dirty and therefore should be ridiculed"? This is the meaning I find most likely when people are involved, in which case the condition of the pot is relevant. If the pot is dirty and yet calls the kettle dirty as an insult it is reasonable to conclude that the pot is simply looking for an insult and is not truly concerned about the state of the kettle, since if being dirty is such a bad thing, why would the pot itself be dirty? I think this is the most common use of the "pot calling kettle" argument. In an ideal, objective, logical world this would not be a problem but as I said before, the real world simply doesn't work like that. You can't reject an argument as fallacious on purely objective grounds when there is a definite subjective part to it. In your example you said that the argument is illogical becaues sometimes it is true. This is just not correct. The argument is sometimes illogical because sometimes the statement is true. When the statement is either false or unknown the argument is entirely logical.


I understand and totally agree O0 - but its tangential because my example (well Whyte's really) is based on known properties (deductive) not unknown ones.

But having re-read it, this is not the case. Whyte dismisses the whole argument because it is sometimes invalid. This is like the mistakes people make with appeal to authority, sometimes it is a valid argument if the authority is the correct one. In both cases, you have to determine if the argument is valid based on context, neither of them are generally valid or generally invalid.


To some extent - but Einstein would still have been correct if he were a tramp. There are two issues here - both useful - and I am merely saying - dont fudge them.

Eistein might have been correct, but how would we know? There are always thousands of people claiming they have discovered brilliant new theories, but in the real world time and money are involved. A tramp raving about his discoveries in the street might be correct, but only a fool would actually take hiim seriously and check. And this is the problem, I do not think there are two issues. The only issue "Is pot vs. kettle a valid argument?". You say no, but then also say that the context is important as well, which doesn't really make sense. I simply say maybe, it depends on the context.


I totally disagree - a facutal claim remains factual no matter who makes it. Concentrate on the message not the messenger. However, if the message were slightly different (as John noted above) people can become hypocrites - but not when dealing with factual claims.

If Stalin said Hitler was a mass murderer - he is not wrong because Stalin has his own shortcomings.....

But how do you know it is a factual claim? This is not a seperate issue, it is an extremely important part of the simgle issue. I would not take diet advice from a fat person because they either they obviously can't follow it or it doesn't work. I would not take Hitler's word that someone is a bad person because his idea of bad is so clearly different from everyone else's. Context is everything. The question was not "Given all the health and diet advice in the world, would you take the advice of a fat person who said the same thing?", it was "In the absence of any other information, would you take the advice of a fat person on how to lose weight?". I really cannot see how anyone sane could answer yes to that. If you have the other information then anything the fat person says is irrelevant, whether it is true or not, if you don't have the other information, then all you can conclude is that their advice didn't work for them, therefore is is unlikely to be good advice.


Thats my whole point - your making a different argument completely which is tangential to and irrelevant to the logic of the initial example. I never said you did not have a point within the context of your own example - just that its meaningless in relation to the original one O0

The orginal example said the pot vs. kettle argument was always illogical. Hopefully I have shown why I think this is not the case. The argument is sometimes illogical, but much of the time it is an entirely valid argument.

[Dr B]

I think you are going around in circles and actually making my point for me. You have to assume so much more to make your points work.

The example is valid and logical within its limitations. You keep saying - yes but if you change them then different things apply - this is what I am saying as well - but my original point stands and none of your other comments have any relevance to it.

The example is an old one and comes form when pots and kettles were made of cast iron and used on fires. I may have assumed you knew that...but that is all.

The example does indeed assume that both things are true - that's the whole point - true statements are not false just because they apply to all parties and this is what you seem to be avoiding abit. This is exactly my whole point I have made numerous times and you have just made for me....cheers O0

Finding a situation where it might not apply is no evidence against the fact that it does apply in the original situation it was proposed in. All you have done is qualify it, not falsify it. I dont think anyone was ever arguing against that O0

[Dr B]

I think you are not taking the example far enough. Your point is only true if you assume that all the facts are known in advance, ...

You are taking it too far. My whole point is it works as intended. O0 It might not work in your example - but was never intended to....so what?



In the general case we cannot assume that all the facts are available,

But in the example we can - so this is irrelevant and a separate (though important) point.
Your other points follow from this flawed representation of the illustration.


You can't reject an argument as fallacious on purely objective grounds when there is a definite subjective part to it. In your example you said that the argument is illogical becaues sometimes it is true. This is just not correct. The argument is sometimes illogical because sometimes the statement is true. When the statement is either false or unknown the argument is entirely logical.

I reject your points as irrelevant because they are irrelvant to the orginal point - i guess you need to know where the example comes from to know that. I never said anything about it somethimes being true.....when we know the information in the way the example uses it (deductively) then it will always be true. This may be rare - but when it happens it will always be true. You are making a totally separate (though important) point.



Eistein might have been correct, but how would we know?
You do the math... :D The message can be evaluated separate to the messenger in these (but not all) circumstances - thats the point (deduction not induction).

I agree with a lot of what you go on to say - but your making an inductive argument not a deductive one - so again, its irrelevant to the orginal claim.

You are really saying that a deductively formed argument can be seen to be false when experessed inductively.....of course....but when taken back to its original deductive expression - its vaild and sound....I dont see any problem here other than you have to shift it to induction to make your points work.

I agree with your real world examples and real-world inductive logic - but it is of no concern to the example which is couched in deductive terms to illustrate a deductive point.

[Dr B]

Its a bit like me saying

"two plus two equals four"

and you saying

"only if you know what the integer / numbers are, what addition is and that you are using addition in the first place....." :D (this is tangential)

Or I suppose you are even saying "if you dont add them then the answer might not be four" :D

eerrr well, yes.... :(

[Araneus]

Here is a better example:

http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/

This web site points out unforgiveable design flaws in other websites, such as having overly complex or cluttered designs, seizure-inducing animations or colour schemes, flash splash pages and so on. However the design of the site itself quite clearly sucks (animated menus, horrible "speech bubble" popups etc), and they even admit that at one point.

Does the fact that the site's own design suck detract from the commentary they provide on other sites? To my mind, no. The commentary is quite self-evidently and obviously correct, just by looking at some of the bad examples and attempting to navigate them, and the suckage of the commentary site itself does not affect that.

[Cuddles]

You are taking it too far. My whole point is it works as intended. O0 It might not work in your example - but was never intended to....so what?

In that case your whole argument is just a straw man. In the real world, pot vs. kettle is not usually used when all the facts are known, mainly because we almost never know all the facts. Yes, if we already know everything then it does not matter who makes an argument since we already know if it is correct or not, but since this pretty much never happens your point is largely irrelevant.

It is not like saying 2+2=4, it is like saying x+y=4. Yes, in your specific example it is true no matter who says it, but in the latter case we don't know if it is true, and it is sensible to judge the statement based on who is saying it, not just on the statement itself.

[Dr B]

What utter rubbish. How can a deductive argument like that outlined be a straw man?....what utter nonsense. I think I have explained the limitations on your perspective and mine - i see no problem (other than your understanding)

Every sentence you utter is qualified by...."in the real world we might not know....." Well, not always - sometimes we do know and I have explained fully and with examples those situations (I note you ignore them ;))

If people use the example inappropriately - that's not my fault - as I have not used them incorrectly here. Go talk to them about it if you dont like the way people use it in conversation.

The example works, and has real world application - though not extensive application for all the reasons you and I have discussed.

You say - we almost never know the facts...yes but when we do - it's deductive and that's my point (for the 10th time ). Are you saying there is no deduction in the world? Of course it's not as apparent as induction....but it is present.

It is exactly like saying 4 + 4 - you just dont see your circular argument. You started out misunderstanding that's all.

My whole point is it is an argument based on known truths...your last sentence clearly states this...so again you keep making my point for me......don't dig too deep (you will struggle to get out... :D.)

If the kettle is known to be black, and the pot is known to be black also, either can claim the other is black and this would be correct. There is no argument here. O0 In addition, for the other to point out "well what about you...." is to be irrelevant and has nothing to do with the truth of the initial claim.

It also does apply to inductive arguments as well - but not as strongly and requires further qualification (which does not actually undermine the point)- however, you have provided an excellent discussion of that area already so no need to go there and repeat ourselves.

[median]

Both Cuddles and Dr B

I find the debate quite fascinating.

On one hand you have an appeal to logic which in a pure sense is correct and on the other an everyday application in which verbal reasoning can take many forms and as such highlights certain pitfalls

So let’s break it down. What we are saying is that a person having an undesirable attribute x is actually no less qualified to comment on another person having that same attribute in the sense of giving advice.
The everyday argument being the opposite of this. Why? Because it is inferred that the credibility of that advice is somehow diminished.

However, let’s look at the counter-argument. Could it not be argued that a person with an undesirable attribute is more qualified to give advice having the benefit of experience?

In effect we have turned the statement on it’s head and you come up with equal but opposing statements. Logically they are equivalent but, in an empirical sense it may be that one set of explanations supercedes another. Everyday reasoning is not synonymous with logical reasoning.

But, does this make it the ‘right’ sort of reasoning?

I leave this as an open ended question because it might come to light empirically that people with an attribute are more qualified to comment then those without.
O0

[Dr B]

Nice points Median - but i think it is more simple than that. O0

The point is that the retort "well, you cant talk" is often irrelevant particularly under situations like the example represents. Thats it.

In other words, it can have no direct bearing on the truth of the original statement. Actually, there are applications to real everyday logic from the dedcutive example but these go off tangent somewhat from the original points here. John hinted at these above with a well known fallacy.....

I just wanted to stay focused on the original for the purposes of the present discussion.

[Rainy Weather]

Funnily enough, I've made some notes for writing a short article on how to spot whether you're arguing against a woo. It's all about the tactics they use to avoid an objective argument, but more extreme cases are just like that given above. :o

Hi,

Please make it public when you do.

[Rainy Weather]

I have copied below a funny link from the net....you may have seen it, it is repeated on a few sites, but it does make me laugh........

A humorous example taken from the internet on exactly how not to use critical thinking!

How to argue effectively
By Dave Barry

I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win on argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me. You too can win arguments. Simply follow these rules:

Drink Liquor
Suppose you are at a party and some hotshot intellectual is expounding on the economy of Peru, a subject you know nothing about. If you are drinking some health-fanatic drink like grapefruit juice, you'll hang back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hotshot enthrals your date. But if you drink several large martinis, you'll discover you have strong views about the Peruvian economy. You'd be a wealth of information. You'll argue forcefully, offering searing insight and possibly upsetting furniture. People will be impressed. Some may leave the room.

Make Things Up
Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove that Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that you are underpaid, and you'll be damned if you're going to let a bunch of Peruvians be better off. Don’t say: "I think Peruvians are underpaid." Say instead: "The overage Peruvian's salary in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 below the mean gross poverty level.” NOTE: Always make up an exact figure. If on opponent asks you where you got your information, make that up too. Say: “This information comes from Dr. Hovel T. Moon's study for the Buford Commission published an May 9, 1982. Didn't you read it?" Say this in the some tone of voice you would use to say, "You left your soiled underwear in my bathroom."

Use Meaningless Rut Weighty -Sounding Words and Phrases
Memorize this list:
Let me put it this way
In terms of
Vis-a-vis
Per se
As it were
Quo
So to speak

You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations sued as “Q.E.D.”,”e.g.” and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you don'" Here’s how to use these words and phrases. Suppose you want to say: "Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don't have enough money." You never win argument talking like that. But you WILL win if you say, "Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians quo Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se as it were. Q.E.D." Only a fool would challenge that statement.

Use Snappy and Irrelevant Comebacks
You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevant phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are:
You're begging the question.
You're being defensive.
Don't compare apples to orange.
What are your parameters?

