david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (03/03/84)
Rich Rosen complains on my use of logical terminology: > Apparently, David Norris either has recently read a book on formal logic or > has conversed with someone fluent in the subject. In either case, he has > emerged from the endeavor with a plethora of phrases designed to amaze and > astound us. What David apparently fails to realize is that use of formal > logic terminology does not in and of itself make an argument hold water. Rich is correct; I've been doing some study in formal logic. Which leads me to state that he has comitted a psychogenetic fallacy; that is, because he has discovered the reason behind my argument, the argument is invalid. Rich is correct in that the use of formal terminology does not make an argument hold water. But what is required is to demonstrate that the logical fallacy has not really been committed; i.e., show that you have not committed a "hasty generalization" by producing the evidence behind the claims that you have made. (Oh no! Someone on the net has endeavored to become more educated! Horrors! Quick, do something before he starts making sense. Poison the well! :-) > But, I guess one should remember that this comes from someone who simply holds > that the Bible and God are because they are, and would probably hold similar > mystical views of logic. :-) "Poisoning the Wells." The problem here is that, if I speak up on anything, I fall into a definition trap. Can you show that I believe that the Bible and God "are because they are?" I don't, for that would be begging the question (more useless terminology!). If so (which I doubt), can you then show that, because I hold such illogical views, that all of my thinking is therefore illogical (I have "mystical views of logic")? I will wait for your evidence to support your claim. The rest of Rich's article explains that the simple use of logical terminology does not make one a logician, and I agree. He accuses me of over-using the term "ad hominem." While this may be true, one has to think of the amount of this type of argument that really goes on in net.religion and ask if my overuse of the word is not totally unfounded. My use of logical terminology was (and is) an attempt to give an accepted definition for an argumental mistake, so that a logical reply may be given. An attack on my use of a phrase does nothing in the way of proving an argument. You'll have to show why my conclusion is unjustified, else it becomes a case of (you guessed it) ad hominem. At any rate, I'll stick to original conclusion: that the attack on Collins, and the subsequent conclusion about evangelical Christians and evangelists is a case of hasty generalization. I'm putting this to the test; I'd like to see the evidence which substantiates this claim and therefore proves my claim of hasty generalization invalid. -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (03/05/84)
I made it quite clear that my article on terminology had very little substance of interest to a group on religion. I admit that. I said that in the article. And I made it clear (at least I thought that I did) that my decrying your bogus use of logical terms in place of logical thought had no impact whatever on your point of view. The purpose of the article was to point out (most specifically to you!) that all this talk of logic hasn't been backed up by any actual logic. You have a point of view. You should feel at ease in expressing it. But when someone repeatedly asks you questions in response to your expressed ideas and you fail to provide a direct answer, how long can you expect them to NOT attack you in an ad hominem fashion. The "attacks" (by several people in this newsgroup) have apparently been intended as a form of prodding, sort of saying "Enough bull**** already!! Let's hear an answer!!". At least that's been my intention. The idea is not to call your opinions worthless, but to express a desire to see you back them up. THAT'S what logical discussion is all about. Resorting to calling my words "hasty generalizations" when the evidence to support my statements (and not the generalizations you assumed that I was making) were evident in Collins' own articles is pretty worthless. Though some people have come right out and called Collins a number of uncomplimentary things, the original point (in response to someone who criticized those who made jokes about Satin) was that Collins had an article to work from that spelled Satan correctly, he chose to use his spelling, and he has certainly shown that he is a follower of an evangelist. You claimed that I had no proof that he followed an evangelist, that we were assuming things about him based on his flagrant misspellings, when such things were clear. He clearly did not know how to spell the word Satan. This implies that he has not read the book that he believes in (if the word appears clearly in that book), and, in turn, that his evangelist friend does not require him to have read that book. Where's the generalizing? > (Oh no! Someone on the net has endeavored to become more educated! Horrors! > Quick, do something before he starts making sense. Poison the well! :-) Contrary to what you may believe, I applaud your foray into learning about logic (But I have no fears that you will "start making sense" :-). In fact, I hope that you apply it to your general concepts of religious thinking, and that you will get back to us with the result... Let's get back to discussing things. (Don't take the "making sense" remark too seriously. You set yourself up and I just couldn't resist.) -- Pardon me for breathing, which I never do anyway oh, god, I'm so depressed... Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr