'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.
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 (note that he has to mistranslate Hahnemann's epitaph):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.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.
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.
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.
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.Originally Posted by Cuddles
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?
Religion isn't counter intuitive?! Unless of course it's true?
Context might help a bit here. What examples had you in mind?
I wouldn't want to make anyone blush ...
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
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).
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.
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!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks