Expelled!: Or the battle for evolution heats up the teacup again?

catbarf on 9/4/2008 at 18:55

Quote Posted by Ben Gunn

jay and cat. That post's aim was to show the absurdity of the logical conclusions and implications of the premise that science holds the key to everything. What's known in fancy latin reductio ad absurdum (or something like that), and it was clearly stated here-

So I really dont know why you were busting your heads over its meaning.

Now I have 2 days full of that worky worky stuff mentioned earlier so Ill get back to you later, cat.

And it absolutely was the very definition of a strawman, assigning an easily-refuted position to the opponent (If science is the way of learning things, obviously you must act exclusively on logic without emotion!), refuting it, and then acting as if that was our view all along.

Ben Gunn on 9/4/2008 at 19:58

No, cos I didnt say- nor meant to say- you hold those positions. The Reductio ad Absurdom is a nice technique that was very popular in India once (of course they didnt call it that)- They had a time (paralleled to our middle ages I think) when the rival phylosophical sects would play philosophical debate games, with clear rules and winners and losers. The RaA was a valid way for winning the game.

The point in RaA is taking the axiomes/premises/first assumptions of the opponent (in your case- science is the only way to know it all) and to show that there are absurd and ridiculous conclusions that are innevitably derived from them. Absurd and ridiculous in the opponent's eyes as well or it wouldnt work.

If Im not mistaken, a successfully conducted RaA meant an instant victory in the game. :p

Edit:- If I wrongly assigned to you the stand that science is the only ...etc. and you really dont hold that belief than you are right, Im strawmanning. But I dont think I did it. Luckily it's a forum and these things are easy to check.

Mingan on 9/4/2008 at 20:04

We're in India now? This game is so hard, I fear I can't keep up.

catbarf on 9/4/2008 at 20:08

If it's not a strawman, and you really aren't assigning that position to us- then what, exactly is your argument? That basing your entire life on mindless logic is bad? Thanks, I'm sure we never knew that.

Nicker on 9/4/2008 at 22:16

Quote Posted by Ben Gunn

The point in RaA is taking the axiomes/premises/first assumptions of the opponent (in your case- science is the only way to know it all) and to show that there are absurd and ridiculous conclusions that are innevitably derived rom them. Absurd and ridiculous in the opponent's eyes as well or it wouldnt work.

If Im not mistaken, a successfully conducted RaA meant an instant victory in the game.

You are very much mistaken - It would sure help if you had a clue about what RaA is, namely one of many forms of FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT. As used by you, it is not intended to reveal flaws in an opponent's points but to reduce them to nonsense by stretching them out of shape. And use of RaA is not a slam dunk winnar! It is grounds for disqualification.

Please read the contents of this link completely before posting again - (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html)

BTW - got a citation for that Indian semantic wrestling federation claim - especially that cheating was approved?

Ben Gunn on 9/4/2008 at 22:45

Quote Posted by Nicker

stuff

Who the fuck are you to order me around?
I started reading it- expectedly, from the most relevant link in there, and I stopped right after. Didnt see any point of going on:

Quote:

Reductio Ad Absurdum:
showing that your opponent's argument leads to some absurd conclusion. This is in general a reasonable and non-fallacious way to argue. If the issues are razor-sharp, it is a good way to completely destroy his argument. However, if the waters are a bit muddy, perhaps you will only succeed in showing that your opponent's argument does not apply in all cases, That is, using Reductio Ad Absurdum is sometimes using the Fallacy Of The General Rule. However, if you are faced with an argument that is poorly worded, or only lightly sketched, Reductio Ad Absurdum may be a good way of pointing out the holes. An example of why absurd conclusions are bad things:

Bertrand Russell, in a lecture on logic, mentioned that in the sense of material implication, a false proposition implies any proposition. A student raised his hand and said "In that case, given that 1 = 0, prove that you are the Pope". Russell immediately replied, "Add 1 to both sides of the equation: then we have 2 = 1. The set containing just me and the Pope has 2 members. But 2 = 1, so it has only 1 member; therefore, I am the Pope."

