Fallacies and the Ethical Application of "fault"

[2PhiloVoid]

The following Ethically related chatpoint is a video featuring tech philosopher, Tom Chatfield, and it pertains to the misapplication of reasoning. sometimes causing us to assert fault, guilt or any other insinuated blameworthy attribution to, or upon, another person.

I know a number of folks take umbrage with me over my occasional citation of other people's qualifications to have a "right" to gripe. Yes, I do at times view others people's opinions as essentially void of worthy content because they haven't taken the time to learn details about a topic they seem to be rigidly and maybe even defiantly, assured about. And I'll be the first to admit that I often feel ambivalent about having to redress my critical view point. But even so. That doesn't give me the "right" to disvalue other people as fellow human beings.

Some of you please feel free to do me a favor, listen to Tom Chatfield's short video presentation on fallacious reasoning and let me know if you feel you've ever been disvalued by me and what specifically it was I said that genuinely demonstrates that I indeed failed to give you and your ideas the credence they deserve. None of us wants to be an abuser ............................

Thanks!

Understanding Fallacies and their Seductive Abuse of Reasoning - with Tom Chatfield​

​

​

For additional ethical bits to chew on in relation to this thread, please also see the following thread I made a while back:

When is personal criticism not an Ad Hominem Fallacy during debate?

For some reason or other, it seems the Ad Hominem "complaint" is dragged out quite often and applied to Christians who make character judgements about their interlocutors during debate. Because the identification of an ad hominem seems to have become a hobby for various atheists, I thought it'd...

www.christianforums.com

 

[Ana the Ist]

The following Ethically related chatpoint is a video featuring tech philosopher, Tom Chatfield, and it pertains to the misapplication of reasoning. sometimes causing us to assert fault, guilt or any other insinuated blameworthy attribution to, or upon, another person.

I know a number of folks take umbrage with me over my occasional citation of other people's qualifications to have a "right" to gripe. Yes, I do at times view others people's opinions as essentially void of worthy content because they haven't taken the time to learn details about a topic they seem to be rigidly and maybe even defiantly, assured about. And I'll be the first to admit that I often feel ambivalent about having to redress my critical view point. But even so. That doesn't give me the "right" to disvalue other people as fellow human beings.

Some of you please feel free to do me a favor, listen to Tom Chatfield's short video presentation on fallacious reasoning and let me know if you feel you've ever been disvalued by me and what specifically it was I said that genuinely demonstrates that I indeed failed to give you and your ideas the credence they deserve. None of us wants to be an abuser ............................

Thanks!

Understanding Fallacies and their Seductive Abuse of Reasoning - with Tom Chatfield​

​

​

For additional ethical bits to chew on in relation to this thread, please also see the following thread I made a while back:

When is personal criticism not an Ad Hominem Fallacy during debate?

For some reason or other, it seems the Ad Hominem "complaint" is dragged out quite often and applied to Christians who make character judgements about their interlocutors during debate. Because the identification of an ad hominem seems to have become a hobby for various atheists, I thought it'd...

www.christianforums.com

Uhhhh....before watching....I'm just going to toss a hail Mary into the WR in the endzone and suggest it's a conflation of responsibility and obligation knowingly accepted.

One explains what someone did (responsibility) and the other (accepted obligation) describes what someone knows they should be doing or have done.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well I was wayyyy off. I would remind Tom that since rational thinking is difficult....he will continue to see fallacious arguments (that doesn't make them incorrect, see fallacy of fallacy) but rather he should consider the way the audience approaches a topic and correctly dial in his rhetorical method for the audience.

If the goal is convincing. If the goal is being correct, by all means, stick with rationality....but it's unclear why you would argue with irrationally thinking people then.

Most political arguments from the left these days are strictly ad hominem and it hasn't stopped the left from adopting some very irrational beliefs. Apparently, some people are so easily shamed by their in-group the mere threat of being labeled as someone who disagrees slightly is enough to create conformity.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Many religious arguments get hung up on a distinction between knowing and believing which is tricky. A believer of a particular religion may say they know something to be true....and a believer of another religion or disbeliever is fair in examing the method by which one arrived at knowledge and not merely belief.

 

[zippy2006]

"Now why is this fallacious? Well, because it pretends that a potential conflict of interest is sufficient reason for totally disregarding anything that someone says."

This reminded me of an answer that Rowan Williams gave to a conference participant (link).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"Now why is this fallacious? Well, because it pretends that a potential conflict of interest is sufficient reason for totally disregarding anything that someone says."

This reminded me of an answer that Rowan Williams gave to a conference participant (link).

You may have to tell me the precise minute marks/segment you're referring to, Zippy, since I might not be honing in on your precise meaning.

At (1:42:40-1:43:03), I found something interesting that Williams says, even if I'm not a big fan of his, and it reinforces for me that with the permeation of an anti-Christ mindset in much of the modern world, there is an ever increasing disruption of what Williams is calling "mutual recognizability." This "mutual recognizably," from what I've gleaned in the study of World History since the onset of the Reformation and the Thirty Years War, has been continuously decimated again and again, broken down like a piece of celery under a chef's blade. ---------and it's not just among us Trinitarian Christians who have experienced this decimation. No, it increasingly cuts across all social levels and defines for itself more and more social divides, usually in the name of something called "Justice."

Obviously, you already know this.

With my current biblical outlook, I've come to see how my earlier interpretive intuitions about the Bible and the nature of the world are being born out and that, despite the naysayers, weren't far off the mark.

Where I failed in my accounting of it all was to remain open academically to all of the other possible counter-factuals which every other Tom, Dick and Harry has continuously asserted I must also take into account. I did so because I've typically attempted to maintain bilateral discussion and "mutual recognizability."

However, now, I'm realizing that, like the small, insignificant Bilbo Baggins that I am, I remain inescapably situated in a larger, wider world that we cannot possibly tame or change, and mutual recognizability is being flooded out, decade by decade.

None of us can argue with The Deep, and only Christ can subdue Tiamat or any Hobbesian Leviathan.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well I was wayyyy off. I would remind Tom that since rational thinking is difficult....he will continue to see fallacious arguments (that doesn't make them incorrect, see fallacy of fallacy) but rather he should consider the way the audience approaches a topic and correctly dial in his rhetorical method for the audience.

Sure. We're all supposed to keep our audience in mind. But somewhere in the mix is the ever present political mind that prompts people to employ subterfuge and sabotage rather than remaining open to reasonable receptivity.

You're right in saying we should correclty dial in, but I'm not under the impression that the lines of communication have become infected and correctly dialing in is no longer a special privilege, or in the capability, of the average citizen such as myself.

In other words, no matter how much civility or how much sugar and honey I pour on any one said proposition, it will be increasingly deflected. But such is a world that would rather swim in TikTok or atheistic Youtubes channels rather than critically thinking.

If the goal is convincing. If the goal is being correct, by all means, stick with rationality....but it's unclear why you would argue with irrationally thinking people then.

I think the days of convincing anyone for the purposes I have here on CF are now over------------and for the very reasons you've just stated.

The upshot is that it's beyond mere irrationality: no, I think the last several years have placed many people in states of psychosis so they can no longer process anything rational that they hear, especially where the Christian Faith is concerned.

Most political arguments from the left these days are strictly ad hominem and it hasn't stopped the left from adopting some very irrational beliefs. Apparently, some people are so easily shamed by their in-group the mere threat of being labeled as someone who disagrees slightly is enough to create conformity.

This is true. It's a sad day.

 

[zippy2006]

At (1:42:40-1:43:03), I found something interesting that Williams says

Yes - that was part of the answer I was talking about (my link was a timestamp which took you to that spot).

This "mutual recognizably," from what I've gleaned in the study of World History since the onset of the Reformation and the Thirty Years War, has been continuously decimated again and again, broken down like a piece of celery under a chef's blade. ---------and it's not just among us Trinitarian Christians who have experienced this decimation. No, it increasingly cuts across all social levels and defines for itself more and more social divides, usually in the name of something called "Justice."

Definitely.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes - that was part of the answer I was talking about (my link was a timestamp which took you to that spot).


Definitely.

You might have to PM me and tell me more precisely what you want me to take into consideration. I'm sure you have some good points to make.

 

[zippy2006]

You might have to PM me and tell me more precisely what you want me to take into consideration. I'm sure you have some good points to make.

I think you got the main part, namely the "Mutual recognizability." The rest was just riffing on that idea.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes - that was part of the answer I was talking about (my link was a timestamp which took you to that spot).

What is the other part of the answer you want to bring my attention to? Is it where Williams mentions the situation where we can try to find some common ground, even if it's minimal? Or is there some other point I'm missing?

 

[zippy2006]

What is the other part of the answer you want to bring my attention to? Is it where Williams mentions the situation where we can try to find some common ground, even if it's minimal? Or is there some other point I'm missing?

Yeah: mutual recognizability, common ground, building the conditions and attitudes that are willing to look for common ground, etc. Nothing too crazy. I was mostly just trying to post something in your thread given my limited time.

For me the trick (that I have never managed) is intellectual beneficence. "I am going to give this guy more credit than I think he deserves." "I am going to give this argument a closer read than it seems to deserve." Often doing that can have a lot of good and unintended benefits.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You may have to tell me the precise minute marks/segment you're referring to, Zippy, since I might not be honing in on your precise meaning.

At (1:42:40-1:43:03), I found something interesting that Williams says, even if I'm not a big fan of his, and it reinforces for me that with the permeation of an anti-Christ mindset in much of the modern world, there is an ever increasing disruption of what Williams is calling "mutual recognizability." This "mutual recognizably," from what I've gleaned in the study of World History since the onset of the Reformation and the Thirty Years War, has been continuously decimated again and again, broken down like a piece of celery under a chef's blade. ---------and it's not just among us Trinitarian Christians who have experienced this decimation. No, it increasingly cuts across all social levels and defines for itself more and more social divides, usually in the name of something called "Justice."

Are you at all familiar with the idea of a "black legend"? Or the "embarrassment of riches"?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure. We're all supposed to keep our audience in mind. But somewhere in the mix is the ever present political mind that prompts people to employ subterfuge and sabotage rather than remaining open to reasonable receptivity.

You're looking too hard.

In politics and advertising....always look in the box. The label is inherently deceptive.

You're right in saying we should correclty dial in, but I'm not under the impression that the lines of communication have become infected and correctly dialing in is no longer a special privilege, or in the capability, of the average citizen such as myself.

If you were perhaps more inclined to consider that no one is ever truly right about everything nor truly wrong about everything....then you can safely learn from any teacher you want, even if all you learn are thoughts to avoid.

With that in mind...

I think it was Goebbles who stated that propaganda should always aim for the dumbest possible audience with the simplest meaning.

I think he is, in this, correct. Brighter minds aren't immune to propaganda....but they are able to see through it faster....but they can easily be outnumbered and overwhelmed by then.

The only option is to play the game. Sad really.

In other words, no matter how much civility or how much sugar and honey I pour on any one said proposition, it will be increasingly deflected. But such is a world that would rather swim in TikTok or atheistic Youtubes channels rather than critically thinking.

They don't know how to think critically. They think critical thinking is synonymous with activism.

I think the days of convincing anyone for the purposes I have here on CF are now over------------and for the very reasons you've just stated.

It's hard to pinpoint exactly where it comes from.

Could be the nature of social media....could be the nature of us...could be an inherent problem of individual liberty lacking cultural cohesion. I'm unsure.

The upshot is that it's beyond mere irrationality: no, I think the last several years have placed many people in states of psychosis so they can no longer process anything rational that they hear, especially where the Christian Faith is concerned.

There certainly is a problem of influence.

This is true. It's a sad day.

@2PhiloVoid , sometimes opting out is the brave choice.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah: mutual recognizability, common ground, building the conditions and attitudes that are willing to look for common ground, etc. Nothing too crazy. I was mostly just trying to post something in your thread given my limited time.

For me the trick (that I have never managed) is intellectual beneficence. "I am going to give this guy more credit than I think he deserves." "I am going to give this argument a closer read than it seems to deserve." Often doing that can have a lot of good and unintended benefits.

But I already do all of that. The problem is people don't believe it. And I get some of their disbelief: I am outside the box.

It's actually these points that, as a former teacher, I would like to see everyone else put into practice, but we live in a polarized era where everyone wants to batten down the hatches and circle the wagons instead. None of which is really my fault.

Anyway, you make good points, brother Zippy. I'm not disagreeing with it. I'm just not taking the blame for anything that other people misperceive about how I've arrived at my own studied viewpoint.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are you at all familiar with the idea of a "black legend"? Or the "embarrassment of riches"?

"Black legend"? No, not familiar.

"Embarrassment of riches"? Yes, I've heard of it.

Have you heard of Bilbo Baggins and his encounter with Smaug at Lonely Mountain? [I mean this tongue in cheek-------]

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You're looking too hard.

In politics and advertising....always look in the box. The label is inherently deceptive.

Yes, you're right, and it's this very reason I fled from my immersion in commercial design and adverstising as a youth in high school.

If you were perhaps more inclined to consider that no one is ever truly right about everything nor truly wrong about everything....then you can safely learn from any teacher you want, even if all you learn are thoughts to avoid.

Why would you be inclined to assume that I've never considered this already, many times, Ana? Actually, these days, the problem isn't that no one is right about everything. This is conspicuously obvious, self-evident. If you look in my track history here on CF alone, you'll see that it's my beginning axiom.

No, the problem is that these days, no one cares what truth, history or reality are. No, people want appeased feelings.

And as the Queen song says, "They want all, and they want it now!"

With that in mind...

I think it was Goebbles who stated that propaganda should always aim for the dumbest possible audience with the simplest meaning.

Yes, Goebbles. And it was also Bonhoeffer who said, "Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than evil.”

I think he is, in this, correct. Brighter minds aren't immune to propaganda....but they are able to see through it faster....but they can easily be outnumbered and overwhelmed by then.

The only option is to play the game. Sad really.

Yeah. I've read Wittgenstein and studied way too much history and philosophy. I know the game is rigged. I can't win.

Have you ever read the book of Revelation slowly and carefully?

They don't know how to think critically. They think critical thinking is synonymous with activism.

Yes, and unfortunately, on this point, you are absolutely correct.

It's hard to pinpoint exactly where it comes from.

Could be the nature of social media....could be the nature of us...could be an inherent problem of individual liberty lacking cultural cohesion. I'm unsure.

Could be all of the above, all at once, and then some?

There certainly is a problem of influence.

@2PhiloVoid , sometimes opting out is the brave choice.

You speak wisdom on this point. I can't deny that.

 

[zippy2006]

But I already do all of that. The problem is people don't believe it. And I get some of their disbelief: I am outside the box.

Well, I suppose if it is not convincing to the interlocutor then it will fall on deaf ears. For example, if you think someone's utterance deserves an appraisal of '4', they think it deserves an appraisal of '6', and you give it an appraisal of '5', then although you are acting in a beneficent way they will claim that you have misjudged their utterance, and are being petty. That's probably pretty common. It's also never a linear scale.

For this reason one really does have to assess their interlocutor before engaging. But I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

For this reason one really does have to assess their interlocutor before engaging.

Yes, and the truth of what you've just said can't be overstated enough it seems, especially these days.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But I already do all of that. The problem is people don't believe it. And I get some of their disbelief: I am outside the box.

It's actually these points that, as a former teacher, I would like to see everyone else put into practice, but we live in a polarized era where everyone wants to batten down the hatches and circle the wagons instead. None of which is really my fault.

Anyway, you make good points, brother Zippy. I'm not disagreeing with it. I'm just not taking the blame for anything that other people misperceive about how I've arrived at my own studied viewpoint.

Consider why so few people are ever inclined to admit they were wrong when proven so in these spaces.

Is it because they genuinely don't believe they are wrong? I don't think so....I've run too many arguments into the ground to believe that. Nope. The stakes are very low. Nobody is face to face. Nobody is held accountable. Why admit you are wrong just because someone proved it if you can come back later on a different thread and make the same argument again....and hope for better results?

The positions people take tend to reflect some inner belief of themselves. It could be "I'm a Christian" or "I'm a supporter of X" or "I'm smart and know what I'm talking about".

In all cases...to admit error becomes a little blow to one's ego. If you are effectively anonymous and nobody can point out how badly your argument failed the last time you made it....why not simply make it again?

And who enjoys learning who is more intelligent than themselves? I can either accept my limitations or become bitter towards someone who knows more. I'm 100% certain @2PhiloVoid you know more philosophy than I. It's not likely to be close. If it is...you've fooled me entirely. I know another poster who understands computer programming better than I. I know another who definitely knows physics better than I.

I don't challenge you on any philosophical subject that I don't think I can...and I understand where my argument ends typically before I'd even bother.

But if we were discussing the facts of which philosopher said what....I'm far more confident in 98% of your answers than mine.