The fallacy of Argument.

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The following is a statement made by Rich. This is not to disparage the statement nor Ken, the member it was directed towards, but to bring a better understanting that I hope will help us all communicate better:

"I have noticed that there are three or so members on this board who like to get involved in threads in a way that make the threads lose focus and are disruptive. What I have decided to do is to ignore all comments that are not respectful of the thread or the poster. That is not to say that members cannot say whatever they wish within forum guidelines, but I am going to be a little more thoughtful about who I respond to".

Now the post was a responce to a post Ken had made. Please please forgive me using this as an example for I don't mean to disparage either, only use this as an example. Paul, I am going to use you also in an effort to understand "why there is ARGUMENT" in hopes to lessen the arguments and enhance communication.

Rich, in response to your statement, let me make a comment because I think it is important to understand why this happens and what causes it to happen. Ken, this not meant in anyway to disparage you are anyone else, just to help us all understand how we can learn to communicate better.

Let me give an illustration. You, Rich, for instance, are more occupied in the nature of "frailty" and seek "natural" solutions to those frailties; as opposed to Paul and those methods the medical community that uses science and those medicines and technology it is occupied with to arrive at "their" solutions.

When anyone is faced with that which might threaten their "livelihood", they will naturally "defend" it. That is "human nature". That in essense is what "argument" is all about and it is a common understanding he who has the intelligence and support material to back it up will win the argument.

It is the very nature of 'competition' and competition not only stifles communication, it uses intelligence and support material to "complicate" it to "win the game", so to speak when they both are right. It's winning that matters which in itself is antagonistic to cooperation. I hope this is coming out right, Ha.

It is the same with evolution and creationism. To a degree they both have salient points, but in an effort to win, the don't cooperate stifling communication. We don't have a landscape of life; we have an "arena" in which we are accustomed to sparring and to the victor go the spoils.

Now in this game there is strategy, deception, guile, wit, all guised under the label of "proof" which is calling on the "defense" system that supports it to offer to win the game.

Now let me place myself right in the middle of Rich and Paul, both competitors in this arena. Had Paul taken me under his wing, I would have never had to use Paul. In other words, I would have never needed a pacemaker and developed the health problems I face. Now that is hind sight in my case and wishful thinking. Thanks to Paul, I am able to survive because Rich wasn't around when I needed him way back when. Ha.

We support that mechanism which funds us that enables us to survive and will defend it at all costs. That's the problem! Rich is prepared to fight for what he believes as is Paul to defend his. Me, I grateful for both but it is too late for me but not for others who are entering this "arena" and it is in the cooperation of both Rich and Paul in that communication they have with each other that will bring the two together that will eliminate the arena and enhance the landscape that is life.

Now here is where the conflict of "economics" comes into play. Now for these two gentlemen to "merge" there can be no "conflictive interest". Now I am not sure, or can recall at this time what Rich does for a living, but his knowledge and experiences in life are his "defense" systems that arm him in this arena, as is Pauls. Our economic system is based on the nature of competition and neither Paul nor Rich want to "sacrifice" for it would jeopardize their livelihood. As long as they are competitive, every body loses; just in creationism and evolution, atheist and theist, professional and layman; religious and secular and so forth.

There is good that can be derived from both if only "they" would communicate better so as not to cause the other to sacrifice. Unheard of in this reality because it thrives on competition and in the end everybody loses for the arena becomes so damaged no one can "live" there.

Now as for me, I am the lab rat, what can we learn from this poor specimen. ha. Paul's at one end and Rich is at the other examining my predicament. Rich says, "...If he had only.........." and Paul says "Let me see what I can do now..................". Now in all honesty I am in favor of Rich winning this game, and hope there will be no more use for Paul. That can only happen if Paul's livelihood is not threatened. We need both at this level of the game, and cannot disregard either. So how do we close the gap. By developing an "economic system" that rewards that alliance rather than cheering either one on to victory but rewarding the merging of the two. No argument, just cooperation and communication and we all live a little better.

No guile, strategy, deception, defenses, power plays, evasive measures and so forth, only cooperation and communication. Einstein nailed it perfectly when he said, and I am paraphrasing, "..if we don't begin to cooperate rather than compete, the war we fight after the next one will be with stones".:surrender:Peace.

Sincerely,
William

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,046 • Replies: 23

No top replies

@William,

William;78293 wrote:

Einstein nailed it perfectly when he said, and I am paraphrasing, "..if we don't begin to cooperate rather than compete, the war we fight after the next one will be with stones".:surrender:Peace.

Sincerely,
William

Hi William,

I have a different idea. When confronted with situations we can go this way or that way. There is not just one way.

The moderators have certain rules for the forum which I try to abide by. There are no rules about having to engage with everyone all of the time. Sometimes I engage and sometimes not. It is not a requirement to engage with everyone all of the time. Too exhausting. I learned this from Taiji.

However, when appropriate conflict does create flow (polarity), and flow creates change and change can amuse. Smile

Rich

0 Replies

@William,

In economics, there are theories of co-operation and those of competition, and cases can be made for both as productive and useful.

So, one may suggest that, under certain conditions,philosophical argument can also produce useful results, if for no other reason than it makes explicit differing perspectives to those who attend to what is being written or said. If the arguments are civil, the positions expounded with clarity and thoughtfulness, and both sides interpret the other's with good will, then no matter who "wins" the contest of ideas, everyone "wins" in both learning the rhetorical exercise of the forms of philosophical argument as well as in appreciating different perspectives and their possibilities.

If we look to the history of philosophy, we more often than not find that philosophy ever renews itself, or begins again, from the contest between one way of thinking and (usually) those of predecessors or contemporaries. For example, The Metaphysics begins with a survey of earlier philosophers; Aristotle rejects these views as either incomplete or problematic, and offers an alternative (and for him, "better") explanation. In the Scholastic Period, the debate between realists and nominalists elaborated both positions and thus deepened our understanding of the problems, if not the solutions, they argued about.

0 Replies

@William,

Thanks Jg.

Perhaps it is the word "argument" that confuses me? In one sphere it means one thing in the other it means another. To argue, to me involves "heat, friction and combativeness" in that one or both "opponents" cease communicating and begin attacking. I agree with everything you have say; I would just like to "not argue". Perhaps there is another that could be used?

Our institutions and that "grading" system, promotes "competition" and the term "competitive edge" that breeds guile, tactics and strategies to "suvive" and be a "success" for those who play by this game"s rules tossing ethics out the window or at least making it difficult to understand by posing hypothetical scenarios that are impossible to answer. IMO, there are no ethics when it comes to winning the game because of the competitive, combative nature of the game itself as we reward intelligence and pounce on the innocently ignorant.

Ethics is more utilized and renamed "reason", not to prevent war, but to prepare for another one as we hone our tactics, strategies that will prevent us from making the same mistakes over again in the next battle. BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's an elitest power game in which those at the top never get blood on their pressed khaki's who observe this game from afar as the young and naive pay with their very lives as we find it thrilling in victory for the very few who survived, tacitly mourning the the death of those "players" that enlisted whom know little of the reason why they are going to battle in the first place. I have to calm down, I am pounding my keyboard. Ha. And hell, I'm not even arguing with anybody. Ha. Call it deep seated anger, but under control.

Now alturistically if we alloted our focus on reaching a truth in connecting the dots of these various philosophers, I think we could end all arguments as we concentrate on prevention that will lessen the need for cures. Which is why I picked on Rich and Paul in that they represent both spectrums: PREVENTION AND CURE.

I related an occasion in which I took a financial beating in trying to devlope an idea that would prevent fires. My god, you would think I was a leper. Now you would think preventing fires would be a good thing? Not by a long shot. If I had been successful, look at all those who are dependent on fires who make good livings as a result of those fires and how much they would suffer; attorneys, insurance companies, doctors, constriction and so forth. The same scenario can be applied to the use of fossil fuels, if that is what they are? ...... and those who profit from war!!!

So after a time observing the "death spiral" one begins to understand what needs to be done "other-wise". Which is what I have been trying to do since day one; spread a little "wisdom" that I have gathered to put a stop to this death spiral that we "profit" from. Hence the difficulty in breaking through a mind that knows now other way of doing things. Whew!

We need to stop the arguing and fighting and push the table we sit on the opposite sides of, against the wall and all get on the same side if we are going to survive. It's that critical. IMO. As Robert Kennedy said " rather than ask why; we must ask why not?" , and you will find at every turn the massive stumbling block that has always impeded our path has been whether or not we can afford it. BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We can't afford not to do it! (See list). :detective:

Calming down now. Somebody get me an Excedrin. Time for a break.

William

0 Replies

@William,

I don't think we are that far apart, William, and I suspect we are using "argument" in two different ways. In common language, argument is certainly used for the kind of interchange we often see in bars, playgrounds, and yelling contests on TV commentary shows---hence, "Tom was certainly in an argumentative mood yesterday" meaning quarrelsome.

There is another, older and more technically philosophic sense, in which argument refers to the rehearsal of warrants for, or statement supporting, a particular conclusion or position. While the common definition suggests a heated, emotional, and often violent confrontation, the latter suggests, I would say, a more dispassionate marshaling of reasons, illustrations and examples, and lines of thinking that support a conclusion; these are often strongly stated, and intellectually challenging to be sure, but always made to the problem at hand and not to the people involved.

I think that both of us deplore the former as unhealthy and non-productive as much as we respect the beneficial results of the latter.

0 Replies

@William,

Now you see JGWeed, I would have made that arguement and even have used the correct spelling . Of course now all I can do is carry on for hours and hours, not that I can't but RSI you see. No seriously I would like to say thank-you to both William and yourself as I was just going to click the tab but I feel better for this and thatwhich you have both said.

0 Replies

@William,

Justin has just written:

It seems that this forum is starting to attract people who think they are smarter than everyone else... (OMG, on a philosophy forum?) and of course, flaming and instigating insults.

Naturally, no one should flame or insult anyone (although it is sometimes difficult to refrain from sarcasm when someone says something outrageously stupid). But why cannot some people be smarter than other people? It is obvious that some people are smarter than other people. And why can't some people be better at philosophizing and the logic necessary for philosophizing, than others; especially if they know more, and have been trained better? Justin would not say, "OMG" about a physics forum. Or, OMG, about a mathematics forum. So why would he do so about a philosophy formum, I wonder. Some people are smarter than others; and some people are much better at philosophizing than others. I would think that was obvious.

1 Reply

@William,

It is a truism that some people ARE smarter (or better tutored) than others; it is a truism as well the some people like to tell others they are smarter than them, or conduct themselves with the supposed arrogance bordering on downright rudeness they (mistakenly) associate with "smart" people. I do not presume to speak for Justin, but I think he had in mind the latter group.

Since the first philosopher, Socrates, we have before us a model of how philosophy should be conducted or professed; he, one of the wisest of humankind, was always the humble searcher after truth, knowing only one thing- - - that he did not know.
He listened carefully to those lucky enough to be his companions for a day or an evening and without rudeness interrogated them about their positions, and thought with them about the subject at hand.
While few can match this ideal of how philosophy should be done, it remains nevertheless a goal the total rejection of which seems out of place in a forum dedicated to discussing both philosophy itself and its application to the practicalities of our world.

1 Reply

@jgweed,

jgweed;78440 wrote:

It is a truism that some people ARE smarter (or better tutored) than others;

Quote:

humble searcher after truth, knowing only one thing- - - that he did not know.

Interesting conundrum.

Rich

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;78421 wrote:

Justin has just written:

It seems that this forum is starting to attract people who think they are smarter than everyone else... (OMG, on a philosophy forum?) and of course, flaming and instigating insults.

Naturally, no one should flame or insult anyone (although it is sometimes difficult to refrain from sarcasm when someone says something outrageously stupid). But why cannot some people be smarter than other people? It is obvious that some people are smarter than other people. And why can't some people be better at philosophizing and the logic necessary for philosophizing, than others; especially if they know more, and have been trained better? Justin would not say, "OMG" about a physics forum. Or, OMG, about a mathematics forum. So why would he do so about a philosophy formum, I wonder. Some people are smarter than others; and some people are much better at philosophizing than others. I would think that was obvious.

Ken, IMO there should be no heirarchy or status imposed in communication or who is smarter, or who is better of worse. One must "leave their credentials" at home, so to speak. When those in our presence allow us to know their innermost thoughts, it is a privelege and one that must not be taken advantage of. Intellect is not a badge of honor one wears to impress another, or shall I say, shouldn't be. All we can do is offer our thoughts in hopes to reach a better understanding from both perspectives and no one should be left out of that loop because one deems they not qualified because of such unsundry reasons as judge inadequate. Everyone must be treated with respect and courtesy.

There must be a "common ground" for communication to be effective and there must be an etiquette that must be followed that does not presuppose qualifications to serve as a "right of passage" in order to participate. I think we all will be pleasantly surprised at what can be voiced from those "so ignorant".

I have often mentioned power plays as they are also a destructive part of effective communication. I detest the word "power" if it is used in any context other than the energy it takes to turn on a light bulb. It is egotistical, offensive and has no place in a forum design to serve as a refuge for all to come and share their ideas without fear of reprisal, indignation or disrespect. IMMHO. :surrender:

William

1 Reply

@William,

Traffic lights are despisable, because they depict how mundane our existence is. When caught around shopping centres, we reflect on those moments when we considered which brand of cross trainer to buy. The Nike, (how come there is no "tick" key on a keyboard, are we smarter than our teachers) pair that allows a woman to husstle through the throng on her way into work or chase down the cab where she left her bag that contains her office shoe.

Addidas, they helped perfect his game. He played on all courts including the streets, so he wasn't just limited to ballhouse floors. Col. Steve Austin, did all his training in cross trainers but on the streets or any mission, he wore slip sole shoes. I guess cars go faster on slicks.

But not at traffic lights.

I don't think like this at traffic lights. There I am cursed with terrets. So I hope you don't mind that you know I cuss. Philosophy's role is just to prevail, through abuse, bended truth and any wives tale. I don't answer everything, when writing I try, though I may be mistaken, I don't blatently lie. If we do not fear to still learn even when our minds are set, then languge will simply be the tool of communication. The missproper use and abuse of its meaning will show no effect on the listener. Yes I object to the censoring of profanity, in so far as to say, that it can be used quite constructively and often a word that contains part there of is also ommitted. I do not object to having those who appear as annoyantly as possible to you all booted, but I don't mind any abuse directed at me personally, I have a stong voice, the kind that bugs you at a sports game. I can't go to the tennis or golf, I know where people like me are not welcome.

0 Replies

@William,

William;78482 wrote:

Ken, IMO there should be no heirarchy or status imposed in communication or who is smarter, or who is better of worse. One must "leave their credentials" at home, so to speak. When those in our presence allow us to know their innermost thoughts, it is a privelege and one that must not be taken advantage of. Intellect is not a badge of honor one wears to impress another, or shall I say, shouldn't be. All we can do is offer our thoughts in hopes to reach a better understanding from both perspectives and no one should be left out of that loop because one deems they not qualified because of such unsundry reasons as judge inadequate. Everyone must be treated with respect and courtesy.

There must be a "common ground" for communication to be effective and there must be an etiquette that must be followed that does not presuppose qualifications to serve as a "right of passage" in order to participate. I think we all will be pleasantly surprised at what can be voiced from those "so ignorant".

I have often mentioned power plays as they are also a destructive part of effective communication. I detest the word "power" if it is used in any context other than the energy it takes to turn on a light bulb. It is egotistical, offensive and has no place in a forum design to serve as a refuge for all to come and share their ideas without fear of reprisal, indignation or disrespect. IMMHO. :surrender:

William

I did not say that anyone should, in the course of communication, boast how smart he is. I just pointed out that some people are smarter than others, better trained than others, and know more than others. You don't believe that? In particular, don't you believe that some people are better trained in logic and philosophy that others, and/or have more talent in philosophy than others? Why not? You believe that about physics, or about chess, don't you?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;78794 wrote:

I did not say that anyone should, in the course of communication, boast how smart he is. I just pointed out that some people are smarter than others, better trained than others, and know more than others. You don't believe that? In particular, don't you believe that some people are better trained in logic and philosophy that others, and/or have more talent in philosophy than others? Why not? You believe that about physics, or about chess, don't you?

Rather than discuss this in the abstract, can I have a list in hierarchical order for this forum? Presumably the smartest person will be drawing up this list. Has this person been determined yet? Thanks.

Rich

1 Reply

@William,

I think Kennethamy, that perhaps the meaning that seems elusive is that Philosophy has an element of mysticism about it. Sometimes, it is not about what you know or how well versed you may be, as these are not the portents of it core understanding. Philosophy can be entertaining the arguement and anybody can be the philosopher. Of course, you are not wrong in your statements but they can be percieved as limited when one is focussed on an issue.

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;78796 wrote:

Rather than discuss this in the abstract, can I have a list in hierarchical order for this forum? Presumably the smartest person will be drawing up this list. Has this person been determined yet? Thanks.

Rich

No idea who is in the forum, and don't know enough about them. You don't have to be the smartest person in the class to know who is the smartest person, or the next smartest person in the class. The kids know that before the semester is half over. They are the ones you go to for "help" with your homework, and copy from on tests.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;78802 wrote:

No idea who is in the forum, and don't know enough about them. You don't have to be the smartest person in the class to know who is the smartest person, or the next smartest person in the class. The kids know that before the semester is half over. They are the ones you go to for "help" with your homework, and copy from on tests.

Ken, let me see if I can put this another way. In our educational system we have a grading structure and through that structure, others become aware of "how smart" another is. Let's look at the ramifications of this for a sec. The "smart one" cannot help how smart they are. They just are? Why? We haven't fully (IMO) defined that yet at least in such a way in which all can agree at any rate, Two things happen when these grades become a part of the public domain. The smart one, as a result of the attention the lesser "smart" focus on their brilliance, feel a scrutiny they did not ask for; an imposition of sorts and at the same time a sense of grandiosity, heirarchy, status and power. People react differently to outside inertia which is what "scrutiny" is, IMO. It inflicts the perceptions of others on the individual "under observation" because of their "rarity" in the fact that they are "smarter" than the others that affects the "attitude" positively or negatively. Had the grades not been a part of the public domain, what would have happened? That's a good guestion? At this time all of you are searching for an answer to that question, if I am not mistaken as your entire life is measured on this "grading structure" that is derived from others who measure your "worth" on that scale. What if the scale didn't exist? Now we are forced to "jump outside of the box". Hmmm? Is there a way in which we can apply our knowlege, gifts and talents without feeling an obligation to uphold that which others perceive in us? What would life be like if those so gifted weren't under that "pressure".

All of our perceptions are influenced by that "grading structure". How can we get rid of it, in that we are so accustomed to it? I fully realize such a question will be considered ridiculous; but think about it? All our prejudices are centered around "good, better, best", even beauty we gauge from a one to a ten. It's where envy, animosity, condescension and deceit come from. It's reflective in every manner of our existence and absolutely contrary to any notion of what we vehemently espouse in our manifestion of "every man is created equal" and make's a mockery of it. More often than not is the kindling that induces argument and war and play a part in our discussions of what is "right" and what is "wrong" as we continue to ARGUE; even apparent in the communication between a parent and child for even there, some have their "pets". Damn, as I said looking into the mirror reflecting my own errors as I even scored my own children as a result of this "grading structure".

Each and every individual has their individual gifts, talents and knowledge that should not be a part of any grading structure and thus exploited in the public domain. Exploitation lies at both ends of the spectrum from our "idols" to our "pariahs" such is the language we speak as we each draw our relative meaning to each as we "judge". Who is anyone to make such judgements? Shades of Christ; so be it!

I think if we can eliminate this grading structure and the exploitation of it, we will be able to communiate without the friction it so imposes; such as that which can be define in the Ego; a rather argumentative sort. Smile

William

0 Replies

@William,

Nice one William. However when you stir the surface, you draw the attention of baited hooks. We have the opposite in Australia. It is the tall poppy syndrome. Don't reach to high as those who can drag you down, will. Our education system is a definite assurance that you will be dumbed down to suit the capabilities of a backward society. We teach you nothing that you wouldn't learn at an Ahmish class, limit our technological achievements, so as not to show any greatness and reject any who aspire to better the norm. This is farmland mentality and we are bad farmers as well.

1 Reply

@urangutan,

urangutan;78960 wrote:

Nice one William. However when you stir the surface, you draw the attention of baited hooks. We have the opposite in Australia. It is the tall poppy syndrome. Don't reach to high as those who can drag you down, will. Our education system is a definite assurance that you will be dumbed down to suit the capabilities of a backward society. We teach you nothing that you wouldn't learn at an Ahmish class, limit our technological achievements, so as not to show any greatness and reject any who aspire to better the norm. This is farmland mentality and we are bad farmers as well.

Urang, I don't think they are "backward" as much as they don't want to be left out of the loop and retaliate because they are assumed "backwards", or at least it is the perception of such. My perception has change so much over the years to the degree I totally disregard "status symbols" and view every individual I meet on equal footing, eyeball to eyeball. I don't look down or up to anyone! Even the word "teach" assumes ignorance! Let me offer an example in the sentence; "Let me tell you something!" When you think about it, how rude, that is. Yet it is a part of our programming and invites retaliation. I feel we can learn to communicate in such a way that is not offensive that will invite participation that will leave no one out of he loop. This very forum is striving to reach such standards. Bettering the norm is a good thing, taking advantage of it to enhance one's individual perspective to control that of another, IMO, is something entirely different.

Thanks Urangatan,
By the way, what is the significance of your avatar if you don't mind me asking? Smile

William

0 Replies

@William,

I love your method William. It is beautiful. It does not however reflect the world or even a great portion of that which we live in. From the way we are compelled to despise our fellow travellers on the busy roads, to the way in which we totally disreguard each other when attending an end of year financial sale. I cannot change the way my child will be educated here in Australia. I will however ensure that I partake in the education so there is little wrong in the precious mind and body. Where that leads is up to the child. I still call my superiors, which includes elders, bosses, passers-by and most generally any whom I meet, sir or mss. It is a matter of respect and honour, irrespective of their life achievements. We shouldn't fear anybody holding a gun to us, when we didn't fear the manufacturer.

What do you mean by Avatar, it isn't in any dictionary or thesaurus under what I suspected. I don't think it is a common Australian term, for to find reference.

0 Replies

@William,

Your Avatar is the name you go by in the forum: Urangutan.

William

0 Replies

The fallacy of Argument.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know