LOGIC. HOW CAN YOU SPOT A WELL REASONED ARGUMENT, OR AN IRRATIONAL ONE? PT 1.

It may be a Local Politician, Co-Worker, Friend, or even a Family Member. Yet, it is Inevitable that occasionally someone you know will Voice an Opinion about an Issue that will be in Direct Conflict with your own.  What should you do? What is at Stake if you Decide to Open up and be Honest?  Before you Decide, try to go through the Following Process, and see what Answer it leads you to. 

1.  Is the Subject Matter of Such Importance that it must be Addressed Immediately?-  What is Important to You, Friends and Family, may not really matter to others.  Pick your Battles.  If You have an Opinion on a Subject, but it lies in conflict with Others, is the Disagreement so Vast that you are willing to make a Stand Then and There?  Can it wait for a Different Time and Place?  What Do You Gain, or Lose, by Postponing such a Discussion?

2.  Many Times it is Better to say NOTHING AT ALL, LET THE SPEAKER MAKE THE CASE FOR YOUR SIDE OF AN ISSUE.-  Are you Familiar with the Saying:   

                 "BETTER TO BE THOUGHT A FOOL, THAN TO OPEN YOUR 

                  MOUTH AND REMOVE ALL DOUBT."   

How Many Times have you been present at a Gathering or Event, where Someone Attending is making a Fool of Themselves, Blurting out Meaningless Drivel that has everyone Rolling Their Eyes and Walking Away.  If it is within a group of Fairly Well- Informed People, They will see the Individual for what He Is;  Ill-Informed, Ignorant, and Lacking the Basic Skills for Intellectual Discourse.  No Opinion They Offer will be Taken Seriously, and Hopefully it is on the Opposite Side of an Issue that you land on.

3.  The Most Important Disagreements to Confront Immediately are Deliberate Falsehoods and Bad Information-  Before you can point out an IRRATIONAL AND INVALID ARGUMENT, MAKE SURE THE SPEAKER CAN BACK UP ANY FACTS AND FIGURES THEY ARE STATING AS FACT.  Don't point out the Flaws in the REASONING AND STRUCTURE OF THEIR ARGUMENT, AND IGNORE ANY MISINFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE PREMISES.  THEY CAN JUST REFORMULATE THE ARGUMENT TO MAKE IT VALID, BUT IT MAY STILL CONTAIN THE SAME FACTUAL FLAWS.

HERE IS A BASIC EXAMPLE;

ALL ROTTWEILERS ARE VICIOUS DOGS.

SPOT IS A  VICIOUS DOG.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

THEREFORE, SPOT IS A ROTTWEILER.

This is an INVALID ARGUMENT.  SPOT MAY 

BE A VICIOUS DOG, BUT ANY BREED OF DOG 

CAN BECOME VICIOUS, IT IS NOT A BEHAVIOR 

EXCLUSIVE TO THE ROTTWEILER.

TO MAKE IT A VALID ARGUMENT, IT IS CHANGED

TO THIS;

ALL ROTTWEILERS ARE VICIOUS DOGS.

SPOT IS A ROTTWEILER.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

THEREFORE, SPOT IS A VICIOUS DOG.

NOW THE ARGUMENT IS LOGICALLY VALID.

HOWEVER, THE BASIS OF TRUTH FOR THE CONCLUSION

THAT SPOT IS VICIOUS, LIES IN THE PREMISE THAT 

ALL ROTTWEILERS ARE VICIOUS. THAT IS A FACTUAL

CLAIM THAT MUST BE BACKED UP WITH PROPER

DATA.

LOGIC. IT'S NOT JUST FOR VULCANS, AND VIEWERS OF "THE BIG BANG THEORY." #7. THE FALLACY OF INTOLERANCE. PT 1.

For this example, we can again turn to "BIG BANG THEORY", to give us an idea on how this Fallacy Works in the Real World.

Do you remember these Episodes;

-  Where Penny claimed that Sheldon went on a Psychotic Rant when she tried to create Horoscopes for the others.  She Refers to him as a "TYPICAL TAURUS."

-  That ended with Leonard agreeing to visit Pennys Psychic, and her refusal to read a Book Debunking Psychic Phenomena.

-   That saw Raj agreeing with Sheldon that according to Hindu Tradition, he was responsible for Controlling his Sister Priyas Baser Instincts, because that was the Job of the Closest Male Relative.  However, when Priya points out that the same Tradition Punishes Raj for Consuming Beef, he backs off saying some of it is crazy, some of it isn't. (Referring to Hindu Tradition.)

These are examples of the FALLACY OF INTOLERANCE, WHICH CAN BE DEFINED AS: CRITICIZING OTHERS FOR NOT ACCEPTING THEIR BELIEFS AS VALID AND/OR DESERVING OF RESPECT, BUT REFUSING TO HOLD THEMSELVES ACCOUNTABLE FOR NOT DOING THE SAME FOR THOSE WITH OPPOSING VIEWS.

This is a Fallacy that can appear in many different ways, but Applying it to the CATEGORIES OF RELIGIOUS FAITH, POLITICS, AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD SEEM TO BE THE MOST PREVALENT FORMS IN TODAYS SOCIETY.

LOGIC. WHAT ARE DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS? PART 2.

To Continue with this Article, I would like to make the following Perfectly Clear, so there is No Misunderstanding.

JUST BECAUSE AN ARGUMENT IS LOGICALLY VALID, DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.  IT JUST MEANS THAT IT IS CONSTRUCTED PROPERLY.

The example I used as a VALID DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT IS REPRINTED BELOW;

All Politicians are Deceitful People.-  PREMISE

All Deceitful People can't be Trusted.-  PREMISE.

Therefore, All Politicians can't Be Trusted.

                                           

CONCLUSION.

THE CONCLUSION, ALL POLITICIANS CAN'T BE TRUSTED, IS MEANINGLESS BY ITSELF.  USED ALONE, SUCH A STATEMENT IS CONSIDERED LOGICALLY VALUELESS, AND IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN ASSERTION.

THE TRUTH OR ACCURACY OF THE CONCLUSION RESTS WITH THE PREMISES THAT ARE USED TO SUPPORT IT.  AS I WROTE IN PART 1;

IF THE PREMISES ARE TRUE, THE CONCLUSION MUST BE TRUE.

So, when you hear an ARGUMENT BEING MADE ADVOCATING ONE SIDE

OF AN ISSUE YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH,  AVOID FOCUSING ON THE 

JUDGMENT OR CONCLUSION BEING MADE. THE PREMISES BEING 

USED TO SUPPORT THEM IS WHERE YOU WILL FIND THE REAL SUBSTANCE OR VALUE OF THE ARGUMENT.

Returning to the Example, in order for the CONCLUSION-  ALL POLITICIANS CAN'T BE TRUSTED, TO BE TRUE, THE PREMISES:

-  ALL POLITICIANS ARE DECEITFUL PEOPLE.

AND

-  ALL DECEITFUL PEOPLE CAN'T BE TRUSTED.

MUST BE  PROVEN TO BE TRUE, OR THE CONCLUSION CANNOT 

STAND UP AS ACCURATE.

To Further Clarify, Consider These Arguments, Different

Versions of Ones I've Heard over the Years.

                 # 1                                                                 #2

ANYONE WHO BELIEVES IN HUMAN                IF YOU ARE CHRISTIAN, THEN YOU

EVOLUTION IS AN ATHEIST.                               ARE ANTI-SCIENCE.         

                                                               

ALL ATHEISTS DO NOT BELIEVE                     IF YOU ARE ANTI- SCIENCE, 

IN GOD.                                                                 YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THE 

                                                                               SCIENTIFIC METHOD.                                                               

THEREFORE, IF YOU BELIEVE IN                      

HUMAN EVOLUTION,YOU DO NOT                    THEREFORE, IF YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN,

BELIEVE IN GOD.                                                 YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THE SCIENTIFIC

                                                                                 METHOD.

THESE ARE VALID DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS.  HOWEVER, ARE THEY TRUE?

WHAT ARE DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS? PART 3.

ARGUMENT #1.                                                 ARGUMENT #2.

PREMISE 1.                                                      PREMISE 1.

ANYONE WHO BELIEVES IN HUMAN                ALL CHRISTIANS ARE 

EVOLUTION IS AN ATHEIST.                             ANTI- SCIENCE.

ALL ATHEISTS DO NOT BELIEVE                      IF YOU ARE ANTI- SCIENCE 

IN GOD.                                                             YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THE 

                                                                          SCIENTIFIC METHOD.             

                                                  

CONCLUSION.                                                   CONCLUSION. 

THEREFORE, IF YOU BELIEVE IN                     THEREFORE, IF YOU ARE A

HUMAN EVOLUTION, YOU DO NOT                   CHRISTIAN, YOU DO NOT

BELIEVE IN GOD.                                              FOLLOW THE SCIENTIFIC

                                                                          METHOD.

                                     REPRINTED FROM PART 2.

In the First Argument, We have an Assertion in Premise #1 that if you believe in HUMAN EVOLUTION YOU ARE AN ATHEIST.

However, there are many examples of Devout Individuals being members of Different CHRISTIAN, JEWISH, AND MOSLEM DENOMINATIONS AND SECTS WHO ACCEPT HUMAN EVOLUTION AS FACT, AND SOME CAN BE FOUND TEACHING THE SUBJECT IN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.  

This Premise is easily shown to be Untrue, so while Example #1 may be a VALID DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT, THE POINT OF VIEW OR OPINION WHICH IS ARGUED is FALSE AND UNPROVEN.

Yes, the Second Premise, "ALL ATHEISTS DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD," CAN BE CONSIDERED TRUE AND ACCURATE, HOWEVER...

... ALL THE PREMISES MUST BE TRUE FOR THE CONCLUSION TO BE CONSIDERED CORRECT AND VERIFIED. PREMISE #1 DOES NOT PASS THIS CRITERIA.  SO THE CONCLUSION:

"THEREFORE, IF YOU BELIEVE IN HUMAN EVOLUTION, YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD."

CANNOT BE MAINTAINED AS PROVEN, GIVEN THIS PARTICULAR ARGUMENT.

SEE PART 4 FOR AN ANALYSIS OF THE SECOND ARGUMENT.

Date-  8/7/2015.

Scroll down for future posts.