Examples below the fold.
For example:
Just for fun, I am going to employ the most sophisticated and beautiful of all logical arguments: the dilemma. The dilemma is a way of putting your opponent in a box; it is a way of showing him that, no matter what in fact is the case, his assumption leads to an unacceptable conclusion. Again, there are numerous ways of attacking the truth of a statement—this is only one of them.
If I am making this argument, here’s how I do it: There are only two kinds of rights: those that originate in divine law and those that originate in human law. If the claim is that same-sex marriage is a right originating in divine law, then it must be false, since (if it is addressed at all) it is precluded by the holy books of all major religions. If the claim is that same-sex marriage is a right originating in human law, then it must, again, be false, since the law of the land (at least in the United States) does not acknowledge it. Therefore, in either case—whether the appeal is to divine or human law—the claim is false.
Note the nice clean division of originating in divine law or human law. Only the very naive, inexperienced would not that the argument does not address interactions between divine law and human law, nor the other potential sources of rights. This is not valid argumentation, it is a rhetorical trick. Unfortunately, Cothran seems to think this is some sort of valid method. Maybe this is a matter of necessity. maybe the world of the creationist can't survive in a world of shades and colors.
Then he gives what he imagines to be a lesson in reducito as absurdum, attempting to show that a lack of testability does rule ID out of science:
The best place to look for scientific theories that are not falsifiable is physics. Everyone accepts that physics, and the theories that are included under it, are scientific. But many of them are not falsifiable—at least not now. The most famous of these is superstring theory. Superstring theory is the theory that particles and fundamental forces in the universe can be explained by the vibration of very tiny symmetrical strings. The problem is that the theory is not only not falsifiable, but, as some scientists have pointed out, it isn’t even conceivably falsifiable. Some of Einstein’s thought experiments (many of which he later set forth as full scientific theories), the scientific status of which have never been questioned, are not falsifiable either.
Your opponent could swallow hard and say that these things are not science, but he will know he is on shaky ground—and he will know you know he knows it.
Note how he projects his own limited world-view onto others. In fact, I don't feel that I am at all on shaky ground in saying that any hypothesis which is not testable is not relevent scientifically. However, there are differences between hypotheses that are inherently untestable (Intelligent Design can not be falsified under any conditions) and those that are untestable under current technology, but may eventually prove testable. Neither is a part of science today, but the latter can at least eventually be scientific.
Posts
12 comments:
Heh, Eric, you just can't resist tryin to find sumthin wrong with guy because you call him a creationist, eh?
I read his article and he says nuthin whatsover about creationism. He claims to have taught logic for 15 years and the article seems to be entirely about the logical structure of arguments, etc. He is not taking a position on the truth or falsity of anything he talks about that I can tell.
You assert, however, that "because" he is a creationist, he oversimplifies. You say, for example: "Creationists really like their world simple, it seems to me...maybe the world of the creationist can't survive in a world of shades and colors."
You are creating a straw man here by "quote mining" aincha? To begin with, everything he says about "dilemma" is addressed to a particular argument and one of it's premises, to wit: "There is a right to same-sex marriage." What does he say about this premise?
This here: "So the first question to ask is, “What is a right, and how do we know if something qualifies as one?” There are many ways of addressing this question. Just for fun..."
You start with the "just for fun" part, of course, but he has just said "There are MANY ways of addressing this question." That's "oversimplification?" By whom? Him, or you? He in no way claims that his illustration of a logical strategy resolves the issue, or that it is the exclusive means of approaching it, does he?
In fact, among other qualifications, he says: "Now there are complicating factors here. The supporter of same-sex marriage could support his case by saying that it is a right originating in human law and that it can be found in the Constitution itself (either a state constitution or the federal Constitution)."
You claim: "This is not valid argumentation, it is a rhetorical trick. Unfortunately, Cothran seems to think this is some sort of valid method."
Yet I think he makes it quite clear that he is merely demonstrating rhetorical techniques, and no more. In fact, he says, near the end, "This simple principle, this logical shortcut, does not replace logic...But it is still useful."
The rhetorical strategies and techniques he is tryin to demonstrate are completely independent of any position he may personally take, and are equally available to anyone who reads his article and wants to support the opposite side on any argument.
It's kinda disappointin that, you condemn his "simplicity" with a simple, unarticulated dismissal sayin: "Only the very naive, inexperienced would not that the argument does not address interactions between divine law and human law, nor the other potential sources of rights."
Would you possibly be able to elaborate on:
1. interactions between divine law and human law, and
2. other potential sources of rights?
