♦ ficino ♦ Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Sounds like strawman and equivocation to me. I've heard of Polanyi but haven't read him. I did read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn tries to apply the insights of Karl Popper to the way scientists work. Popper urged (The Logic of Scientific Discovery) that a scientific theory can't, strictly speaking, be verified, because there always might be a counterexample that no one has yet noticed. But they can be falsified and then are replaced by theories that better explain the phenomena and better predict outcomes of future research. The more a theory does this, the more it "proves its mettle," in Popper's words. It's a misunderstanding of Kuhn to imagine that his book puts scientific theories and religious propositions on the same level, because Kuhn follows Popper in acknowledging that a scientific theory can be falsified. How the hell does anyone falsify a religious proposition? so Polanyi will be equivocating if he uses the same terms with different senses in different parts of his argument. I'd guess he has to do this when he comes to comparing how scientists test out truth claims with how religionists test them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 Would you say that there is a confirmation bias going on in the passage I quoted? That's possibly going on, but TBH, anyone who equivocates religion and science is not being self deceptive IMO, they are being wildly disingenuous. If I had to guess, the guy wants religion to have a seat at the intellectual table and is willing to bend reality to get it there. I'd need a lot more background info to be sure, so just call this a gut instinct at this point. Do you kind of understand now why I'm making such a big deal out of understanding logical fallacies? That passage came from my textbook for my next unit, Intro to Sociology. This is not the only example I have found so far in my browsing of it regarding suspicious arguments. If I'm going to challenge sources like Kuhn, I'm going to have to make sure my arguments are really sound. The essay for this subject is worth 40% of my overall mark. I remember in my last unit a comment being made regarding the conflict between science and sociology, and I can really appreciate that conflict now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 Can I just say right now that I am so glad I have you guys to help me through this. I've got a feeling I'm going to end up being rather critical through this next subject. But I can't just blindly go along with the flow anymore. I can't just blindly accept what someone tells me now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 "The claim that science deals with objective truth in a way that religion cannot has been called into question by writers such as Michael Polyani (1958), who argue that both science and religion are belief systems that operate according to an internal set of rules. A belief system is an interrelated set of beliefs and ideas that helps people to make sense of, and to interpret, their world. Within the system, logic and rational argument prevail, but the rules themselves are not open to external scrutiny. Instead, they are legitimated with reference to the other components-in other words, a circular logic applies. Their claim to truth is accompanied by a refusal to accept the validity of alternative belief systems based on different premises. They are therefore closed systems of knowledge that are supported by a community of believers, in much the same way as religion is. It is the commitment of the believers to the system that supports it, rather than any external criteria of validity. Equivocation definitely and possible strawman depending on context. For is arguement to make sense, he would have to prove that religion operates on the same basic principals as science. Evidence shows that this is not the case. Polyani's arguments about the conceptual similarities between science and religion were strengthened by the work of Thomas Kuhn (1962), who documented the way in which scientific knowledge is socially constructed. Kuhn points out that scientists are not objective but become attached to their theories to the extent that they ignore or play down evidence that contradicts them. Another strawmen, and it sounds a bit like. I know you are but what am I. And he has to show how science is a form of confirmation bias, for his argument to have any value. He is creating his own definition of what is scientific as far as I can see. They operate within a framework that lays out the 'rules of the game' and is accepted as a 'given' rather than being open to scrutiny. Kuhn uses the term 'paradigm' to refer to these ground rules that scientists operate within. Their commitment to their paradigm means that, instead of objectively assessing the 'facts', scientists operate within a closed frame of reference and try to fit the data within this. Science therefore has its dogmas in much the same way as religion does. Methodology is not the same as confirmation bias. Methods of knowing are not a free for all. Would he say the same thing about logical absolutes? The author just simply missed the point. I suspect he is trying to make a argument, that one has to prove something like methodological naturalism, to use it, when really by track record it has earned its spot as a presupposition. To point it out by contradiction, if one to were not use what is commonly known as "scientific principals" one would have to entertain still things like bipolar disorder being caused by evil spirits. Science's claim to being an open system of knowledge has also been challenged. Like religion, science has its community of experts possessing specialised knowledge and language that can be understood only by them. Membership of the community is highly selective, so that it is akin to an exclusive club that is not open to outsiders. Does elitism take away from accuracy? The last I checked if, the arguement from authority fallacy is valid, then the inverse should be the case. Authority does not imply in-correctness. Writers such as Polyani and Kuhn agreed with Berger and Luckmann that all knowledge- even scientific knowledge- is socially constructed. It is legitimated according to the prevailing cultural conceptions and is therefore subject to the problem of relativity. From this perspective scientific 'certainty' is diminished and instead takes its place alongside other belief systems that are used to interpret and make sense of the world. Both systems lay claim to the truth, but their means of arriving at it are different. There are also strands within Western culture that bring science and religion closer together- for example, some New Age religions use scientific knowledge to explain religious phenomena and to enhance religious experiences (Hess 1993)." Relativism is only a problem, if you can't establish fact. To follow along with the example I gave about bipolar disorder. If they are correct, then one would have to say things about the world are true that are patently absurd. Like, its of equal value to say, bipolar can be treated by prayer and incantation as it is to say it can be treated by lithium. That is relativism of the kind they are arguing. But unlike they seem willing to admit, we can have proof that lithium works to treat manic depression. We can tell that prayer doesn't. Its the same kind of thing with even things like evolution. Science works better at finding out those sorts of things. Religion leaves us in muck and bad rationalization. Now, here's my issue with this excerpt. I have a suspicion that there has been quite a stretch to make certain conclusions, such as that religion and science are one and the same. In the last paragraph, I think there is a bandwagon fallacy there. I think science has been grossly misrepresented elsewhere in the quote, but I cannot say for sure exactly how or why. I can spot that this excerpt has its basis in post-modernist philosophy, due to how disparaging it is of science. Unfortunately, however, post-modernism in and of itself is not a fallacy. That being said, though, I do think it was dishonest not to identify the prevailing philosophy that led to the way in which this excerpt was written. But that's pretty much it. I can tell something stinks here, but I'm having trouble identifying it and sorting through the BS in order to form an informed opinion in my own mind about this passage. I am not a expert, but the people here, seem to have a failing in understanding the methodology of science and the value of the scientific method. It can do things that religion can't. And if there arguing that there are both ways of understanding truth, fine if you only add the caveat of, religion tries to understand things science can't, like about the meaning of life and so on. But to say, that science and religion are totally equal and same in intend and value is insane. Wow, thanks for the break-down, Valk. What did you think of the bit that I high-lighted in red, that, as I understand it, called the rules of logic a circular logic? That bit kind of make my mind feel as though it was short-circuiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Can I just say right now that I am so glad I have you guys to help me through this. I've got a feeling I'm going to end up being rather critical through this next subject. But I can't just blindly go along with the flow anymore. I can't just blindly accept what someone tells me now. Welcome to the world of the deconverted. Once you debunk religion, the same process makes you notice problems in other areas of life. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 I was going to call "strawman" on this one, because the guy starts out with a false conclusion (that science and religion both follow their own rules without external scrutiny), and then continues to attack the false conclusion. The conclusion is absurd, since the very nature of science is to use new information to see if the rules still hold up. Science by its very definition, is nothing but endless scrutinization of the rules to test their validity. That's kind of what I was thinking. Scientific theory and paradigms are open to being proven wrong, and scientists on principle generally encourage having their hypotheses retested. Throughout history, science has evolved in order to accept the changes. Religion, on the other hand, has a desire to remain static. For instance, just look at how hard religion is resisting the desire of society to embrace same-sex marriage. Islam struggles to keep women subjugated. The Jews and their Sabbath. The Catholic church struggling against the idea that the earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around. Society changes, science changes, but religion desires to remain the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 Sounds like strawman and equivocation to me. I've heard of Polanyi but haven't read him. I did read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn tries to apply the insights of Karl Popper to the way scientists work. Popper urged (The Logic of Scientific Discovery) that a scientific theory can't, strictly speaking, be verified, because there always might be a counterexample that no one has yet noticed. But they can be falsified and then are replaced by theories that better explain the phenomena and better predict outcomes of future research. The more a theory does this, the more it "proves its mettle," in Popper's words. It's a misunderstanding of Kuhn to imagine that his book puts scientific theories and religious propositions on the same level, because Kuhn follows Popper in acknowledging that a scientific theory can be falsified. How the hell does anyone falsify a religious proposition? so Polanyi will be equivocating if he uses the same terms with different senses in different parts of his argument. I'd guess he has to do this when he comes to comparing how scientists test out truth claims with how religionists test them. So, just to clarify, are you saying that Kuhn was not in agreeance with Polyani, or that he was? Or that Kuhn agreed with Popper, and then wrote something different in his book that Polyani agreed with? (I'm sorry, it's 5:30am, I'm a little tired). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 Can I just say right now that I am so glad I have you guys to help me through this. I've got a feeling I'm going to end up being rather critical through this next subject. But I can't just blindly go along with the flow anymore. I can't just blindly accept what someone tells me now. Welcome to the world of the deconverted. Once you debunk religion, the same process makes you notice problems in other areas of life. No shit. I never thought I'd see the day where I'd be more skeptic than my partner. I don't think he did, either, considering that when we first got together I remember telling him that all rocks had spirits and were living beings. Sixteen months later and here I am lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Wow, thanks for the break-down, Valk. What did you think of the bit that I high-lighted in red, that, as I understand it, called the rules of logic a circular logic? That bit kind of make my mind feel as though it was short-circuiting. He would be correct, if his understanding of the scientific method is correct. But he wrong on what he thinks the scientific method is. He is making a bad conclusion because he is basing his conclusion on a bad premise turned conclusion. In theory, the scientific method could be used to disprove the scientific method, if evidence was found to disprove its ability to be useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thought2Much Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Can I just say right now that I am so glad I have you guys to help me through this. I've got a feeling I'm going to end up being rather critical through this next subject. But I can't just blindly go along with the flow anymore. I can't just blindly accept what someone tells me now. Welcome to the world of the deconverted. Once you debunk religion, the same process makes you notice problems in other areas of life. This can be as much of a curse as it can be a blessing. It's sort of like having a superpower. And you'll find that you'll never, ever be able to just switch the damn thing off and not look at everything in your life with a critical eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 Can I just say right now that I am so glad I have you guys to help me through this. I've got a feeling I'm going to end up being rather critical through this next subject. But I can't just blindly go along with the flow anymore. I can't just blindly accept what someone tells me now. Welcome to the world of the deconverted. Once you debunk religion, the same process makes you notice problems in other areas of life. This can be as much of a curse as it can be a blessing. It's sort of like having a superpower. And you'll find that you'll never, ever be able to just switch the damn thing off and not look at everything in your life with a critical eye. That's why I'm planning on a career in academia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 Wow, thanks for the break-down, Valk. What did you think of the bit that I high-lighted in red, that, as I understand it, called the rules of logic a circular logic? That bit kind of make my mind feel as though it was short-circuiting. He would be correct, if his understanding of the scientific method is correct. But he wrong on what he thinks the scientific method is. He is making a bad conclusion because he is basing his conclusion on a bad premise turned conclusion. In theory, the scientific method could be used to disprove the scientific method, if evidence was found to disprove its ability to be useful. So part of not commiting a logical fallacy is starting with a sound premise, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Wow, thanks for the break-down, Valk. What did you think of the bit that I high-lighted in red, that, as I understand it, called the rules of logic a circular logic? That bit kind of make my mind feel as though it was short-circuiting. He would be correct, if his understanding of the scientific method is correct. But he wrong on what he thinks the scientific method is. He is making a bad conclusion because he is basing his conclusion on a bad premise turned conclusion. In theory, the scientific method could be used to disprove the scientific method, if evidence was found to disprove its ability to be useful. So part of not commiting a logical fallacy is starting with a sound premise, right? Yeah. Because, if there is a fallacy in a key point of your arguement, the arguement is fallacious. And if your premise leads to a fallacy it is a bad premise and the argument is also fallacious. This doesn't automatically mean the conclusion is false, it just means the arguement is a illogical one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 Wow, thanks for the break-down, Valk. What did you think of the bit that I high-lighted in red, that, as I understand it, called the rules of logic a circular logic? That bit kind of make my mind feel as though it was short-circuiting. He would be correct, if his understanding of the scientific method is correct. But he wrong on what he thinks the scientific method is. He is making a bad conclusion because he is basing his conclusion on a bad premise turned conclusion. In theory, the scientific method could be used to disprove the scientific method, if evidence was found to disprove its ability to be useful. So part of not commiting a logical fallacy is starting with a sound premise, right? Yeah. Because, if there is a fallacy in a key point of your arguement, the arguement is fallacious. And if your premise leads to a fallacy it is a bad premise and the argument is also fallacious. This doesn't automatically mean the conclusion is false, it just means the arguement is a illogical one. Ah, okay. I'll keep that in mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Can I just say right now that I am so glad I have you guys to help me through this. I've got a feeling I'm going to end up being rather critical through this next subject. But I can't just blindly go along with the flow anymore. I can't just blindly accept what someone tells me now. Welcome to the world of the deconverted. Once you debunk religion, the same process makes you notice problems in other areas of life. This can be as much of a curse as it can be a blessing. It's sort of like having a superpower. And you'll find that you'll never, ever be able to just switch the damn thing off and not look at everything in your life with a critical eye. Yup. It's turned me into a curmudgeon. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsRoper Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 I am so glad you started this thread Pudd. It's helping me too. I want to understand these things myself, so that when I am hearing/reading a bad argument I can explain exactly why it is bad. What I don't get is - why don't they teach us logic at a really young age? Wouldn't we all be better students of every subject if we got this stuff under our belt before we even go to college? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsRoper Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Pudd, I think you may like this article, How to Determine If A Controversial Statement Is Scientifically True: http://lifehacker.co...ntifically-true It's not about logical fallacies, but it discusses confirmation bias & good ways to weed through crappy science. d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galien Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 And sometimes an asshole is just an asshole is just an asshole I remember when I first came to ex-c every time someone said something someone would jump down their throat on the whole logical fallacy thing, almost as though no one is allowed to argue the way they like, but has to follow some absurd set of rules set down by those "who know better". People were like "you can't say that", to which I replied, "wanna bet"? I still think the whole premise is fucking hilarious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted June 21, 2012 Author Share Posted June 21, 2012 I am so glad you started this thread Pudd. It's helping me too. I want to understand these things myself, so that when I am hearing/reading a bad argument I can explain exactly why it is bad. What I don't get is - why don't they teach us logic at a really young age? Wouldn't we all be better students of every subject if we got this stuff under our belt before we even go to college? I'm wondering the same thing myself, DeanMen. I'd never even heard of logical fallacies until I deconverted. And yet we spend years writing essays with no way of actually knowing if the argument is sound. Wouldn't it be so much easier to write essays if you understood the rules of logical fallacies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted June 21, 2012 Author Share Posted June 21, 2012 Pudd, I think you may like this article, How to Determine If A Controversial Statement Is Scientifically True: http://lifehacker.co...ntifically-true It's not about logical fallacies, but it discusses confirmation bias & good ways to weed through crappy science. d Thanks for the article, DeanMen, I just finished reading it. I think it was quite good, really working over how to spot confirmation biases. My mum sent me an email recently, that seems to be going around. It claimed that if you got mugged at an ATM, to put your PIN in backwards and not only would the money still be spat out, but an alarm would be triggered at the police station and the cops would come. And just for added authenticity, this little tidbit was recently broadcast by CrimeStoppers. I couldn't believe it when I saw how many people mum sent that email to. The email was not an official email released by the police, had no contact details for verifying it, and not only that, could potentially put someone's life in danger if they were being mugged at an ATM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted June 21, 2012 Author Share Posted June 21, 2012 And sometimes an asshole is just an asshole is just an asshole I remember when I first came to ex-c every time someone said something someone would jump down their throat on the whole logical fallacy thing, almost as though no one is allowed to argue the way they like, but has to follow some absurd set of rules set down by those "who know better". People were like "you can't say that", to which I replied, "wanna bet"? I still think the whole premise is fucking hilarious The reason I want to learn logical fallacies is so that I can think better. There is so much false information out there these days, that I don't want to be misledby it. I like the idea of having an internal checklist for working out whether something is valid or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadedAtheist Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 I couldn't be bothered reading all the comments but I think I noticed you were looking to do a course. Since you're studying through Open Uni anyways (IIRC), you might be interested in doing their philosophy classes which cover this. Can provide links if you like, just couldn't be bothered searching atm as I'm getting ready to go out soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted June 21, 2012 Author Share Posted June 21, 2012 I couldn't be bothered reading all the comments but I think I noticed you were looking to do a course. Since you're studying through Open Uni anyways (IIRC), you might be interested in doing their philosophy classes which cover this. Can provide links if you like, just couldn't be bothered searching atm as I'm getting ready to go out soon. Sure, chuck the link at me Later, anyway, when you're not on your way out the door I didn't think they did them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadedAtheist Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Well, managed to find it since I am not in a rush to leave now. Scroll down just over halfway down this page to the philosophy section and check it out. The morality and the critical thinking subjects may interest you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted June 21, 2012 Author Share Posted June 21, 2012 Well, managed to find it since I am not in a rush to leave now. Scroll down just over halfway down this page to the philosophy section and check it out. The morality and the critical thinking subjects may interest you. Thanks, man I often have issues getting onto the Open Universities website on my laptop (regardless of whether I use Firefox or Explorer), so I tend to just phone them when I want to know something. I have the same problem with the Coles website. But the link worked I'm definitely going to sign up for the critical thinking unit. I've already done the prerequisite unit for it. Initially, I was going to get all of my required units out of the way before working on electives, but considering that the passage I quoted before came from a textbook for a required unit for my degree, I think it's more important that I do the critical thinking course first, even though it's an elective unit. I'll have to call them and change the unit again. They're going to love me lol. Oh well, at least I have the textbook for Sociology when I do do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts