Philosophy 101- Vocabulary for Arguments

[Puritan Sailor]

OK you philosphy/rhetoric buffs! It has been a long time since I took philosophy and I think many here would benefit from some basic definitions of the common argument forms. So please provide a brief definition (maybe even a brief example) for the following terms. If you can think of any others then please add them so we all can improve our discussion/argument/analysis skills.

Ad hoc
Ad hominem
A priori
Begging the question
Hasty generalization

I know there are many more so please add them on. Thanks guys.

Puritan Sailor

[Edited on 2-7-2004 by puritansailor]

 

[Randall Pederson]

Basic definitions

ad hoc - for the purpose on hand (i.e. a committee was formed ad hoc to discuss the issue)

ad hominem - appealing to someone's emotions or intentions rather than the logical argument at hand

a priori - something that is knowable without any appeal to experience (the opposite of this would be a posteriori)

begging the question - a statement that assumes certain facts to be true, and builds arguments upon them, without first questioning the validity of its foundation

hasty generalization - all Americans are intelligent (in short, a general statement that is said in haste, without due consideration to its proof)

 

[TheonomyNZ]

Ad hoc

[i:e4e581586d]Ad hominem[/i:e4e581586d]

This is really a "family" of fallacies, all sharing the feature of attacking the person rather than the argument. First, it includes the ad hominem abusive (appealing to negative characteristics of the person making the argument, whether tuthfully or falsely), for example, "Don't listen to the NRA, they're a bunch of rednecks." Second is the ad hominem circumstantial, which tries to discredit an argument by appealing to the alleged vested interest of the person. e.g. "You can't convince me that we need to spend more on military - you work in a bomb factory, so you [i:e4e581586d]would[/i:e4e581586d] say that!" Third is the ad hominem fallacy called "damning with faint praise,' where you praise your opponent's position in such a way as to trivialise or degrade it. E.g. "Unilateral disarmament is a fine ideal, and we cannot help feeling a certain respect for the blindly innocent faith that prompts people to adopt such a position." Fourth is the fallacy of "guilt by association." E.g. "Oh? You dont share my views on hell? Hmmm, neither do they Jehovah's Witnesses!" This is similar to the "bad seed" fallacy, e.g. "Him? believe in racial harmony? But he's Palestinian!" Fifthly is the "special pleading" variety of the ad hominem fallacy, where we fallaciously assert that our opponent lacks the credentials to understand the issue by identifying an irelevant trait, e.g. "as a man you could not possibly appreciate the arguments for abortion rights." (special pleading can be used in other ways too, as I'll outline below)

[i:e4e581586d]Ad Ignorantium[/i:e4e581586d] (appeal to ignorance)

This is the argument from silence, which mistakes a lack of evidence for actual evidence to the contrary (regardless of whether there is such a lack or not). E.g. "the New Testament doesn't specifically mention songs apart from psalms, and that shows there were none used."

[i:e4e581586d]Petetio Principii[/i:e4e581586d] ("begging the question&quot

This is also called a "circular argument," and it is commited when the cnclusion for an argument is either stated or assumed in the premises of the argument. E.g. "belief in God is universal because evryone believes in God."

[i:e4e581586d]Ad Misericordiam[/i:e4e581586d] (appeal to pity)

An argument that tries to win support by making people feel sorry o remotionally moved rather than persuade them logicall has committed the ad misericordiam fallacy. e.g. "You're a baptist? How could you exclude your own [i:e4e581586d]dear little babies[/i:e4e581586d] from the sacrament?"

[i:e4e581586d]Ad Vericumdium[/i:e4e581586d]

The appeal to Authority, be it in the form of tradition, popular opinion, the opinion of a famous person etc. e.g. "But Calvin said..." or "but the WCF says" or "but all Reformed people know..."

[i:e4e581586d]Dicto Simpliciter- Accident[/i:e4e581586d] (Destroying the Exception)

This fallacy treats norms simplistically, not allowing for valid exceptions. e.g. "Faith comes through hearing the word of God. Gosh, I feel sorry for those deaf people!"