It seems as though Cothran was extending an open invitation for someone to do so when he prefaced the whole section with this: “What is a right, and how do we know if something qualifies as one?” There are many ways of addressing this question."
What is your answer to the question he asks, i.e. "What is a right, and how do we know if something qualifies as one?"
You've no doubt heard the tale about the old Greek Sophist who taught a student with the understanding that the student would not have to pay until he won his first case at law. After stealin all the trainin he could git, the student refused to try any cases...so, they just aint nuthin due, see?
This pissed off the sophist, so he sued his pupil for his fees. Who wins?
Well, the Sophist tells the judge: Either way, I must get paid. If you grant judgment in my favor, I will be paid by order of the court. If you don't grant me judgment, he will win his first case, and must therefore pay me by the terms of his contract.
Seems to kinda settle it, don't it? Well, not so fast. He learned that boy a little too good, it seems. Looky here...
The Pupil says to the Judge: Either way, I will not have to pay. If this court rules for him, then, but the terms of the contract, I need not pay, because I still have not won my first case. If you rule against him, it will have been decided, by this court, that I need not pay.
See the point, eh, Eric?
Heh, Eric, you just can't resist tryin to find sumthin wrong with guy because you call him a creationist, eh?
I'm pretty sure Cothran self-identifies as a creationist. For example, the Memoria Press Online Classical Academy, where he is an instructor, is explicitly creationist. I don't know what flavor of creationism he supports specifically (I suspect a version of day-age), but he has explicitly stated that YEC is a reasonable position he does not hold.
I read his article and he says nuthin whatsover about creationism. He claims to have taught logic for 15 years and the article seems to be entirely about the logical structure of arguments, etc. He is not taking a position on the truth or falsity of anything he talks about that I can tell.
And? I don't see how any of that is inharmonius with my post.
You are creating a straw man here by "quote mining" aincha ?
If I am, demonstrate it. Since I am quoting two paragraphs, and commenting on my understanding of why he argues in a certain fashion, rather than trying to protry his argument directly, I think you would have trouble constructing a case for quote-mining.
You start with the "just for fun" part, of course, but he has just said "There are MANY ways of addressing this question." That's "oversimplification?" By whom? Him, or you? He in no way claims that his illustration of a logical strategy resolves the issue, or that it is the exclusive means of approaching it, does he?
He does claim that the dilemma is the "most sophisticated and beautiful of all logical arguments", so I would presume any other strategy he would bring to bear is less sophistcated or less beautiful that one I classify as a rhetorical trick.
As for the example topic itself, we can save that for other threads.
Yet I think he makes it quite clear that he is merely demonstrating rhetorical techniques, and no more. In fact, he says, near the end, "This simple principle, this logical shortcut, does not replace logic...But it is still useful.?
That is referring to a different technique than the dilemma.
The rhetorical strategies and techniques he is tryin to demonstrate are completely independent of any position he may personally take, and are equally available to anyone who reads his article and wants to support the opposite side on any argument?
I agree, but this has nothing to do with the point of my article, expect for the fact that either side using these strategies will make equally weak arguments.
Would you possibly be able to elaborate on:
1. interactions between divine law and human law, and
2. other potential sources of rights?
Yes, I am able to do so, and I think you are also. This is why the rhetorical trick does not work against people who understand it.
What is your answer to the question he asks, i.e. "What is a right, and how do we know if something qualifies as one?"?
Perhaps I'll do a blog post on that topic one day.
You've no doubt heard the tale about the old Greek Sophist who taught a student with the understanding that the student would not have to pay until he won his first case at law. ... See the point, eh, Eric?
You mean, that both dilemma are examples of why this is a bad method of argumentation?
One Brow said: "You mean, that both dilemma are examples of why this is a bad method of argumentation?"
Naw, I aint meanin that. The Sophist has a good argument, whatever you want to label the method. The lazy-ass pupil, he don't.
The judge could easily say that the pupil acted in bad faith and willfully, through deception, deprived the Sophist of the benefit of their bargain, thereby forfeiting his own right to claim any entitlement under the terms of the contract. In other words, ya gotta pay, whether ya win your first case or not. On the other hand, the judge could say, the money aint due yet, cause he aint won his first case just yet. I'm rulin for the pupil. Now, do you want to file a new claim, Sophist, because, ya know, he just won his first case, eh?
Or, the judge could say the Sophist had no standing to file the case (or even declare it was an attempt to use the court to manipulate the situation), dismiss the case without finding for either party, and leave the whole thing right where it was beforehand.
Another failure for reasoning by dilemma.
Heh, ya think? Where's the "failure?" Dismissin a case is basically a findin for the defendant. Of course the sophist has standin, so that aint no issue.
Yo graspin at straws, aincha, Eric? Spoze I say: Imma flip a coin here, and it's either gunna come up heads or tails. If I flip heads with this coin, Imma bust a cap in yo ass. If I flip tails, Imma cut yo head clean off. Either way, yo screwed.
Your response would be, sumthin like "the coin could land on its edge," or "a bird might grab the coin in mid-air, so it never comes down, so therefore I'm not really screwed at all!," that the idea?
Dismissin a case is basically a findin for the defendant.
"Basically"? since when does the law do "basically"?
Of course the sophist has standin, so that aint no issue.
Perhaps. If the judge feels the suit was brought in bad faith,he can undoubtably find some issue to throw it out without finding for the student.
Spoze I say: Imma flip a coin here, and it's either gunna come up heads or tails. If I flip heads with this coin, Imma bust a cap in yo ass. If I flip tails, Imma cut yo head clean off. Either way, yo screwed.
Sure, but that's not a dilemma.
One Brow asked: "Basically"? since when does the law do "basically"?
Uh, when it's basic, mebbe? Spoze I files suit against yo ass, for hurtin my feelins, or some shit, eh, Eric? Case number 1000: aintnuthin, plantiff vs One Brow, defendant. My suit gits throwed out--plaintiff loses, defendant wins.
The student made the sorry mistake of representin his own damn self cuz he wuz too cheap to hire a bottom-feeder. He brung it on his self. The Sophist had no way of forcin him to do that, he just done it all on his own---his mistake, eh?
Uh, when it's basic, mebbe? Spoze I files suit against yo ass, for hurtin my feelins, or some shit, eh, Eric? Case number 1000: aintnuthin, plantiff vs One Brow, defendant. My suit gits throwed out--plaintiff loses, defendant wins.
Well, IANAL, but it seems to me there is a legal difference bhetween a case being thrown out for lack of standing before the trial, and a victory at trial, which could in this situation certainly mark a difference in whether or not the Sophist gets paid.
The student made the sorry mistake of representin his own damn self cuz he wuz too cheap to hire a bottom-feeder. He brung it on his self. The Sophist had no way of forcin him to do that, he just done it all on his own---his mistake, eh?
That would be another way around it, possibly, depending on the wording of the agreement with the Sophist.
One Brow said: "Well, IANAL, but it seems to me there is a legal difference bhetween a case being thrown out for lack of standing before the trial, and a victory at trial, which could in this situation certainly mark a difference in whether or not the Sophist gets paid."
Well, sure there's difference, but not in who "wins" the case. If I'm some kinda bottom-feeder and I git a case throwed out for the plaintiff's lack of standin (which aint no issue here--that's like when I sue you because you owe my homey money and I wanna see ya pay, or shit like that), then my client wins...he goes home, aint no more case to defend.
Btw, Eric, what's "IANAL," eh? That don't sound like nuthin no kinda nice, know what I'm sayin?
aintnuthin said: "On the other hand, the judge could say, the money aint due yet, cause he aint won his first case just yet. I'm rulin for the pupil. Now, do you want to file a new claim, Sophist, because, ya know, he just won his first case, eh?"
As I understand it, this would be what the bottom-feeders call dismissing a case because it's not "ripe." It is a temporary victory, but does not necessarily decide the case on the merits, once and for all.
Spoze you owe me money due on January 1, 2010. I sue you today, because I clean forgot what year it is. My case will git throwed out on "ripeness" grounds. It does not, however, relive you of the obligation to pay (when due). Losing this particular "case" will not prevent me from re-filin a claim (and a new case) if you don't pay on or before January 1, 2010.
Well, sure there's difference, but not in who "wins" the case. If I'm some kinda bottom-feeder and I git a case throwed out for the plaintiff's lack of standin (which aint no issue here--that's like when I sue you because you owe my homey money and I wanna see ya pay, or shit like that), then my client wins...he goes home, aint no more case to defend.
However, that may not ba victory of the type sufficent to trigger the payment clause in the arrangement between Sophist and student.
Eric, what's "IANAL," eh?
I am not a lawyer.
As I understand it, this would be what the bottom-feeders call dismissing a case because it's not "ripe." It is a temporary victory, but does not necessarily decide the case on the merits, once and for all.
Thank you for the background. Again, a dismissal for ripeness will not necessarily translate into winning a case in the contract. It depends upon how it is written.
Post a Comment