Persuade rather than Therefore

[PairTheBoard]

666 Bogus Proofs of God (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm)

I thought the above link, provided on another thread, was interesting. It's an atheist's derisive response to attempts at reasoned approaches to god. Setting aside the blantantly ridiculous and the author's technique of stripping away all supporting arguments and insights for the more serious approaches, the point I'm interested in here is the "Therefore" of each so called proof.

What if the "Therefore" is replaced by a phrase like, "This persuades me that", or "This persuades me to think that", or "This leads me to believe that", or "This persuades me to believe that"?

Consider the following "proof":

(1) A bloody glove was found on OJ's property.
(2) The matching glove was found at the murder scene.
(3) Therefore, OJ did it.

Of course this is a ridiculous "proof" and one worthy of derision. But what if the argument instead is stated as follows:

(1) A bloody glove was found on OJ's property.
(2) The matching glove was found at the murder scene.
(3) This leads me to think that OJ did it.

Even if you listed every damning piece of evidence against OJ in the case it would not provide the foundation to draw the logical conclusion, "Therefore OJ did it". However many people would consider it very reasonable to follow the list with the personal statement:

"This persuades me to believe OJ did it".

It's not a logical proof and a "therefore" does not apply but that doesn't mean the statement is unreasonable nor its speaker lacking in reason.



I think there is a big misconception at SMP about the power of Logic. People greatly underestimate the difficulties in producing a valid logical deduction using everyday language. For the deduction to truly be logically valid, all terms used to produce it should be translatable to symbolic logic in a well defined logical system where the validity of the agument can be checked automatically. This is what is expected of mathematical proofs. But it is practically impossible to produce such deductions in the kind of debates made on SMP. Our language is not so well defined as in mathematics.

The best we can do is provide observations, insights, allegories, metaphors, and "reasons" which persuade us to believe as we do. Notice such a belief is then personal and subjective. Not everyone need be so persuaded. Reasonable people can disagree.

What I object to is the high horse so many around here climb up on, claiming their perspective is the logical rational one when they have no idea what they may be missing in the environment of the issue. They may be persuaded that their opponent's position is inconsistent but they have no more access to the "therefores" necessary to logically draw that conclusion than anybody else.

PairTheBoard

[onesandzeros]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there is a big misconception at SMP about the power of Logic. People greatly underestimate the difficulties in producing a valid logical deduction using everyday language. For the deduction to truly be logically valid, all terms used to produce it should be translatable to symbolic logic in a well defined logical system where the validity of the agument can be checked automatically. This is what is expected of mathematical proofs. But it is practically impossible to produce such deductions in the kind of debates made on SMP. Our language is not so well defined as in mathematics. PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Whats funny is that many of us actually agree on many things but don't realize it because of semantics and plays on words.

Great post, and I think your pretty much spot on with it.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
People greatly underestimate the difficulties in producing a valid logical deduction using everyday language. For the deduction to truly be logically valid,

[/ QUOTE ]

What happened to inductive arguments?

OJ's evidence list does add up to a 'therefore' since it's a inductive argument ( and how mathematicians use the word is not relevant in any case).

luckyme

[tame_deuces]

From what I have seen on posts on this board, I'd say you are wrong in your assessment of the logic abilities of many posters here in SMP.

Or to use your own example you have used:

1. Some statements lack proper conception of logic.
2. Such statements are sometimes found in posts in SMP.

to reach (quoted from your OP):

3. [ QUOTE ]
I think there is a big misconception at SMP about the power of Logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

While the correct assumption would ofcourse be:

3. There sometimes for some posters would seem there is sometimes (or often/always pending on poster) a misconception on the power of logic, this is based on my interpretation of the posts in question.

[TomCowley]

There is one poster who repeatedly posts the same anti-real-life-application-of-logic drivel that's not news to anybody. He refuses to accept that posters who use "therefore" to describe real world situations, actually mean "I am caused to believe with extreme confidence", and for obvious reasons, communicate with "therefore" because there is no practical difference. This persuades me that said poster is a moron.

[luckyme]

HELP it's spreading past SMP !
a quick google found this SMPlian howler...

-- from the university of Northern Colorado's Philosophy "Arguments and their Evalutation". Tom Trelogan, Associate Professor of Philosophy uses this example on their web page (http://www.unco.edu/philosophy/arg.html) :--

[ QUOTE ]

The vast majority of people who test positive for HIV die of AIDS unless they receive effective treatment.
I’ve just tested positive for HIV.
Therefore, unless I receive effective treatment, I’m going to die of AIDS.

- and this is plainly an inductive argument—and indeed an extremely strong inductive argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it's not as strong as the case against OJ,

still, it persuades me, luckyme

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
What happened to inductive arguments?


[/ QUOTE ]

Did you lose them?

[ QUOTE ]
OJ's evidence list does add up to a 'therefore' since it's a inductive argument

[/ QUOTE ]

From Wiki,

Inductice Reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning)
"Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it. "

Examples from Wiki:

"Strong Induction:
All observed crows are black.
therefore,
All crows are black."

"Weak Induction:
I always hang pictures on nails.
therefore
All pictures hang from nails."

If either of the above arguments were given here I think most people would object to use of the term "therefore". This is close to the point of my OP. Some other term or phrase ought to be used.

An inductive argument may add up to something but I don't think it's a "therefore". Exactly what it does add up to is evidently open to debate.

From Wiki -
"Inductive reasoning has been attacked several times. Historically, David Hume denied its logical admissibility. During the 20th century, most notably Karl Popper and David Miller have disputed the existence, necessity and validity of any inductive reasoning, even of probabilistic (Bayesian) ones."


PairTheBoard

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What happened to inductive arguments?


[/ QUOTE ]

Did you lose them?

[ QUOTE ]
OJ's evidence list does add up to a 'therefore' since it's a inductive argument

[/ QUOTE ]

From Wiki,

Inductice Reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning)
"Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it. "

Examples from Wiki:

"Strong Induction:
All observed crows are black.
therefore,
All crows are black."

"Weak Induction:
I always hang pictures on nails.
therefore
All pictures hang from nails."

If either of the above arguments were given here I think most people would object to use of the term "therefore". This is close to the point of my OP. Some other term or phrase ought to be used.

An inductive argument may add up to something but I don't think it's a "therefore". Exactly what it does add up to is evidently open to debate.

From Wiki -
"Inductive reasoning has been attacked several times. Historically, David Hume denied its logical admissibility. During the 20th century, most notably Karl Popper and David Miller have disputed the existence, necessity and validity of any inductive reasoning, even of probabilistic (Bayesian) ones."


PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people don't like "Whatsup".
Context matters. "therefore" in an inductive argument means "and this leads me to conclude" or some such. It DOESN'T mean what it means to some kid stuck in a deductive proof in a math test.
A lot of words are like that, we just have to learn to deal with it. Sometimes, in different contexts, the same word can almost twist around and eat it's other meaning(s).
Yeah, right.

luckyme

[onesandzeros]

"Logic is neither a science nor an art, but a dodge." - Benjamin Jowett

[TomCowley]

[ QUOTE ]
"Logic is neither a science nor an art, but something I always dodge." - onesandzeros

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
"Logic is neither a science nor an art, but a dodge." - Benjamin Jowett

[/ QUOTE ]

you forgot the " he argued" part.

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
From Wiki -
"Inductive reasoning has been attacked several times. Historically, David Hume denied its logical admissibility. During the 20th century, most notably Karl Popper and David Miller have disputed the existence, necessity and validity of any inductive reasoning, even of probabilistic (Bayesian) ones."

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that pure deductive reasoning is only useful in a formal system. In the real world, you usually need inductive reasoning to derive the premises for a deductive argument.
"All men are mortal"
where the heck did that come from? Are we sure we counted them all? Was one sleeping immortally in a cave during the count? No, it's an induced conclusion, used as a premise for a boring deductive argument ( deductive arguments have the conclusions tucked into the premises, just have to grind out the answer).
Life exists in induction.

If we merely stipulate that all men are mortal then it no longer applies to the real world.

luckyme

[tame_deuces]

Yep, heartily agreed. At the bottom of almost any deductively usable scientific theory lies the unmentioned inductive reasoning that led to its conception. Inductive reasoning is incredibly important when it comes to discovery, its just not admissible.

I think maybe we ultimately think inductively, because it makes more sense (we can't usually observe the whole picture), and that's why we fall for the trap sometimes (stereotypes, hasty conclusions, bombastic statements).

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]


If either of the above arguments were given here I think most people would object to use of the term "therefore". This is close to the point of my OP. Some other term or phrase ought to be used.


PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

"Therefore" just implies that an inference is being made, a conclusion drawn. It doesn't indicate whether the inference is deductive, inductive, or abductive. Only the nature of the argument itself will tell you what type of inference is being made (although argument types are usually defined by reference to the intentions of the person giving the argument for technical reasons).

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


If either of the above arguments were given here I think most people would object to use of the term "therefore". This is close to the point of my OP. Some other term or phrase ought to be used.


PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

"Therefore" just implies that an inference is being made, a conclusion drawn. It doesn't indicate whether the inference is deductive, inductive, or abductive. Only the nature of the argument itself will tell you what type of inference is being made (although argument types are usually defined by reference to the intentions of the person giving the argument for technical reasons).

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I don't really see the word "therefore" used much around here anyway. Most people just argue and state their conclusions. My treatment of the word in the OP was more in context of the "666 bogus proofs of god" link. I think your's and luckyme's identification of different categories of arguments and thus different kinds of conclusions such as deductive, inductive, abductive, and in luckyme's link, rhetorically effective arguments, actually serve to support the thrust of my post. There may be even more categories we haven't thought of yet. In fact there may be a whole spectrum of rational colors to arguments and their conclusions.

The thing is, for all but deductive inference, there is a certain amount of subjectivity involved. In an inductive argument, how is it to be determined that given the truth of the premises the conclusion is "more likely to be true than false"? How do we even define what that means. There is bound to be differences of opinion about such arguments. Who's to say which is the rational one?

You say we must look to the context of the argument to see what type it is. How much of that is done around here by those who claim a monopoly on logic and reason for their positions? How much of that was done by the Atheist author of the 666 link?

PairTheBoard

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, for all but deductive inference, there is a certain amount of subjectivity involved. In an inductive argument, how is it to be determined that given the truth of the premises the conclusion is "more likely to be true than false"? How do we even define what that means. There is bound to be differences of opinion about such arguments. Who's to say which is the rational one?

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot the wave of the hand and the 'oh, pooh'.

If you think an equal conclusion is "therefore there's no chance I will die of aids" in the inductive example I gave, have at it.

The short answer to your question is "rational people", circular as that sounds.

luckyme

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]


In an inductive argument, how is it to be determined that given the truth of the premises the conclusion is "more likely to be true than false"?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

With inductive arguments the practice is normally to assign a certain degree of inductive strength to the argument based on how strongly we think the premises support the conclusion. Only in fairly borderline cases is it that difficult to tell whether an inductive argument is inductively strong or not (where "inductively strong" is defined as the conclusion being more likely to be true than not, given the truth of the premises).

The only way to determine whether the conclusion is more likely to be true than not is to understand the argument, and be able to assess the logical relationship between the premises and conclusion.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your's and luckyme's identification of different categories of arguments and thus different kinds of conclusions such as deductive, inductive, abductive, and in luckyme's link, rhetorically effective arguments, actually serve to support the thrust of my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post was to alert us to the discovery that inductive arguments ( the one that you use not to step off the roof of apartments) do not come to 100% conclusions?

and you noted it and were alarmed

[ QUOTE ]
My treatment of the word in the OP was more in context of the "666 bogus proofs of god" link.

[/ QUOTE ]

by a SPOOF site !

oky dokey, luckyme

[Philo]

It would be odd to say "this leads me to believe that" or "this persuades me that" in a deductive argument, and "therefore" in a non-deductive argument just serves as a neutral inference indicator.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
There is bound to be differences of opinion about such arguments. Who's to say which is the rational one?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lawyer -
"doctor, the DNA has a 1 in a trillion chance of not being my clients, right?"
"Yes"
"So it could be anyones, since you can't say for certain that it's my clients"
( equating 1 in a trillion with 50-50 ).

It's a common theist defense argument, but then, what choice do they have. Trying to slip the elephant out through the keyhole.

luckyme

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is bound to be differences of opinion about such arguments. Who's to say which is the rational one?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lawyer -
"doctor, the DNA has a 1 in a trillion chance of not being my clients, right?"
"Yes"
"So it could be anyones, since you can't say for certain that it's my clients"
( equating 1 in a trillion with 50-50 ).

It's a common theist defense argument, but then, what choice do they have. Trying to slip the elephant out through the keyhole.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

In looking at the 666 link I saw it just the other way around. By calling every theist attempt at a reasoned approach to god a "proof" the atheist author made every "therefore" represent one of deductive reasoning, thus forcing any nondeductive but supporting insights, arguments, or even appeals to intuition - which we understand are condensed and represented by the spoof's one and two line premises - through the keyhole of a deductive "therefore".

The reason I found it interesting is I see the same kind of treatment and attitude from atheists here on SMP toward approaches to god by theists which serve a supporting role rather than settups for a deductive one. The mistake theists make is insisting on forcing themselves through the deductive "therefore" keyhole themselves. As supporting arguments that persuade them to believe the theists can be completely reasonable. The label "irrational" so freely applied by atheists to them is then subjective and often arrogant imo.

PairTheBoard

[onesandzeros]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the deduction to truly be logically valid

[/ QUOTE ]

The only thing logical about logic is that it can't be explained logically, as none of it is at all logical. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I found it interesting is I see the same kind of treatment and attitude from atheists here on SMP toward approaches to god by theists which serve a supporting role rather than settups for a deductive one. The mistake theists make is insisting on forcing themselves through the deductive "therefore" keyhole themselves. As supporting arguments that persuade them to believe the theists can be completely reasonable. The label "irrational" so freely applied by atheists to them is then subjective and often arrogant imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

But by that token the reasoning of the theists would be subjective. With certain exceptions, they're trying to tell us why we should believe, not why they believe, so if they didn't pretend to be making logical arguments their points wouldn't be compelling.

I think it might enrich the forum if the agenda were to communicate rather than to convince, but people on all sides are attached to their (our) views on religion.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
But by that token the reasoning of the theists would be subjective. With certain exceptions, they're trying to tell us why we should believe, not why they believe, so if they didn't pretend to be making logical arguments their points wouldn't be compelling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly, arguments that are presented -
- it makes my navel tingle when I think of it.
- my mom came to me in a dream and showed my where lost sock is.
- there is so much beauty in the world.
- this book predicted wwII.
- thus,(therefore, it seems most likely, ...), there is a god.

are inductive.
And open to challenge on the normal 'strength of your case' grounds.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it might enrich the forum if the agenda were to communicate rather than to convince, but people on all sides are attached to their (our) views on religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

the problem for theists is if they stay out of the logical argument area then their claim for validity also gives other subjective claims the same grounds which leads to too many gods. Or to flattened buildings or african AID treatment being "justified" by the same validity the theist asserts.
What can they do if they stay to the merely 'communicate' mode?
"I believe in a three legged god and he wants me(us) to X."
" uh, ok. erhhmmm... Crutchly believes in a 5 legged one and it tells him to do Not-X. Now what? If you're right, Crutchly is right. His claim is a worthy as yours, right?"

Our 'god is a ham sandwich' roll-your-own poster pretty well had it nailed.

luckyme

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Philo -
The only way to determine whether the conclusion is more likely to be true than not is to understand the argument, and be able to assess the logical relationship between the premises and conclusion.


[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds nice, clearcut, and simple in theory. But when applied in practice to the complexities of ambiguous language, abstract concepts, imprecise analogies, fuzzy probabilities, and the myriad of cognitive responses to the human condition commonly expressed in discussions here, the task you describe is far from logically well defined. As such the question remains, who decides who has done the rational job of it? Does luckyme's circular answer, "those who are rational", settle the question? I don't think so.

Look at what luckyme does here:
[ QUOTE ]
Clearly, arguments that are presented -
- it makes my navel tingle when I think of it.
- my mom came to me in a dream and showed my where lost sock is.
- there is so much beauty in the world.
- this book predicted wwII.
- thus,(therefore, it seems most likely, ...), there is a god.

are inductive.
And open to challenge on the normal 'strength of your case' grounds.



[/ QUOTE ]

Noone on this forum has ever supported their position with the argument, "it makes my navel tingle when I think of it." But there are a myriad of possible cognitive responses to personal experience that may serve to support a position with varying degrees of strength. Is their only rational assesment the one dictated by luckyme? In examining their "logical relationship" to the position must we bow to luckyme's self appointed role as arbiter of the rational and accept that they all carry the same inductive strength as, "it makes my navel tingle when I think of it"?

Frankly, this kind of rational roughshod is BS.

PairTheBoard

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
But there are a myriad of possible cognitive responses to personal experience that may serve to support a position with varying degrees of strength.

[/ QUOTE ]

of course there are. virtually endless ones.
One just has to decide whether to try and put them forward in an inductive argument or not and decide who the argument is for.
When I post a situation on SMP I'm hoping others will tear all the loose hanging parts off of it if they don't just shred it altogether. How else do I improve my view of things?
If somebody wants to post some feely-touchy personal experiences that people can 'awwwwww, that's nice' over it, that's their prerogative and we do have some of those pop up on here. np. The semi-biographical ones for example.
Putting it in the form of an argument and expecting special treatment of it because it's their 'baby' is where the trouble starts.

luckyme

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But there are a myriad of possible cognitive responses to personal experience that may serve to support a position with varying degrees of strength.

[/ QUOTE ]

of course there are. virtually endless ones.
One just has to decide whether to try and put them forward in an inductive argument or not and decide who the argument is for.
When I post a situation on SMP I'm hoping others will tear all the loose hanging parts off of it if they don't just shred it altogether. How else do I improve my view of things?
If somebody wants to post some feely-touchy personal experiences that people can 'awwwwww, that's nice' over it, that's their prerogative and we do have some of those pop up on here. np. The semi-biographical ones for example.
Putting it in the form of an argument and expecting special treatment of it because it's their 'baby' is where the trouble starts.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

So your contention is that every cognitive response to personal experience is logically equivalent in inductive strength to "some feely-touchy personal experiences that people can 'awwwwww, that's nice' over"?

PairTheBoard

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
That sounds nice, clearcut, and simple in theory. But when applied in practice to the complexities of ambiguous language, abstract concepts, imprecise analogies, fuzzy probabilities, and the myriad of cognitive responses to the human condition commonly expressed in discussions here, the task you describe is far from logically well defined. As such the question remains, who decides who has done the rational job of it? Does luckyme's circular answer, "those who are rational", settle the question? I don't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no way to be precise, but that doesn't mean we can't make distinctions between rational and irrational thinking. Yes, anything we say will be subject to error and bias. That's true of everything. We can only support our claims to whatever extent is possible. Everyone is free to interpret the posts however they please.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But there are a myriad of possible cognitive responses to personal experience that may serve to support a position with varying degrees of strength.

[/ QUOTE ]

of course there are. virtually endless ones.
One just has to decide whether to try and put them forward in an inductive argument or not and decide who the argument is for.
When I post a situation on SMP I'm hoping others will tear all the loose hanging parts off of it if they don't just shred it altogether. How else do I improve my view of things?
If somebody wants to post some feely-touchy personal experiences that people can 'awwwwww, that's nice' over it, that's their prerogative and we do have some of those pop up on here. np. The semi-biographical ones for example.
Putting it in the form of an argument and expecting special treatment of it because it's their 'baby' is where the trouble starts.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

So your contention is that every cognitive response to personal experience is logically equivalent in inductive strength to "some feely-touchy personal experiences that people can 'awwwwww, that's nice' over"?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

My contention is that personal experiences, Why I love rabbit stew or the smell of roses have reasons for being there ( internal, mostly chemical reasons with a touch of psychological thrown in). If I try and express those in an inductive argument .. as a justification for my view then I've opened it up for challenge and examination.

In a sense - laying out reasons and telling you about it if all I want you to do is listen and nod sympathetically. I'd get a muslim wife for that.. no?

luckyme

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But there are a myriad of possible cognitive responses to personal experience that may serve to support a position with varying degrees of strength.

[/ QUOTE ]

of course there are. virtually endless ones.
One just has to decide whether to try and put them forward in an inductive argument or not and decide who the argument is for.
When I post a situation on SMP I'm hoping others will tear all the loose hanging parts off of it if they don't just shred it altogether. How else do I improve my view of things?
If somebody wants to post some feely-touchy personal experiences that people can 'awwwwww, that's nice' over it, that's their prerogative and we do have some of those pop up on here. np. The semi-biographical ones for example.
Putting it in the form of an argument and expecting special treatment of it because it's their 'baby' is where the trouble starts.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

So your contention is that every cognitive response to personal experience is logically equivalent in inductive strength to "some feely-touchy personal experiences that people can 'awwwwww, that's nice' over"?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

My contention is that personal experiences, Why I love rabbit stew or the smell of roses have reasons for being there ( internal, mostly chemical reasons with a touch of psychological thrown in). If I try and express those in an inductive argument .. as a justification for my view then I've opened it up for challenge and examination.

In a sense - laying out reasons and telling you about it if all I want you to do is listen and nod sympathetically. I'd get a muslim wife for that.. no?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Everything posted here is "open to challenge and examination". So what? That says nothing. Sounds to me like you are backing down from really making any kind of statement. Is your technique of reason to just list one ridiculous scenario after another and hope people get the idea that the ridicule is somehow suppose to stick to something thereby exposing it as rationally unacceptable? Is that your method of assessing the logical relationship between premises and conclusions in your inductive analysis?

PairTheBoard

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The best we can do is provide observations, insights, allegories, metaphors, and "reasons" which persuade us to believe as we do. Notice such a belief is then personal and subjective. Not everyone need be so persuaded. Reasonable people can disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Everything posted here is "open to challenge and examination".

[/ QUOTE ]

Even the subjective and personal ones? And how does one go about making a counter argument to them? What if the listener, rightly, refuses to grant them as 'facts' in the argument/exchange?

The examples I used were meant to show you how hopeless that becomes. It almost hurts the ears at times.

A simple example is Splendors trying to support a worldly position with a bible quote ... to an atheist. A counter example is bunny's "it's a personal experience ( I may be misphrasing)" and not claiming it could add weight in a public exchange.

Essentially, we can't grant private knowledge privileged status it the public arena. If your reasons are 'subjective and personal' but somehow 'right', then so are Akhmed's or Chin Chows. Yet the conclusions drawn from them are in direct conflict and all can't be 'right'.

You like to claim 'other sources of knowledge', that does not mean I should acknowledge them ( or Ackme...).

My position isn't a difficult one, why would I back down from it. How could I back down from it?

luckyme

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Essentially, we can't grant private knowledge privileged status it the public arena.

[/ QUOTE ]

So is this finally the coherent statement of your position? Does this premise logically imply that no cognitive response to personal experience can lend any inductive strength to a position?

[ QUOTE ]
My position isn't a difficult one, why would I back down from it. How could I back down from it?


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say you were backing down from your position. I said you were backing away from even stating it.

PairTheBoard

[TomCowley]

You reject absolute knowledge derived from or applied to the real world. Guess what- you're right. Nobody in their right mind would claim that logic or science can bootstrap from no truth to absolute truth.

You reject the ability to assign an absolute (minimum, nonzero) degree of confidence to some particular knowledge, because we can never have enough knowledge of all other potential confounding factors to assign with certainty. Guess what- you're right again. It's a second-order bootstrapping problem.

Granting these two points, your nihilist approach to real-world scenarios is worse than worthless. Decisions must be made. Imperfect knowledge must be acted upon. Different information must be given different degrees of confidence/credibility. The process isn't perfect, but it's all we have. Science is essentially a neverending search for confounding factors and better confidence estimates, which makes your arguments especially ironic. It is the *acknowledgement* of the limitations of current knowledge that spurs further investigation.

When people on here discuss hypothetical situations with something assumed, we're well aware that assuming any real-world truth automatically makes the scenario not perfectly analogous to the real world. We're well aware that the result of inductive logic is not absolute truth, yet we choose to talk about hypothetical situations and the results of inductive logic anyway, because that's all we have. Rejecting the value of debating with imperfect knowledge is just as worthless and impractical as rejecting the value of making decisions with imperfect information.

[PairTheBoard]

Since Sklansky has crowned you Posting King I'll respond for now. But if you get abusive I'm putting you back on ignore.

[ QUOTE ]
Rejecting the value of debating with imperfect knowledge

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you've ever understood what I've been talking about. I've never "rejected the value of debating with imperfect knowledge". I've tried to clarify the nature of some of the imperfections in the whole process of our debates. Understanding the nature of the imperfections in our debates is integral to understanding where we are at with them.

If you read all of this thread you will see that I'm perfectly willing to accept the value of inductive arguments in which the conclusion may be false even if the premises are found to be true! In fact, I am even arguing with Luckyme that he underestimates the possible value of certain types of evidence supporting such arguments. I will also contest people who I think are overvaluing the strength of their inductive arguments.

PairTheBoard

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, I am even arguing with Luckyme that he underestimates the possible value of certain types of evidence supporting such arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whew. I was thinking you'd never get it. thanks.

luckyme

[TomCowley]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you've ever understood what I've been talking about. I've never "rejected the value of debating with imperfect knowledge". I've tried to clarify the nature of some of the imperfections in the whole process of our debates. Understanding the nature of the imperfections in our debates is integral to understanding where we are at with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your sole intention is to clarify, then you're coming across differently. I remember you raising relevant objections (rare shoe size evidence isn't as strong if other evidence already pointed to somebody more likely to have that rare shoe size), but I also remember essentially useless objections- either extreme longshots (my judgment) or things in hypothetical examples that were so trivial that nobody else felt the need to mention them explicitly. I also remember a fair number of flat-out rejections of hypotheticals, and not based on a "provable" contradiction with the real world.

The net effect is that you spend far more time attacking the validity of the methods people use to derive conclusions than you do attacking the conclusions themselves, and since people are generally already aware that their starting assumptions aren't perfect, it rarely adds anything constructive.

Or, put more simply, you're often saying that nobody should lay infinite odds on any real-world-based conclusion being correct (which is true), and the rest of us, for practical purposes, are willing to treat things as simply "true" if we estimate them to have long enough odds of being false. We don't care about the exact odds of being wrong as long as they're remote enough (our judgement). Any consideration that only changes the odds from "big enough longshot" to "still a big enough longshot" isn't interesting, and many of your objections fit this category.

[PairTheBoard]

I don't find your evaluation accurate. But you are entitled to your opinion.

PairTheBoard

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Philo -
The only way to determine whether the conclusion is more likely to be true than not is to understand the argument, and be able to assess the logical relationship between the premises and conclusion.


[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds nice, clearcut, and simple in theory. But when applied in practice to the complexities of ambiguous language, abstract concepts, imprecise analogies, fuzzy probabilities, and the myriad of cognitive responses to the human condition commonly expressed in discussions here, the task you describe is far from logically well defined.


[/ QUOTE ]



PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that evaluating arguments was simple and clearcut. That's you making unwarranted inferences.

I teach logic, so it's no news to me that evaluating arguments can be difficult. Some of the examples you gave are easy to evaluate though. Any argument that uses language ambiguously or employs poor analogies is eo ipso a poor argument.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Philo -
The only way to determine whether the conclusion is more likely to be true than not is to understand the argument, and be able to assess the logical relationship between the premises and conclusion.


[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds nice, clearcut, and simple in theory. But when applied in practice to the complexities of ambiguous language, abstract concepts, imprecise analogies, fuzzy probabilities, and the myriad of cognitive responses to the human condition commonly expressed in discussions here, the task you describe is far from logically well defined.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that evaluating arguments was simple and clearcut. That's you making unwarranted inferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not an inference at all. I commented on how I thought it sounded. I expressed the subjective impression it gave me. If it gave me that impression I suspect it might give others that impression as well. If so, your clarification helps and there was some value to my cognitive response to personal experience.



[ QUOTE ]
I teach logic, so it's no news to me that evaluating arguments can be difficult. Some of the examples you gave are easy to evaluate though. Any argument that uses language ambiguously or employs poor analogies is eo ipso a poor argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is, common language is prone to ambiguity even when not used in blatantly ambiguous ways. Thus the difficulty in getting computers to understand it. Also, analogies are rarely if ever perfect. So they are prone to some degree of imprecision even when not blatantly poor analogies. So the degree of ambiguity in the language and the degree of imprecision in the analogies may not be so easy to assess, especially in the discussions on SMP. The assessment is futher complicated when many such imprecise analogies are used to support one inductive argument.

PairTheBoard