[i:e4e581586d]Dicto Simpliciter - Secundum Quid[/i:e4e581586d] (Destroying the Rule)

This fallacy uses a valid exception to an oversimplified rule to argue that the rule itself should be rejected. E.g. "Did you see that ambulance run that red light? Clearly, people can drive any way they like around here."


There are HEAPS more..... but I'll leave that for others for now, I might add more another time.

 

[Guest]

Let's not forget one of the most common of all, and the foundation of all marketing techniques:
[i:d09e36d133]Post hoc ergo propter hoc[/i:d09e36d133]

 

[JohnV]

How 'bout this one?
a posteriori - that's where I'm sitting after reading all these Latin terms.

Seriously, though, this one needs a little more clear thinking. For it is often equated with inductive reasoning, and it also stands for seeking the principle or basic truths that particular truths exhibit, in other words, deductive reasoning such as in science.

But these are not exactly the same. Not all a posteriori reasoning seeks for the indivisible truths lying implicit in the particulars themselves. Some are seeking relational truths; some seek mid-general principles that rule a small part of reality, and some seek higher axiomatic principles. But try as they might, no deductive reasonings actually can deduce first principles. In that sense, a posteriori has never been accomplished.

But inductive argumentation has had many rules applied to it, but none seem to stick. It seems that we come to understand first principles by the mind grasping it without reasoning it out, or by numerous exposures to things, so that we begin to see and experience patterns, or by divine revelation. But only the second of these could be considered to be a posteriori.

Anyways, an interresting anomaly. Or at least my comprehension of it is (an anomaly, that is, not interesting. )



[Edited on 1-21-2004 by JohnV]

 

[TheonomyNZ]

[quote:7a5400eeb4][i:7a5400eeb4]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:7a5400eeb4]
Let's not forget one of the most common of all, and the foundation of all marketing techniques:
[i:7a5400eeb4]Post hoc ergo propter hoc[/i:7a5400eeb4] [/quote:7a5400eeb4]
Ah yes, "After this - therefore [i:7a5400eeb4]because[/i:7a5400eeb4] of this." e.g. "After taking this diet pill, mary lost 50 pounds." (not metnioning that Mary started going to the gym, and this weight loss took a year.)

 

[kceaster]

[quote:6246bbd28b][i:6246bbd28b]Ad Vericumdium[/i:6246bbd28b]

The appeal to Authority, be it in the form of tradition, popular opinion, the opinion of a famous person etc. e.g. "But Calvin said..." or "but the WCF says" or "but all Reformed people know..."[/quote:6246bbd28b]

It should be noted that there are appeals to authority that are not fallacious. If the authority is considered an expert witness or testimony, appeal to such is well within the boundaries.

If we threw this one out, the court system would be in big trouble, logically speaking.

So, in terms of theological debate and argument, appeal to authority is not always fallacious if the authority is agreed upon beforehand to be an expert testimony. Calvin and the WCF should certainly fall under two instances of rightful appeal to authority as long as no one is trying to bind the conscience. We all know that only Scripture can do that.

In Christ,

KC

 

[TheonomyNZ]

[quote:f0a562e5e7][i:f0a562e5e7]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:f0a562e5e7]
So, in terms of theological debate and argument, appeal to authority is not always fallacious if the authority is agreed upon beforehand to be an expert testimony.[/quote:f0a562e5e7]
Especially in theology, the opinion of an expert does not [i:f0a562e5e7]establish[/i:f0a562e5e7] a proposition. To act otherwise is indeed to commit this fallacy.

[quote:f0a562e5e7]Calvin and the WCF should certainly fall under two instances of rightful appeal to authority as long as no one is trying to bind the conscience. We all know that only Scripture can do that.[/quote:f0a562e5e7]If we are trying to establish the truth of a piece of doctrine that teh WCF touches on, then it plainly [i:f0a562e5e7][b:f0a562e5e7]is[/b:f0a562e5e7][/i:f0a562e5e7] a fallacious appeal to authority if we cite the WCF to prove our point. And if we are not trying to bind the conscience by trying to prove a theological point, then what are we trying to do? Tickle the fancy?

 

[kceaster]

[quote:377905b7f4]Especially in theology, the opinion of an expert does not [i:377905b7f4]establish[/i:377905b7f4] a proposition. To act otherwise is indeed to commit this fallacy.[/quote:377905b7f4]

If you were going to try a case in the church courts, and the case involved the denial that Christ was the Son of God, would you not use Scripture as an appeal to authority? Further, would you not use the example of the Arian heresy as an appeal to authority?

Go a bit further. If you are trying to prove a point of covenantal theology, would you appeal to a dispensationalist?

I am not sure I know what you mean when you say that the opinion of an expert does not establish a proposition. The US Census Bureau may be cited to make an argument for limiting the amount of illegal immigration that goes on in the US. Their numbers are authoritative and stating a premise based upon their census taking is not fallacious.

Just because you appeal to authority does not make the proposition true. But one can appeal to authority in a valid argument. The argument is valid if they have chosen the correct authority to back up their conclusion. That does not mean their conclusion is true, it simply means that their argument is valid. Pick up any logic text and it will say the same thing. There, I just used logic texts as an appeal to authority.

[quote:377905b7f4]If we are trying to establish the truth of a piece of doctrine that teh WCF touches on, then it plainly [i:377905b7f4][b:377905b7f4]is[/b:377905b7f4][/i:377905b7f4] a fallacious appeal to authority if we cite the WCF to prove our point. And if we are not trying to bind the conscience by trying to prove a theological point, then what are we trying to do? Tickle the fancy? [/quote:377905b7f4]

First, the WCF is a summary statement of what the Bible teaches according to the Westminster Assembly. Without the Scriptures, the WCF has no basis whatever to make the statements that it does. So, to appeal to the WCF on a point of doctrine is to appeal to what the Bible teaches on that subject according to the Westminster Assembly.

If we argue a point of doctrine, I can quote the Westminster interpretation as an appeal to authority, but only if we have agreed beforehand that it is a proper authority. On this list, we have all agreed that the WCF is a proper authority along with the restatement of it in the 1689 LBCF. Both of these are summary statements of what the Bible teaches. If we cannot agree, even with our appeals to authority to them, then we must allow the Scriptures to be the final arbiter. In the case of the Scriptures, it is always an appeal to authority to use them. And, as both of the confessions aforementioned teach, the Scripture is the Supreme and final authority in all controversies of religion.

If it is indeed a fallacy to appeal to the WCF on points of doctrine it touches on, then you need to inform the General Assemblies of both the PCA and the OPC, that they have been arguing fallaciously from their inception.

Further, when I say that we may not bind the conscience with the WCF, I mean that we may not force strict subscription on all people. Clearly, Presbyteries, Pastors, and Sessions need to subscribe to the WCF if they have taken their vows within a PCA or an OPC. Once they do, their conscience is bound to it by their vow. If they, because of matters of conscience, wish to take exception, it is noted when they take their vow. However, to make exceptions after someone has made their vow is the breaking of that vow and discipline should be enforced.

In Christ,

KC

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Thankyou all for the helpful definitions. Please keep them coming if you have more. KC and ThNZ your points on authority are important but I think it's starting to move beyond the scope of Philosophy 101. Perhaps we can save it for Philosophy 102
We have some fine definitions and examples here of fallacious arguments. But what about the valid or non-falacious arguments? Do we have names and brief examples for those?

 

[TheonomyNZ]

[quote:a809dc0096][i:a809dc0096]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:a809dc0096]
If you were going to try a case in the church courts, and the case involved the denial that Christ was the Son of God, would you not use Scripture as an appeal to authority?[/quote:a809dc0096]Yes, becasue [i:a809dc0096]sola scriptura[/i:a809dc0096] is a doctrine that we share in common. Scripture alone is an infallible authority on matters of faith.

[quote:a809dc0096]Further, would you not use the example of the Arian heresy as an appeal to authority?[/quote:a809dc0096]Well now we're deviating away from the question of logic. Appealing to the way the church responded to the Arian heresy could easily establish an answer to the question of [i:a809dc0096]orthodoxy[/i:a809dc0096], but not of truth. I believe orhtodoxy and truth tend to conincide, but they are not the same by definition.

[quote:a809dc0096]Go a bit further. If you are trying to prove a point of covenantal theology, would you appeal to a dispensationalist?[/quote:a809dc0096]Of course not. But neither would the dispensationalist theologian be willing to accept the conclusion of a covemnant theologian as evidence. in each case in order to successfully conduct the debate, you'd have to appeal to an authority that oth sides hold in common - scripture, or at very least you'd need to examine the [i:a809dc0096]arguments[/i:a809dc0096] used by expers on each side. That's different from appealing tot he conclusions of theologians on both sides and trusting them as authorities.

[quote:a809dc0096]The US Census Bureau may be cited to make an argument for limiting the amount of illegal immigration that goes on in the US. Their numbers are authoritative and stating a premise based upon their census taking is not fallacious.[/quote:a809dc0096] The comparison is a stretch, since mathematical data like that is not in dispute, and nor is the fact that they [i:a809dc0096]have[/i:a809dc0096] the data a matter of expertise.

[quote:a809dc0096]Pick up any logic text and it will say the same thing. There, I just used logic texts as an appeal to authority.[/quote:a809dc0096]It is best to resist the temptation of assuming that if I disagree with you it is because I am an unread man. The fallacy that I identified - the appeal to authority, is also present in the textbooks you vaguely refer to. My point is that unless you opponent already grants the authority of the authority you cite, your argument will be fallacious by commiting the [i:a809dc0096]ad verecundium[/i:a809dc0096] fallacy, and essentially begging the question (e.g. "I can show Calvinism is true - See? CALVIN believed it so there!&quot

[quote:a809dc0096]So, to appeal to the WCF on a point of doctrine is to appeal to what the Bible teaches on that subject according to the Westminster Assembly.[/quote:a809dc0096]Right.

[quote:a809dc0096]If we argue a point of doctrine, I can quote the Westminster interpretation as an appeal to authority, but only if we have agreed beforehand that it is a proper authority.[/quote:a809dc0096]Bingo. that's my point in a nutshell, and precisely there is the rub.
[quote:a809dc0096]On this list, we have all agreed that the WCF is a proper authority along with the restatement of it in the 1689 LBCF.[/quote:a809dc0096]I do not believe that every word of the WCF is true. If an issue comes up where I believe that the WCF is in error, and you respond by citing the WCF's own statement as evidence of the truth of the doctrine in question, then whether you might think so or not, your appeal to authority will be fallacious.

In the case of the Scriptures, it is always an appeal to authority to use them.[/quoted]Granted. As you are already aware, I've never said we can never appeal to authortiy

[quote:a809dc0096]If it is indeed a fallacy to appeal to the WCF on points of doctrine it touches on, then you need to inform the General Assemblies of both the PCA and the OPC, that they have been arguing fallaciously from their inception.[/quote:a809dc0096]I think you err at this point. Neither the PCA nor the OPC would ever say that if the WCF says something then it is true. My claim was (and still is) that to appeal to the WCF in order to establish the truth of that doctrine to convince somebody who does not accept that the doctrine is biblical is fallacious. You might be able to prove that the other person is in conflict with the WCF - and they might have to concede that point. But obviously they will not have to thereby concede that their doctrinal position is false.

I hope my position will be clearer to you now.

