• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Fallacies and the Ethical Application of "fault"

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,640
3,846
✟290,738.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Consider why so few people are ever inclined to admit they were wrong when proven so in these spaces.
The other thing I meant to mention with regard to the OP is that those who do not understand the complexity of psychological assent will become impatient. "Why haven't they changed their mind in the 20 minutes we've been talking?!" People never change their minds quickly, regardless of their intelligence. In fact it is an enormously complex and timebound process for someone to shift one of their fundamental positions. Once you know that you stop banging your head against the wall with impatience.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,667
2,858
45
San jacinto
✟203,700.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.
This is true for more than just religious believers. Though when a particular metaphysical belief is routinely treated as naive interpretation within a culture its proponants are often blind to the nature of their belief and think its just how things are.

It's rare that people take the time to try to sort out the problems that epistemics quickly must deal with. At some point we just have to accept a starting point and pray it's the right one.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,667
2,858
45
San jacinto
✟203,700.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Discussing fallacies is rarely going to make for profitable conversation, particularly attempting to highlight the fallacies of those who argue against us. Rhetoric is far more important in understanding discourse than logic, with the more profitable angle being to discuss the ethos and pathos, and leaving critical appraisal of the logos to our own and not our opponents.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
"Black legend"? No, not familiar.


This is a suggested historical exaggeration of cruelty of Spanish conquest at the height of it's empire.


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

Quite literally, the notion that having more than those around you can become a source of embarrassment.


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

I thought awhile back that perhaps there exists in people who believe in their superiority so strongly or for so long that they no longer feel they could validly criticize anyone but themselves or perhaps those of similar identity....and end up biased against themselves.

The two examples are possible manifestations.


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.

Hey, I did the same when I turned down the Washington internship. Honestly, 10k to go work for free in Washington? Imagine me being enthusiastic to go pretend to be charming to a pack of snakes for vague unwritten promises....and then imagine telling me that I get to pay for the privilege lol.

Why would you be inclined to assume that I've never considered this already, many times, Ana?

Probably because I don't recall you ever quoting anyone distasteful.

Or that sentence was an attempt to cover for potential implications of the following quote and not really meant about you at all lol.

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.

If that were the case I think the lies they're fed would suffice.

When I see extreme polarization on not only worldviews but on methodology.....

I see an unhealthy certainty. If not...doubt masked as certainty.

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

As the Chat Pile song says "Now that I think about it, its all been leading right here."


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

See? Common ground...even amongst polar opposites.

The point being...when you try to speak to the very smart, you at best only get a few listeners.

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

....what would winning look like here?

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

Yes. Come and see.



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

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

I try not to overcomplicate explanations but....I can come up with a lot. I don't even need to attribute any malice. No grand schemes. No deliberate malignant efforts.

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

As long as you can sufficiently convince your enemies that you're on their side...nobody needs to ever fear the red tide of violence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
This is true for more than just religious believers.

Sure...I wouldn't overuse it though.. Only when you don't understand the method in some significant way...not merely lack knowledge of the topic.


Though when a particular metaphysical belief is routinely treated as naive interpretation within a culture its proponants are often blind to the nature of their belief and think its just how things are.

I'm sure you can understand that though...we all can't see whatever we can't see.

It's rare that people take the time to try to sort out the problems that epistemics quickly must deal with. At some point we just have to accept a starting point and pray it's the right one.

Sure. If the concern is truth...don't cling too tightly to that starting point in case you need to let it go. If the concern is satisfaction or happiness....cling to it tightly and don't let it go.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,574
11,471
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,829.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

This is a suggested historical exaggeration of cruelty of Spanish conquest at the height of it's empire.
That's interesting. I genuinely hadn't yet run into this term in my Historiographical studies. I'll have to file it away as a foil for studying the historical effects of countercultural propaganda and stereotyping. Thanks for sharing it.
Quite literally, the notion that having more than those around you can become a source of embarrassment.
Only if those around me start thinking they really are defined by the term, "Proletariat." At least, that's my theoretical, knee-jerk assessment.


I thought awhile back that perhaps there exists in people who believe in their superiority so strongly or for so long that they no longer feel they could validly criticize anyone but themselves or perhaps those of similar identity....and end up biased against themselves.
There are people out there who, like Smaug, think their positions and views of the world are unassailable.

Some of those folks hold the certainty that they because ........ well, they're smart in one way or another.

And, sadly, others hold to their certainty because they're in need of the services of a good psychiatrist.
The two examples are possible manifestations.

Hey, I did the same when I turned down the Washington internship. Honestly, 10k to go work for free in Washington? Imagine me being enthusiastic to go pretend to be charming to a pack of snakes for vague unwritten promises....and then imagine telling me that I get to pay for the privilege lol.
I bet you have an interesting story to tell.
If that were the case I think the lies they're fed would suffice.

When I see extreme polarization on not only worldviews but on methodology.....

I see an unhealthy certainty. If not...doubt masked as certainty.
Yes, you're right. The sense of certainty a number of people have seems to run strongly in various political streams. On some level, I fully realize the troubles they've seen in life contribute to their feelings about when and where and how the pain of the world should be alleviated. Reasonableness in the face of life's frustrations is a difficult thing to achieve. Reasonableness itself, with the sobriety that it nurtures, isn't a common thing to acquire, and I think we both know this can be the case even when the chips do fall in one's own favor.
See? Common ground...even amongst polar opposites.

The point being...when you try to speak to the very smart, you at best only get a few listeners.
Of course that's the case. Christians have known----or should have known-----this would typically be the case at least since the time Paul strode atop Mars Hill in Athens and dared to drop a syllable or two.
....what would winning look like here?
For me, "winning" is when someone actually listens and considers. As I told a person over on another thread, the goal of interlocution isn't really about being the champ in a debate. It's about persuading another person to not only take into account some valid information you have, but to begin to loosen their grip on the ideas that they themselves have held so dearly as "truth."
Yes. Come and see.
I'd ask, "And what did you see??," but I'm not wanting to take this thread down a less than useful tangent.
I try not to overcomplicate explanations but....I can come up with a lot. I don't even need to attribute any malice. No grand schemes. No deliberate malignant efforts.

As long as you can sufficiently convince your enemies that you're on their side...nobody needs to ever fear the red tide of violence.

THESE DAYS, I'm constantly asking myself: what does it actually take to convince those who consider themselves to be my enemy that I'm working for their well-being?

I've found that the answer to this is that there's "something else going on and building in the world," something that no amount of student management classes at the universities, and no amount of books or textbooks on the psychology of human motivation, can actually account for and teach even teachers in the public realm how to compensate.

No, I think the world is finally becoming so complicated in the midst of its electronic unification that the old "factory" mentality of education can no longer manage the case load and no amount of "constructivist" models of education will be able to compensate.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,574
11,471
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,829.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.

Aw shucks, Ana. You're making me blush.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,574
11,471
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,829.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The other thing I meant to mention with regard to the OP is that those who do not understand the complexity of psychological assent will become impatient. "Why haven't they changed their mind in the 20 minutes we've been talking?!" People never change their minds quickly, regardless of their intelligence. In fact it is an enormously complex and timebound process for someone to shift one of their fundamental positions. Once you know that you stop banging your head against the wall with impatience.

For me, the most bothersome thing isn't that people won't change their minds at the drop of a hat because I dared to open my mouth. I very much understand why people hold to their own views and I don't expect anyone to let go of their own present views easily.

No, in short, it's their impudence and defaulting to trolling tactics that I find...........unappealing and unreasonable. And yes, I'll tend to throw a thousand apparent ad hominems at that behavior if and when it rears its ugly voice. I have zero tolerance for trolls, which is why I'm not a teacher, either in a school or in a church. It's not my calling.

The upshot is: I'm not going to drink the hemlock, either, even if people mistake me for "Chef Dave." 'cuz, I'm not him.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,574
11,471
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,829.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Discussing fallacies is rarely going to make for profitable conversation, particularly attempting to highlight the fallacies of those who argue against us. Rhetoric is far more important in understanding discourse than logic, with the more profitable angle being to discuss the ethos and pathos, and leaving critical appraisal of the logos to our own and not our opponents.

Yes, and I think C.S. Lewis generally agreed with your basic premise here about the use of rhetoric. I also know of another scholar whom I spoke with a decade ago who mirrored your point as well.

The thing is, rhetoric, like many other words, needs to have its various denotations and actual uses laid out for everyone to see and compare. It's one thing to hear rhetoric used in the hands of a virtuous and noble person; it's another when in the hands of a devil.

And I'll never be able to throw enough ad hominems at a devil....................
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Discussing fallacies is rarely going to make for profitable conversation, particularly attempting to highlight the fallacies of those who argue against us. Rhetoric is far more important in understanding discourse than logic, with the more profitable angle being to discuss the ethos and pathos, and leaving critical appraisal of the logos to our own and not our opponents.
And who enjoys learning who is more intelligent than themselves? I can either accept my limitations or become bitter towards someone who knows more.
That's interesting. I genuinely hadn't yet run into this term in my Historiographical studies. I'll have to file it away as a foil for studying the historical effects of countercultural propaganda and stereotyping. Thanks for sharing it.

I think it becomes innate. We tend to "look up" (aka build upward models of comparison on intersubjective and group levels)...for whatever reason (I'd still guess a boring answer of "fairness" underlying the moral model of any system).

When we believe we are making downward comparisons that are uncharitable and unforgiving....we are frequently misunderstood as "biased" or "racist" or "bigoted".

For example lol...

If I were to suggest that because the average adult male Guatemalan has the average equivalent education of a 4th grade student and doesn't speak English nor likely is he to learn it....importing millions of them illegally in a couple of years is a bad idea for many reasons, the main one being a net negative impact on economic prosperity....but also other things.

Now...even without checking my claims about the average adult male education and English fluency on the potential for net positive economic contributions in the US....how does that argument feel intuitively? Immoral? Unkind? Judgemental? Bigoted? Racist?

Yet if I were to throw far more vicious claims at those who one might imagine are in positions of authority or wealth or power....obviously those aren't only acceptable, but they're seen as entirely justifiable even if they're made from a position of total ignorance.

Whether this is ultimately a feature of Christian morality in certain cultures and it's vast influence, or an innate feature of mankind in general is something I'm unsure of....but what I am sure of is the pressures it creates in multicultural societies where assimilation is not necessary or expected.

Only if those around me start thinking they really are defined by the term, "Proletariat." At least, that's my theoretical, knee-jerk assessment.

I think 90% of those around you using the word proletariat conversationally don't have a clue what it means. I think that's why it was generally swapped with "oppressor/oppressed".

There are people out there who, like Smaug, think their positions and views of the world are unassailable.

I feel more like Gollum. I know what's precious to me. I know what I'm willing to do to keep or get it back. Jump right in the fire.


Some of those folks hold the certainty that they because ........ well, they're smart in one way or another.

And that's fair. Anyone smart enough to realize how smart they are should, inevitably, realize how little they know or could possibly understand....but that's a fleeting feeling, isn't it? We prefer simple answers....innately....so we adopt them against better judgment.


And, sadly, others hold to their certainty because they're in need of the services of a good psychiatrist.

Ok...I think that I've yet to run into those people lol. They tend to run or become silent. They need a crowd to avoid any serious examination...but alone...without the guardrails of polite society, forum moderation, to protect their ideas? C'mon.....

I remember the old internet lol. You would see the occasional goofball clinging to simplistic notions of complete self reliability and assurance in pure understanding of.....anything. They were chased off by people of average intellect (me!) and silenced themselves in shame or siloed themselves in group thought bubbles.

I bet you have an interesting story to tell.

Nope...well, I may have an interesting story, but I'm not really a story-teller...and can't hope to tell it in an accessible way. Same problem you seem to have.

Yes, you're right. The sense of certainty a number of people have seems to run strongly in various political streams. On some level, I fully realize the troubles they've seen in life contribute to their feelings about when and where and how the pain of the world should be alleviated. Reasonableness in the face of life's frustrations is a difficult thing to achieve. Reasonableness itself, with the sobriety that it nurtures, isn't a common thing to acquire, and I think we both know this can be the case even when the chips do fall in one's own favor.

See...the funny thing is, above, I took you to be suggesting that I'd have some interesting life experiences to relate. To me, those have become boring...so I considered you as the audience for an interesting story and decided upon a thematic question about what good might be found in the greatest evil and what bad might be found in the greatest good. A deeply philosophical and religious question. Then I decided I'm not the one to say it lol.

Of course that's the case. Christians have known----or should have known-----this would typically be the case at least since the time Paul strode atop Mars Hill in Athens and dared to drop a syllable or two.

How do you think that went down assuming of course, it went down? Obviously, the audience that gets captured is seeing the masterpiece, right? But Picasso didn't start off a master once he put pencil to paper....do you imagine Paul basically blowing it on the first few dozen attempts?

For me, "winning" is when someone actually listens and considers.

On here I've had two doubtful Christians thank me for "helping" them accept a non-religious viewpoint they now claimed to hold. Now, was I trying to make convincing arguments? Yes. Was I doing it for their benefit of understanding truth? No. In time, I began to wonder if I had helped in taking something that might have helped them through difficulties of life, or grief. I wondered if I had yanked them from helpful communities that would be a source of comfort at least and left them wandering into new communities that would simply use them or prey upon them. For what it's worth...I don't try to convince anyone from a standpoint of uncertainty anymore. What can I really know of Gods I've never known?

Doubts are fine, and I don't have a camp for anyone to join. I should have offered advice on what they were getting from their conviction, and what they would lose by abandoning it. What they stand to gain isn't obvious if it's simply a hole of wanting community without self regard. We aren't really supposed to be "doing life" alone. Those few amongst us who wander out into the unknown are often pushed by circumstances we don't see...and imagine greatness led to their deeds if they are recognized as admirable.


I'd ask, "And what did you see??," but I'm not wanting to take this thread down a less than useful tangent.

It's fine. I'm no religious scholar. I'd say revelations describes the collapse of a kind of "order" as the fearful and terrifying thing it is...and glorifying the birth of a new, and in the context, perfect "order"...and that's as general a lesson as I can give it. It's too easy write off as the ravings of lunatics. There's a primordial theme there that's almost subconscious and difficult to access.

Not really off topic imo. Maps well onto social collapse.

Or...you know, the ravings of madmen. I think you should ask yourself if you even want to stop collapse and if you think the communists are scary, take comfort that while they are more numerous and zealous than previously understood, they aren't very good at it. They can't see the obstacle right under their noses, have dogmatic views of power, and foolish understanding of needs. They only succeed long enough to become failures. They imagine that the square peg won't go into the round hole because of something wrong with the peg, or maybe the hole...but not themselves.

THESE DAYS, I'm constantly asking myself: what does it actually take to convince those who consider themselves to be my enemy that I'm working for their well-being?

If you lack the conviction that is only gained through ignorance to lead....

Then I'd propose that the only good is to serve any as best you can...and by this do good. Those who lead would need such help.


I've found that the answer to this is that there's "something else going on and building in the world," something that no amount of student management classes at the universities, and no amount of books or textbooks on the psychology of human motivation, can actually account for and teach even teachers in the public realm how to compensate.

No, I think the world is finally becoming so complicated in the midst of its electronic unification that the old "factory" mentality of education can no longer manage the case load and no amount of "constructivist" models of education will be able to compensate.

Oof...that's dark. Well...if I were king, emperor, or close enough to power to fix problems....

I'd return the focus to family. Absent good education, and gainful or meaningful employment, family will keep social bonds from complete deterioration. Raise wages at the bottom, depress costs at the top, manage growth to a trickle, reorient value along lines of necessity of labor not difficulty or innovation....then rebuild the educational system. Divide what must be public from what should be private. We wouldn't suffer me long...so whatever I do must be hard to undo after me. Essentially, I'd point out that we need garbagemen...doctors, nurses, teachers, farmers, police and the like....far more than financial speculators and value trading gamblers...and remove their toys. Trim away needless bureaucracy. Those I have to hurt are few and should be hurt all at once, those I am responsible to help are many and should be given what they need slowly to understand the continual good of my rule and by the time enough smart people understand what I've done, I'll be loved enough to not be executed.