(The B's by me)

The question is now- did you read it, you idiot?
I dont have a clue?? Have you ever read a single book by one known WESTERN philosopher? You would realize most of them had respect for that kind of arguing, it's not some shady way of winning in an obscure, ancient game.

About linking you to info on that obscure, ancient Indian game (Tharka but Im probably misspelling, mis-remembering or both)- some of us are still reading BOOKS, you know, or going to hear lectures, ya know- and dont get all their info from the www.
I may be bothered to search it for you but the way I feel now chances are slim. I didnt care much for your style.

Edit: I see you edited your post and toned down your style a bit. So sorry for the "idiot" but Ill leave it there, I think you've earned it.

jay pettitt on 9/4/2008 at 23:01

Quote Posted by Ben Gunn

Oh. It's a shame this isn't India then.

Quote:

Edit:- If I wrongly assigned to you the stand that science is the only ...etc. and you really dont hold that belief than you are right, Im strawmanning. But I dont think I did it. Luckily it's a forum and these things are easy to check.

Indeed. Let's have a look.

From the ever venerable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) Wikipedia regarding the straw man fallacy:

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position)."

And here's (http://http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1721247#post1721247) your post

Quote:

Let's examine the stand expressed by some here that science is the only way to know YO and the only instrument that can give us the true idea about our place in "life, the universe and EVERYTHING":
Any phylosophical inquiry is just a pointless metaphysical babbel.
Music, poetry and art have nothing to teach us about ourselves (only science can)- hence they are merely for fun and only have an entertainment value. Why bother to make good art than?
Psychology? Till proven itself a true science, it is closer to a phylosophical highly speculative same-kind-of-babble. Next.
Eastern philosophies? Even worse than the western. What can those stupid Indians teach us? They didnt even discover electricity before we came to light their cities.

With all honesty I can't find those positions expressed in this thread by anyone at all and I can tell you they're not mine. Try comparing the views you attribute to me with (http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1721017#post1721017) my known views

I'm only surprised that your counter argument against the straw effigy you put up is so weak. option a) would seem to be quite an interesting line of investigation and why would you limit your response to just one option? You build a straw man and then succeed only in making it wobble a bit.

I'm guessing that under these conditions your claim of a glorious victory by Reductio Ad Absurdum is just a little suspect.

Now that we have established that your post looks like, smells like, and barks like a straw man - and that therefore Catbarf was most likely right to show holes in it rather than the 'wrong on many levels' that you protest perhaps we can move on?

Pyrian on 9/4/2008 at 23:07

I'm a big fan of Reductio ad Absurdum, but I have to say, using it in internet forums has not been very productive in my experience. It tends to basically sail completely over the head of the target audience. I don't know why some people find it hard to understand, the concept is very simple: if you can demonstrate that a given proposition leads logically to a categorically false conclusion, the given proposition then must be false. Apparently that's just too many steps for the general public, or even the relatively specific elitest public.

Note: I did not bother reading the discussion at hand, so I'm not going to render any judgment on whether Ben Gunn's particular use of RaA was valid.

Muzman on 9/4/2008 at 23:26

It stuns me how every other internet argument turns into debate club nerds trying to decide the match on 'falacy penalties'.
And isn't R.a.A les something that's hard to grasp and more something that's used pretty much constantly, albeit mostly as rhetoric and ridicule?

Epos Nix on 9/4/2008 at 23:39

jay pettitt-

You said: "and the religions we've relied on over the past few thousand years should be retired just like all the others have been." in your post that was linked.

Religion, being more than simply the Judeo-Christian view of creation, actually does have beneficial uses in the areas of self-discovery and inter-personal relations. Therefore, by retiring religion, you are also retiring these beneficial side products as well. While science may one day explain why or why not the Golden Rule, being a mainstay and central theme in many religions, works in society, isn't it just easier to intuitively trust such an idea and watch the benefits first hand?

In other words: the idea that science itself can replace every facet of religion is absurd.