Glenn Peoples

 

[TheonomyNZ]

[quote:7c21741312][i:7c21741312]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:7c21741312]
Thankyou all for the helpful definitions. Please keep them coming if you have more. KC and ThNZ your points on authority are important but I think it's starting to move beyond the scope of Philosophy 101. Perhaps we can save it for Philosophy 102
We have some fine definitions and examples here of fallacious arguments. But what about the valid or non-falacious arguments? Do we have names and brief examples for those? [/quote:7c21741312]Sorry.... I posted my last post before reading all the messages so there's another one now.... Back to Philosophy 101!

 

[JohnV]

These are all nice, but they are not necessarily primary consideratons for Philosophy 101. Rather, these mostly belong to the area of reasoning and debate. Philosophy deals more with the unity of truth, and its consequences. After all, it is from the notion of the Unity of Truth that we get the laws of logic, or better put, the Rules of Thought.

What we have been referring to so far is mostly the Laws of Inference, which springs out the the Laws of Logic. The Rule of Thought, which is the same three axioms as the Law of Logic, are these three:
[list:b387056cb9]1. identity - a thing is what it is;
2. no two propositons can contradict, in reference to the same thing;
3. there can be no third or intermediary proposition that can interpose in a contradiction.[/list:u:b387056cb9]
Or, to say it in an easier way, truth is perfectly consistent.

These are more fundamental than the laws of inference. And there is a limitation to the laws of inference that needs to be borne in mind: the validity of an argument does not always refer to its truth or falseness, but just to its validity as an argument in the formal sense. That is, is it formed as an argument properly?

It is interesting that one of the most important valid arguments that we have is also a Biblical one. But because the premises are true, the consequent must also therefore be true, and is not just a valid argument but comes to a true concluding statement: if the Bible speaks only truth, and if it is true about what it says about the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, That God is one, yet that each has attruted to them apart the characteristics of the Godhead, then God is a Trinity.

 

[JohnV]

Here are my basics for Philosphy 101, for what it's worth.

In the thread about Anselm's Ontological Argument I mentioned the three ways that man knows, that it is more than just from reasoning. Usually reasoning is used after a truth is thought of, as a theory, and then runs the gamut of seeking its truth. We also use our judgment and our ideas to find truth. Most of us don't have all our ducks in a row, syllogistically speaking, before we know that a propositon is indeed true. Some things are proven true long before our logicians get a hold of it. I think the gospel of John is a good example of that, if not the whole Bible as well. But especially in John we read those singular words, "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe." in a book that is about seeing and believing, so that what has been written may be believed and embraced. That's because no logician can stand in the way of the evidence; and the eleven saw with their own eyes the evidence, and they touched and handled it, and they bore witness to it.

But we also have the same sort of thing in our day. A person can be found guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt, if there are two or three witnesses who bear testimony that a person has commited the crime for which he stands accused. There is no syllogism in that way of getting at the truth.

So we have these three ways of grasping truth: percept (experiencing), concept (idea), and precept (teaching). But these, you should note, are in reverse order of the importance of the things they pertain to. The most important things are taught us, the lesser things spring from our ideas, and the least of them from our experience. Usually, not always.

[Edited on 1-24-2004 by JohnV]

 

[bigheavyq]

please define:
straw man
red herring

 

[bigheavyq]

straw man: using Stone, Lindsey, or Hagee's views to defeat dispensationalism; or using th word of faith's stance as why you shouldn't be charismatic

what's a red herring example that we theologians frequently use?

 

[bigheavyq]

Originally posted by Paul manata
red herring example: Romans 9 speaks of the doctrine of predestination, therefore you should believe it. "Well, men would not be free and would be robots." Then you start debating "freedom of will" and not the doctrine of predestination.

The Bible tells us to baptize our children, (insert verses). "Well, then you should hold to paedocommunion."

thanks

 

[RamistThomist]

What does "Cooking the evidence" mean?

 

[bigheavyq]

cooking the evidence is something the liberals and news media is very good at. ie the number of homeless is 5 million when its not even 500,000.
back in 86, CBS blew up a car in south africa near a black area and then reported that it was the apartheid government. their are numberous examples of cooking the evidence.