|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Peak Langton
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is the No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy and its rebuttal the No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy that seems to be an atheist v Christian debate. Haven't the time to read those at the moment.
There's also a Ship thread a few years ago where this was already nutted out quite well.
You attempting to stumble your way through it, and doing so quite badly against a Shipmate who clearly DOES understand how it works, is not helping this thread's actual purpose in the slightest.
Well then, oh wise one, it should be easy for you to sum it up then.
The No True Scotsman isn't about there being no true definition of a thing, but about two fallacies.
The first being an unreasoned assertion and the second being an ad hoc defence of that assertion.
OK, fount of all logic, tell me where I am wrong.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I am COMPLETELY confused and lost by all this.
And my wife is Scottish.
Just do as she tells you, it goes easier that way. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I shall see if I can subtly trick her into making a genuine "no true Scotsman" remark in the next few hours or days ... ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
To be refutable doesn't just mean "you can produce a refutation" but "you can produce a valid refutation." If we don't define terms, then it is impossible ever to produce a valid refutation of anything because we are not "doing philosophy" on common ground. (Very Wittgenstein!)
OK, but if that's true surely there must be some debate about what is valid. In the above you're saying that wine that is chemically the same as the French wine but isn't certified by the French champagne quality board isn't champagne by definition. But why should we accept that definition? Why do the French get to decide what is called champagne but (for example) everyone can randomly call their cheese cheddar?
quote:
THAT is why Steve is wrong to suggest that NTS doesn't apply to his argument: he thinks his P1 is a precise and irrefutable term; everyone else thinks it is a vague and very refutable generalisation.
I see. So validity is determined by a majority vote. Says who?
I think your fixed and clear system of logic isn't as fixed and clear as you're making it out to be.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In the above you're saying that wine that is chemically the same as the French wine but isn't certified by the French champagne quality board isn't champagne by definition. But why should we accept that definition? Why do the French get to decide what is called champagne but (for example) everyone can randomly call their cheese cheddar?
Now we're getting into the realm of "denomination controlee" and the like. And - as you know - this varies. The use of the word "cheddar" for a certain kind of cheese is so widespread that it's impossible to control, hence we can have "Canadian (or whatever) cheddar". On the other hand "Stilton" cheese is protected by law and can only be made in very specific villages in (I think) Leicestershire, the same is true for Melton Mowbray pork pies.
You could have biologically identical cheeses or pies, but you wouldn't be legally allowed to use the names (which isn't to say that someone in another part of the world might not have a try). (How this all helps this thread along its way, goodness knows!)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Now we're getting into the realm of "denomination controlee" and the like. And - as you know - this varies. The use of the word "cheddar" for a certain kind of cheese is so widespread that it's impossible to control, hence we can have "Canadian (or whatever) cheddar". On the other hand "Stilton" cheese is protected by law and can only be made in very specific villages in (I think) Leicestershire, the same is true for Melton Mowbray pork pies.
Not really, I'm using it as an example as to how one might pick holes in an argument that says only the French can make Champagne.
Of course, having a law is a pretty good and strong reason to believe something, but that's not infallible. I'm just trying here to point out that even something as obvious as this - Champagne can only be produced in France - can be refuted by questioning the basis upon which that determination is made.
Saying - or not saying - something is a "one true Scotman" fallacy seems to me to rather depend on a shared understanding of what is considered to be a valid objection.
[ 06. October 2016, 16:57: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
/tangent
Note that a lot of these things are "Protected Geographical Indicators" and are agreed by the EU. Come Golden Dawn of Brexit and anyone will be able to make Melton Mowbray Pork Pie and West Country Farmhouse Cheddar, and sell it as such.
tangent/
I suppose this illustrates that propositions and conclusions are only valid within a defined and stated context.
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So in what circumstances could you say "No True Scotsman would do x"
None. Behaviour is not a criterion for being Scottish. There are two things that make you Scottish: birth and ancestors. Though one could argue long term residence as well.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
For a while I thought this thread had disappeared up its own asshole, so to speak. But it keeps getting pooped out again. A rather shitty resurrection to saddle the Scottish with.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK, but if that's true surely there must be some debate about what is valid.
Yes. And there often is, which is why some debates progress no further than people saying "Let's have a debate!" quote:
I see. So validity is determined by a majority vote. Says who?
Not always. Some premises are valid because they're self evident; they're true just because they're true.
Other premises are valid by consensus; they're true because people accept that they're true.
Some people don't accept that they're true and that's when there are difficulties in debate. (How can we argue with GreatestIam that "God is immoral" when there is no consensus between us about what we mean by either "God" or "immoral"?)
When Steve says "This is the true and original Islam" he sets a premise for which there is no consensus and which is not self-evidently true; it is, therefore, invalid. (That doesn't mean it is "wrong" or can't be "true" - just that it's invalid; it's what the Vienna Circle would have called "meaningless".)
There have, of course, been those who argued that we should not debate where validity is based only on consensus; it was Wittgenstein who said [in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus - can't remember the date], "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." It'd be a dull old world if we all followed that teaching. quote:
I think your fixed and clear system of logic isn't as fixed and clear as you're making it out to be.
Forgive me, but I have never claimed, here or anywhere else, that "my" system of logic is "clear"! It is "fixed" in that it is as consistent as we humans are capable of being.
--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.
Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
When Steve says "This is the true and original Islam" he sets a premise for which there is no consensus and which is not self-evidently true; it is, therefore, invalid. (That doesn't mean it is "wrong" or can't be "true" - just that it's invalid; it's what the Vienna Circle would have called "meaningless".)
No. Something that is not self-evident, and has no consensus, it not meaningless or invalid. It could be true, even, since before something contingent is accepted as true, it is often rejected by many or most (cf. plate tectonics). Strictly speaking "invalid" refers to arguments or inferences, not propositions.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
When Steve says "This is the true and original Islam" he sets a premise for which there is no consensus and which is not self-evidently true; it is, therefore, invalid. (That doesn't mean it is "wrong" or can't be "true" - just that it's invalid; it's what the Vienna Circle would have called "meaningless".)
Well I'm self evidently not trained in logic, however this isn't the way validity would be determined in science.
I can't see that the statement you've highlighted here by SL can be determined to be invalid in the absence of other information.
For example, there are some theologians who say Jesus Christ didn't exist. As a statement, that sounds pretty preposterous, but it is hard to place it into the category of "invalid" just because few other theologians agree with it.
In science (and I assume theology), someone would make a statement like this and then set out a load of evidence to show why they believe this statement to be correct - and then everyone would make a judgement about whether there was sufficient evidence to support the claim.
It certainly wouldn't just be on a majority vote and dismissing the statement outright before hearing the evidence - because that'd be silly. Many/most great scientific steps forward have been due to the destruction of paradigms and leaps of imagination.
As far as I can see, the problem with Steve's statement is not that it is logically "invalid", but that it only works in a very narrow set of parameters; that a person from outside of the religion can read the Koran and get "the truth" of what it is about, that "the truth" of Islam exists as an independent thing outwith of what Muslims actually believe about it - and so on.
That others do not accept those parameters is not evidence that the idea is logically invalid in my opinion.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
No. Something that is not self-evident, and has no consensus, it not meaningless or invalid... Strictly speaking "invalid" refers to arguments or inferences, not propositions.
"Strictly speaking" you're quite right - "invalid" refers to arguments rather than premises but having used the term (non-technically) earlier, I thought it wiser to stick with it (non-technically) rather than suddenly writing about "false premises" and never again mentioning the "v" word.
"Meaningless", though, I did use "strictly speaking" and correctly. The Vienna Circle asserted that whatever cannot be empirically verified is "meaningless". The statement in question cannot be empirically verified and is, therefore, "meaningless" (strictly speaking) according to the Vienna Circle.
quote:
It could be true, even, since before something contingent is accepted as true, it is often rejected by many or most (cf. plate tectonics).
Yes, I said that. 'That doesn't mean it is "wrong" or can't be "true"...'
My point was not that Steve's statement was untrue, but that it was illogical of him to dismiss logically the "Scotsman Fallacy" since his dismissal relied on his valid premise which is actually a false premise (strictly speaking). It is a false premise because it is "meaningless" (strictly speaking).
--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.
Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604
|
Posted
quote:
I can't see that the statement you've highlighted here by SL can be determined to be invalid in the absence of other information.
It is determined to be invalid (it is a false premise) in the absence of other information because of the absence of other information. It is "meaningless".
Steve then provided other information; the other information was not sufficient to convince his peer group that his statement was valid and, therefore, it was deemed a false premise. That, surely, is exactly the way it works in science? Someone sets out their premise, it's discussed and accepted or dismissed. Steve's premise has been discussed (over 11 or 12 pages at least on this site alone) and is deemed a false premise. Its invalidity has been determined because the assertion (which Steve cannot verify) is countered by other people's assertions (which they cannot verifiy.) Since it is an unverified assertion, it cannot lead to a valid argument - it is a false premise. quote:
For example, there are some theologians who say Jesus Christ didn't exist. As a statement, that sounds pretty preposterous, but it is hard to place it into the category of "invalid" just because few other theologians agree with it.
It's not a false premise because few other theologians agree with it; few other theologians agree with it because it's a false premise. It was proposed; it was discussed; it was unproven; it is a false premise. I would emphasise again that its being "a false premise" does not mean that it must be false, or untrue or wrong; it means merely that it is unproven, unaccepted, invalid as a "true premise". Should "some theologians" provide sufficient evidence to prove the point, then the "other theologians" would accept it and it would no longer be a false premise; it would be a true premise. quote:
In science (and I assume theology), someone would make a statement like this and then set out a load of evidence to show why they believe this statement to be correct - and then everyone would make a judgement about whether there was sufficient evidence to support the claim. It certainly wouldn't just be on a majority vote and dismissing the statement outright before hearing the evidence...
Quite so, but having determined that the statement is invalid, it would (even in science) be deemed invalid until it was proved otherwise. There are (at least) twelve pages on the Ship alone showing that Steve's statement is unproven and, therefore, a false premise.
It was not Steve's initial statement in itself that I was querying; it was his use of it to justify a further argument.
Steve says:
P1: "This is the true and original Islam"
P2: "No True Scotsman" is a fallacy concerning irrational defence of a false premise.
P3: My premise wasn't false.
C: Therefore, NTS cannot apply.
That, of course, is a nonsense. Steve's P1 is false (not "untrue", not a lie, not unbelievable, but unproven and, therefore, logically false) therefore Steve's P3 is false, therefore Steve's argument is invalid.
That was the extent of my point; not that Steve's statement was untrue but that Steve's argument about his statement was invalid because it's based on a false premise. quote:
As far as I can see, the problem with Steve's statement is not that it is logically "invalid", but that it only works in a very narrow set of parameters; that a person from outside of the religion can read the Koran and get "the truth" of what it is about, that "the truth" of Islam exists as an independent thing outwith of what Muslims actually believe about it...
And the reasons you have given as "the problem with Steve's statement" are what makes it logically invalid, because they are the reasons why there is no consensus and why it is not self-evident. quote:
That others do not accept those parameters is not evidence that the idea is logically invalid in my opinion.
It is not just "that others don't accept it" that matters; it is why others don't accept it that makes it logically invalid. Plenty of philosophers have challenged, denied, moved the parameters in debates down the centuries; if Steve can convince the world to move the parameters on what makes a true premise, then his statement might be a true premise. But he hasn't, so it isn't.
--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.
Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well then, oh wise one, it should be easy for you to sum it up then.
Teekeey Misha is doing just fine without me.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
It is determined to be invalid (it is a false premise) in the absence of other information because of the absence of other information. It is "meaningless".
Steve then provided other information; the other information was not sufficient to convince his peer group that his statement was valid and, therefore, it was deemed a false premise. That, surely, is exactly the way it works in science? Someone sets out their premise, it's discussed and accepted or dismissed. Steve's premise has been discussed (over 11 or 12 pages at least on this site alone) and is deemed a false premise. Its invalidity has been determined because the assertion (which Steve cannot verify) is countered by other people's assertions (which they cannot verifiy.) Since it is an unverified assertion, it cannot lead to a valid argument - it is a false premise.
You are using a very warped idea of "valid" if you think that being able to persuade others of it is a sign of validity or otherwise.
In fact your whole project seems rather warped; you've introduced into the discussion a whole new paradigm - outwith of the usual axes of true/false and supported/unsupported - which seems to be valid/invalid.
It seems to me that the fact that Steve (or anyone else) is unable to persuade others of his position could have many other reasons than your cited invalidity. He could just be poor at rhetoric. The rest of us could be stupid or a self-selecting group of miserable bastards who have nothing better to do than argue the toss about inconsequential garbage.
In fact, any argument is valid that addresses the issues on the table. An argument that "Jesus didn't exist" because "the Greeks couldn't see the colour blue" might be invalid because the one apparently has no consequence or link to the other.
Even that might be valid if someone could come up with a reasonable explanation of the intervening steps to show how the one leads to the other.
quote:
It's not a false premise because few other theologians agree with it; few other theologians agree with it because it's a false premise. It was proposed; it was discussed; it was unproven; it is a false premise. I would emphasise again that its being "a false premise" does not mean that it must be false, or untrue or wrong; it means merely that it is unproven, unaccepted, invalid as a "true premise". Should "some theologians" provide sufficient evidence to prove the point, then the "other theologians" would accept it and it would no longer be a false premise; it would be a true premise.
But something that is unproven is not invalid - all ideas are unproven to begin with.
And you appear here to be asserting that something which isn't supported by the majority must therefore have flimsy evidence and therefore be invalid.
That doesn't work. The idea that "Jesus didn't exist" is invalid because you and other theologians don't agree with it is quite mind-blowing. It is a reasonable argument put forward in a way that explains the available information on the table, therefore it can't be anything other than valid.
quote:
Quite so, but having determined that the statement is invalid, it would (even in science) be deemed invalid until it was proved otherwise. There are (at least) twelve pages on the Ship alone showing that Steve's statement is unproven and, therefore, a false premise.
This is garbage. That Steve is unable to persuade us has no bearing on whether the argument is valid.
The only possible way it could be "invalid" would be if he was suggesting a position that was inherently incapable of being examined critically, and that's obviously not the case here.
He could use historical evidence to back up his case. He could use a theological argument. He could use a textural argument. He hasn't to anyone's satisfaction, but that's not an indication that the thing itself is invalid.
quote:
It was not Steve's initial statement in itself that I was querying; it was his use of it to justify a further argument.
Steve says:
P1: "This is the true and original Islam"
P2: "No True Scotsman" is a fallacy concerning irrational defence of a false premise.
P3: My premise wasn't false.
C: Therefore, NTS cannot apply.
That, of course, is a nonsense. Steve's P1 is false (not "untrue", not a lie, not unbelievable, but unproven and, therefore, logically false) therefore Steve's P3 is false, therefore Steve's argument is invalid.
That's a distinction without a difference, effectively Steve by attacking the issue of describing his assertion as a fallacy is of course arguing that it is valid. And simply saying "nope, that's not valid" is not just to suggest he hasn't been able to support his position adequately but that the position is incapable of being supported and that there is nothing to discuss.
quote:
And the reasons you have given as "the problem with Steve's statement" are what makes it logically invalid, because they are the reasons why there is no consensus and why it is not self-evident.
No, that's why I think he is wrong. I've no sense that his argument is invalid nor that it is something which one could not build an argument using information of the kind I've described above.
Indeed, you just seem to be arguing here that SL can be dismissed because he's so far off beam that there is nothing to discuss, so we can knock it flat in a puff of logic.
It isn't that kind of thing.
quote:
It is not just "that others don't accept it" that matters; it is why others don't accept it that makes it logically invalid. Plenty of philosophers have challenged, denied, moved the parameters in debates down the centuries; if Steve can convince the world to move the parameters on what makes a true premise, then his statement might be a true premise. But he hasn't, so it isn't.
I'm not sure what you think you have proved here, but you've not done it. SL has an unpopular view, but it is a "valid" argument in the sense that "it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false".
1. Muhammed, as recorded in the Koran set up an Islamic state
2. It is possible to read the Koran and see this for oneself
3. A reasonable person looking at the Koran can plainly see this
4. A sincere Muslim reads and wants to emulate the things he sees in the Koran
Therefore:
C: A sincere Muslim who reads the Koran sensible is very likely to want to set up an Islamic state.
What's invalid about that?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You are using a very warped idea of "valid" if you think that being able to persuade others of it is a sign of validity or otherwise.
It seems to me that she's using a very logic-specific idea of "valid."
From The Wiki:
quote:
In logic, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. It is not required that a valid argument have premises that are actually true, but to have premises that, if they were true, would guarantee the truth of the argument's conclusion. A formula is valid if and only if it is true under every interpretation, and an argument form (or schema) is valid if and only if every argument of that logical form is valid.
Also Validity and Soundness from the Interner Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
And it seems to me that she's doing this not to establish that Steve is wrong, but to show that his argument is logically flawed.
[ 07. October 2016, 14:23: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
Sorry. I made the very flawed mistake of responding to part of your post, mr cheesy, before reading the entire post carefully.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
"Meaningless", though, I did use "strictly speaking" and correctly. The Vienna Circle asserted that whatever cannot be empirically verified is "meaningless". The statement in question cannot be empirically verified and is, therefore, "meaningless" (strictly speaking) according to the Vienna Circle.
But who cares what the Vienna Circle believed? Their own criteria for meaningfulness is, according to itself, meaningless. Their entire attempt to explain metaphysics disappears up its own bum. They are yesterday's news. Nobody cares what they thought except as a historical sidenote in the folly of man.
quote:
My point was not that Steve's statement was untrue, but that it was illogical of him to dismiss logically the "Scotsman Fallacy" since his dismissal relied on his valid premise which is actually a false premise (strictly speaking). It is a false premise because it is "meaningless" (strictly speaking).
Except that it's not meaningless. Cf. above reference to the Vienna Circle Jerk.
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
I can't see that the statement you've highlighted here by SL can be determined to be invalid in the absence of other information.
It is determined to be invalid (it is a false premise) in the absence of other information because of the absence of other information. It is "meaningless".
This is absurd. As Cheesy and I have both pointed out, absence of evidence does not equate to absence of meaning.
quote:
Steve then provided other information; the other information was not sufficient to convince his peer group that his statement was valid and, therefore, it was deemed a false premise. That, surely, is exactly the way it works in science?
Except no scientist worth his or her salt would say "Therefore your premise is meaningless."
quote:
Its invalidity has been determined because the assertion (which Steve cannot verify) is countered by other people's assertions (which they cannot verifiy.)
Failing to see this. Numbers (democracy) cannot decide validity between two sets of unverifiable premises. Also you make the mistake of thinking that because Steve has not verified his premise, he cannot verify his premise.
quote:
Since it is an unverified assertion, it cannot lead to a valid argument - it is a false premise.
This is just a mistake in the understanding of what constitutes a valid argument. A valid argument is one in which the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed by the truth of the premises. Not one in which the premises are in fact true. You have further twisted the meaning of the word "valid" from how it is normally used in argumentation/philosophy.
quote:
It was proposed; it was discussed; it was unproven; it is a false premise.
Non sequitur. It is not therefore a false premises, only an unproven proposal. A lot of proposals/hypotheses go a long time before being proven. That doesn't mean they magically go from being false to being true.
quote:
"a false premise" does not mean that it must be false, or untrue or wrong;
HUH? Now you are talking cray cray. What group of people use "false premise" in this way? It's certainly not what you'd get putting the meanings of the two words together in absence of some interpretive framework.
While not definitive, Wikiepedia does not agree with your use of the term "false premise."
quote:
A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
"Not correct" does not mean "unproven." It means untrue.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Teekeey Misha;
quote:
Steve says: P1: "This is the true and original Islam" P2: "No True Scotsman" is a fallacy concerning irrational defence of a false premise. P3: My premise wasn't false. C: Therefore, NTS cannot apply.
Actually my proposition about the NTS thing is that, faced with a religion which has faced wide variations over the years, I'm trying to assess the evidence of which version is, or is most likely to be, the 'true original form'. And I'm saying on the evidence so far, it looks as if the original form is one in which Muhammad set up an Islamic state by military force.
And I'm saying NTS fallacy is inapplicable to that form of argument, which is not about defending a dodgy presupposition but simply about trying to assess, and give a reasonably probable opinion on, which of two or more variations is likely to be 'true about the religion' and from thence we can make a stab at 'having established as best we can the original true version of the religion, we can further ask is it true or reasonably possibly so in terms of corresponding to the real world'.
I recognise that absolute proof may not be possible - but I'm pretty certain that when I talk about 'true' Islam or whatever in that 'assessing the truth between variations' argument, the NTS thing is irrelevant.
Please somebody take the Scotsman outside and shoot him....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
My brain hurts; I can't attack and defend SL's total wrongness at the same time.
But what MT said.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well then, oh wise one, it should be easy for you to sum it up then.
Teekeey Misha is doing just fine without me.
Coward.
But she really hasn't yet. But if you think so, just point to one post where you think she has successfully revealed a True Scotsman.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Coward.
But she really hasn't yet. But if you think so, just point to one post where you think she has successfully revealed a True Scotsman.
I'm obviously not good at identifying the True Scotsman fallacy, but I've been trying to understand Steve's position and then trying to get my brain to work out if it is or isn't a fallacy.
If we agree with Steve that it is possible to determine more-or-less objectively the original intention of Muhammed in the Koran, then (I don't think) he is arguing a fallacy - or at least not quite the True Scotsman fallacy. The difference may be that there can't be a definition of "true Scotsman" as clearly those words encompass a whole lot of variety. On the other hand, he's arguing that Islam is a bunch of propositions and therefore one can distinguish whether someone is living (or not) those propositions.
From what I've read and from what people have said here, I'm not sure that is the True Scotsman fallacy.
On the other hand, if like me you reject the whole premise that Islam can be properly understood outwith of the community that actually lives and believes it, then Steve does appear to be arbitrarily determining which Muslims are and which are not living as True Muslims according to his own interpretation of the Koran. Which does sound a lot like True Scotsman (mr cheesy: what about the millions of Muslims who don't do that? SL: well the Koran clearly says x, so if they're not living it then they're not.. blahdiblah).
Which makes me think that the common list of fallacies is a lot more debatable than is often thought - and the extent to which they are actually evidence of a false argument is itself one of perspective and interpretation.
Can Steve talk about "true Islam"? I think that's utter bollocks, but then I still can't see that it is false or invalid unless we're just using those terms to characterise arguments we don't like.
#headache
[ 07. October 2016, 16:16: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Goodness. Much of what SL wites falls under the tl;dc for me.
But it seems to me that he ignores everything about the founding of Islam except where it fits his presuppositions. But he does the same thing with the Bible, so at least he is consistent.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The difference may be that there can't be a definition of "true Scotsman" as clearly those words encompass a whole lot of variety.
Seriously the No True Scotsman is a valid fallacy. It can be misapplied, but that is not a fault of the applier, not the concept.
It is an unreasoned assertion followed by an ad hoc defence after the original assertion is disproved.
The confusion is when there are competing reasoned assertions. The claim that there is a True Scotsman is incorrect. It is not that there are not valid defintions of what a Scottish person is, but that the No True Scotsman does not apply to those definitions.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is an unreasoned assertion followed by an ad hoc defence after the original assertion is disproved.
I'd say it's defined more narrowly than that. Something like this:
Person 1: All X are Y.
Person 2: a is an X, and a isn't Y.
Person 1: a isn't a REAL X.
(it is assumed that a is, in fact, demonstrably X)
It becomes circular if Person 1 then goes on to redefine X to specifically exclude people/things that have just those qualities of a that Person 1 doesn't like, in other words to make "All X are Y" a tautology.
[ 07. October 2016, 21:38: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well then, oh wise one, it should be easy for you to sum it up then.
Teekeey Misha is doing just fine without me.
Coward.
But she really hasn't yet. But if you think so, just point to one post where you think she has successfully revealed a True Scotsman.
If you must know, I had to work until 8:45pm in my office job yesterday, and I might have to work this weekend. I haven't got energy to spend on constructing a description of True Scotsman that will satisfy your particularly belligerent mind, and frankly I don't care enough about persuading you of anything.
So yeah, call me a coward if that makes you feel better. And I'll call you an argumentative sod.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I note that I'm not the first person you called a coward, and that your deeply intelligent responses have included "you need to get out more".
So why would I bother? Seriously. You have no genuine interest in an explanation of what is and isn't a logical fallacy.
I know Hell is often a game. But right now I'm not playing, thanks all the same. Enjoy your amusement.
[ 07. October 2016, 23:11: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I note that I'm not the first person you called a coward,
You mean mousethief? Funny how his knickers are not in a twist.
quote:
and that your deeply intelligent responses have included "you need to get out more".
So, she calls me a Nazi for questioning her statement and my response is criticised?
I'm belligerent?* Here and on the Hallowe'en thread, other people attack me and when I respond with less than sugar and spice, I'm the belligerent one?
quote:
So why would I bother? Seriously. You have no genuine interest in an explanation of what is and isn't a logical fallacy.
Genuinely am interested. It is a simply fallacy, the rebuttal should be simple.
*OK, this would often be a fair cop, I certainly can be. But not this time.
[ 07. October 2016, 23:27: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I note that I'm not the first person you called a coward,
You mean mousethief? Funny how his knickers are not in a twist.
Gee. Maybe he's not tired like I explained and has the energy to deal with this shit.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I note that I'm not the first person you called a coward,
You mean mousethief? Funny how his knickers are not in a twist.
Gee. Maybe he's not tired like I explained and has the energy to deal with this shit.
The fact remains that calling people a coward is something of a theme with you. Whether or not it knots their knickers.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
With me?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is an unreasoned assertion followed by an ad hoc defence after the original assertion is disproved.
I'd say it's defined more narrowly than that. Something like this:
Person 1: All X are Y.
Person 2: a is an X, and a isn't Y.
Person 1: a isn't a REAL X.
(it is assumed that a is, in fact, demonstrably X)
It is not quite defined thus. Wikipedia Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
Person 1's original statement must be an unreasoned assertion/generalisation and Person 1 make an Ad Hoc rescue of the original statement.
*Those that do not appear to veer from Few's example.
I know it sort of seems the same, but the spare bones of your formula allow proponents of the True Scotsman defence to slip their argument through the its ribs whilst avoiding the meat.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Fair enough. It's just my version with adjectives. ("unreasoned" and "Ad Hoc")
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Seriously the No True Scotsman is a valid fallacy. It can be misapplied, but that is not a fault of the applier, not the concept.
It is an unreasoned assertion followed by an ad hoc defence after the original assertion is disproved.
I think that 'unreasoned' is not a well-defined word in this context: it runs the risk of turning into a circular argument.
Someone says:
'Feminists believe women should have the same rights as men.'
'Dr Connie Servative is a feminist and thinks women should have fewer rights than men.'
'Then Dr Connie Servative isn't a true feminist.'
That looks formally like a No True Scotsman argument. Is the premise 'unreasoned'? I don't think much reasoning went into it. If you agree with it, you probably accept it as true by definition. Connie Servative and her supporters would call it unreasoned.
You're right to use the word 'ad hoc' though. I think that's important. On the other hand, I don't think any ad hoc response to disproof is a No True Scotsman: the disproof has to be specifically a counterexample.
So: A No True Scotsman argument occurs when counterexamples to an initial assertion are met by an implict ad hoc redefinition of the terms used, in order to exclude the counterexample.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
OK, it seems to me that (on the minor point regarding the True Scotsman fallacy) there is scope for a discussion as to whether Steve is offering an unreasoned position followed by an ad hoc defence of an objection. As we've already seen, he believes his position is reasoned and that the defence is not ad hoc. How do we determine what level of reasoning is appropriate and what level of ad hoc-ness qualified for the TSF? Does it matter if one can correctly identify this as a TSF - and if so, why?
A slightly more important point is whether SL's position can be summarily dismissed as invalid or false. I've get to hear a good explanation as to what it is that he has said which makes it invalid and I still think the arguments about the TSF - and other "common" fallasies - must be themselves debatable in this case.
Ultimately the most important part must be whether it is acceptable that certain people here think they're in an unassailable intellectual position which means they can tell other people that they're purgatorial position is invalid based on - apparently - logic.
It is one thing to tell someone else they're talking bollocks and that their debating style is incredibly annoying. Quite another thing to tell them that they shouldn't have made the argument in the first place because it is quote unquote "invalid".
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Hoists hostly red flag
You're all as tedious as fuck. I've let this roll because there's something mildly amusing about seeing you all take umbrage about how precisely a logical fallacy works. It's at least done everyone a favour by revealing who not to sit next to at a dinner party.
Boredom is now greater than enjoyment, specifically and crucially mine, and you're going to drop this.
If you'd like to return to poking SL with the pointy sticks, then there's space below. Otherwise, take it to the Ennui board.
Furls hostly red flag
DT
HH
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