This last one is especially valuable. Nobody other than engineers and policy wonks has the vaguest idea what "parameters " means. Here's how to use your comeback:
You say: "As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873…” Your opponent says: “Lincoln died in 1865.” You say: "You're begging the question."

Compare Your Opponent to Adolf Hitler
This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say: "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say." or "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler.”
So that's it. You now know how-to out-argue anybody. Do not try to pull any of this on people who generally carry weapons.

;D ;D ;D....sounds like John....... :eek:

It is a good piece. What do you think is the psychology that causes people to argue exactly in such a way - without doing it on purpose?

[Admin]

Hi,

Please make it public when you do.

Well don't hold your breath. I haven't written anything for about 18 months now. Just can't be arsed with it anymore. ::)

[Dr B]

It is a good piece. What do you think is the psychology that causes people to argue exactly in such a way - without doing it on purpose?


Good question. I think the woo woo simply does not understand logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning. In other words - they have no reference point for the rules of why or how we know, what cannot be so.....they think skeptics invent the rules to suit themselves and the conclusions they want to be true (which in itself is a fallacy ;D).

Edit - in addition I think the work on heuristics (like the availability heuristic, representativeness, etc) and probabilistic reasoning also plays a role. How can you rule out the role of chance if you don't appreciate what it is and how it works?

[MartinH]

I think it's perfectly fair to judge the quality of a person's advice on their own ability to take it.

But if you question the character and habits of the people who offer the advice you might be accused of ad hominem.

Paul Johnson was charged with same when, in his Intellectuals, he exposed the shortcomings of a rogue's gallery of (leftist) intellectuals, arguing that Marx, Russell, Sartre, Brecht, Shelley, Victor Gollancz, Rousseau, etc., were fond of dispensing advice that they themselves had no intention of following. They apparently regarded themselves as being above having to follow their own diktat: normal rules did not apply to them. This was particularly true, Johnson found, to how these people comported themselves in the bedroom.

Is one guilty of the ad hominem fallacy by exposing people's hypocrisy?

[Matt]

But if you question the character and habits of the people who offer the advice you might be accused of ad hominem.

Paul Johnson was charged with same when, in his Intellectuals, he exposed the shortcomings of a rogue's gallery of (leftist) intellectuals, arguing that Marx, Russell, Sartre, Brecht, Shelley, Victor Gollancz, Rousseau, etc., were fond of dispensing advice that they themselves had no intention of following. They apparently regarded themselves as being above having to follow their own diktat: normal rules did not apply to them. This was particularly true, Johnson found, to how these people comported themselves in the bedroom.

Is one guilty of the ad hominem fallacy by exposing people's hypocrisy?


One might legitimately use thier own actions as illustrations of how advice is easier to give than abide by.

[Cuddles]

Is one guilty of the ad hominem fallacy by exposing people's hypocrisy?

No. Ad hominem is a specific fallacy of the form:

Person says A.
Person is/says/does B.
Therefore A is wrong.

Exposing hypocrisy is different:

Person says A.
Person does not-A.
Therefore A should be taken with a large helping of salt.

If you use this to argue something unrelated then it could be an ad hominem - "Person is hypocritical about eating chocolate, therefore their ideas on nuclear physics are wrong.", but it can also be a relevant argument on how seriously you should take their opinions - "Person is hypocritical about eating chocolate, therefore I don't really trust their opinion on cake.".

[Admin]

Is one guilty of the ad hominem fallacy by exposing people's hypocrisy?

:ponder:

I would say yes if you're using the hypocrisy to oppose the claim. The behaviour of the person making the claim has no relevance to the claim's truth or falsity. However.....

If the person is making a claim as an expert on the issue (self-referential argument to authority) then exposing hypocrisy is relevant and so not an Ad Hominem. It wouldn't make his claims necessarily false but it would legitimately oppose his claim to be an expert.

So it depends on the situation really!