But who wants to work that hard for those who don't understand? Let it collapse. Serve any seeking help...as best you can.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,667
2,858
45
San jacinto
✟203,700.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sure...I wouldn't overuse it though.. Only when you don't understand the method in some significant way...not merely lack knowledge of the topic.
Methodology can only take us so far. There's still an insurmountable gulf of things our methodical approaches can't investigate by the nature of the methods
I'm sure you can understand that though...we all can't see whatever we can't see.
Yes, though typically morals and emotions are far more central than raw data.
Sure. If the concern is truth...don't cling too tightly to that starting point in case you need to let it go. If the concern is satisfaction or happiness....cling to it tightly and don't let it go.
Seems to me it's not possible to have a loose grasp on the sorts of assumptions we're talking about, since they dictate what methods of inquiry we deem reliable for getting at truth. Or should I say Truth. Denying some of the assumptions would lead to silly questions like whether or not the truth of A=A is a matter of definition or a basic fact of reality.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,667
2,858
45
San jacinto
✟203,700.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, and I think C.S. Lewis generally agreed with your basic premise here about the use of rhetoric. I also know of another scholar whom I spoke with a decade ago who mirrored your point as well.

The thing is, rhetoric, like many other words, needs to have its various denotations and actual uses laid out for everyone to see and compare. It's one thing to hear rhetoric used in the hands of a virtuous and noble person; it's another when in the hands of a devil.

And I'll never be able to throw enough ad hominems at a devil....................
I agree there is value in working through various definitions, but the issue with dealing with logical structures and various aspects of fallacious reasoning is the true appeal of those kinds of arguments isn't in the logos, but in the pathos. We are far more often convinced by emotion rather than argumentation, and reason is far more often used how a lawyer would in defending a position than how a detective would looking for a solution. If it becomes about the logical structures, the argument is bound to end up unproductive. Posturing and tactics are far more beneficial, and wisdom is far more advantageous than knowledge.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,574
11,471
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,829.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I agree there is value in working through various definitions, but the issue with dealing with logical structures and various aspects of fallacious reasoning is the true appeal of those kinds of arguments isn't in the logos, but in the pathos. We are far more often convinced by emotion rather than argumentation, and reason is far more often used how a lawyer would in defending a position than how a detective would looking for a solution. If it becomes about the logical structures, the argument is bound to end up unproductive. Posturing and tactics are far more beneficial, and wisdom is far more advantageous than knowledge.

I disagree. I think it's different strokes for different folks. Some like Pathos. Some prioritize Ethos. And some rely upon Logos.

And I hate to say this, but it's a character flaw that I have: I really, really, really don't like people who have "zeal without knowledge."
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Fervent
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,667
2,858
45
San jacinto
✟203,700.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I disagree. I think it's different strokes for different folks. Some like Pathos. Some prioritize Ethos. And some rely upon Logos.
There's definitely variation, but I meant only to speak generally. Though I do see how it wouldn't come across that way, at any rate the art of persuasion extends beyond the rational elements involved. And as far as logos goes, it would seem to me the challenge there is that many are convinced that it is the logos they are concerned with but it is far more often a matter of pathos as echo chambers are sought out to add to the sense that what people believe "logically" is simply self-evident truth and anyone who believes anything else must be deluding themselves in some form or fashion. When an idea is popular, its popularity tends to be what most are persuaded by. It seems to me most people are lead by pathos, and their notions of ethos and logos flow from how the arguments feel to them rather than anything in the credentials or reasoning abilities involved.

Though again, this is a generalization not a claim that such a thing is universal. People who use arguments we feel good about are more likely to be regarded as being credible, and their reasoning is going to hold more weight with most people because it feels right. In fact, identifying fallacies often involves recognizing the pathos of the arguments presented because whether or not a fallacy has been committed is likely to depend on how we feel about the argument. Especially the most prominent fallacies like petitio principii or ad hominem.

But then again, my principal use of reason and logic is deconstruction rather than attempting to build a case for my beliefs on it.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The other thing I meant to mention with regard to the OP is that those who do not understand the complexity of psychological assent will become impatient. "Why haven't they changed their mind in the 20 minutes we've been talking?!"

This is true. Without authority or expertise to display....why trust anyone else's judgment innately?


People never change their minds quickly, regardless of their intelligence.

Eh....ok. Not on complex issues I agree. However I've seen emotional appeals and desire for in-group indentity move people pretty quickly.

Not to keep leaning on political examples but I saw "defund the police" proposed without any clear explanation of how that would work apart from "social workers" and it caught on rather quickly. On this forum....over maybe a month, people who were tentative at first openly claimed to want police defunded.

In fact it is an enormously complex and timebound process for someone to shift one of their fundamental positions. Once you know that you stop banging your head against the wall with impatience.

What is fundamental? Is it only identifiable by what seems counter intuitive?
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I disagree. I think it's different strokes for different folks. Some like Pathos. Some prioritize Ethos. And some rely upon Logos.

And I hate to say this, but it's a character flaw that I have: I really, really, really don't like people who have "zeal without knowledge."

Easiest method for identifying dogma is "how do you know"?

People can be extremely passionate about things they merely believe are happening...and have no clue how wrong they are. It could be a Jan 6th protester who unwittingly trusts sources with certain agendas.....could be BLM supporters who think they're marching for civil rights.

Up until 8 or so years ago...I'd never heard the phrase "wrong side of history" used as a vague threat by people who literally do not know any history and imagine there are "sides".

We moved from a political space that didn't require the confederate battle standard to be flown (tmk anyway) and people were attacking it...to a space where a gay pride flag was demanded to be flown. I recall the transition being noticed but the contrast really wasn't. Nobody went in elementary schools putting up confederate flags and insisting upon rewriting history.

All the while...an entire generation that doesn't read or do math well suddenly has opinions we should all consider.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,640
3,846
✟290,738.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I agree there is value in working through various definitions, but the issue with dealing with logical structures and various aspects of fallacious reasoning is the true appeal of those kinds of arguments isn't in the logos, but in the pathos. We are far more often convinced by emotion rather than argumentation, and reason is far more often used how a lawyer would in defending a position than how a detective would looking for a solution. If it becomes about the logical structures, the argument is bound to end up unproductive. Posturing and tactics are far more beneficial, and wisdom is far more advantageous than knowledge.
I also disagree. Wisdom is about logos. Rhetoric (in the best sense) is primarily about logos. Prioritizing rhetoric, ethos, pathos, "posturing," or "tactics" at the expense of logos looks to be a form of sophistry. Logos must form the foundation.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,667
2,858
45
San jacinto
✟203,700.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I also disagree. Wisdom is about logos. Rhetoric (in the best sense) is primarily about logos. Prioritizing rhetoric, ethos, pathos, "posturing," or "tactics" at the expense of logos looks to be a form of sophistry. Logos must form the foundation.
It's nothing more than recognizing that we are more than rational creatures. Debate and discussion is almost never won on the strength of the arguments. Wisdom is about knowing how to apply common ground, which is where any dispute over logos has to start. And common ground is dependent on pathos and ethos. We can play pretend and act as if our positions are purely intellectual, but they're not. Our emotions move us as often, if not more often, as logical constructs. We can't begin to discuss logos until we have locked in our ethos, and recognized the role of pathos in any discussion.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Seems to me it's not possible to have a loose grasp on the sorts of assumptions we're talking about, since they dictate what methods of inquiry we deem reliable for getting at truth.

Right...well you can either trust that I can change my view on consideration of new evidence or not. It's simply a suggestion because we're all susceptible to confirmation bias.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I also disagree. Wisdom is about logos. Rhetoric (in the best sense) is primarily about logos. Prioritizing rhetoric, ethos, pathos, "posturing," or "tactics" at the expense of logos looks to be a form of sophistry. Logos must form the foundation.

Eh...rhetoric is more about using these elements effectively to pursuade...not everyone gets the same capacity of reasoning nor capacity of empathy so using all elements effectively can make for the desired results.

As far as I understand, Cicero is the best place to start but if you aren't interested in weaving elements of those 3 concepts together for a 2 hour speech...Dale Carnegie's book is basically the blueprint of all of corporate America's managerial class up till the DEI stuff hit recently. It's not specifically about those elements of rhetoric, but it does offer a much more practical approach to their use. If you work close to management in corporate America...consider not reading it...unless you already don't believe anything your boss says.
 
Upvote 0