Entry 1251, on 2010-12-08 at 12:20:43 (Rating 3, Skepticism)
I have recently realised what's wrong with many people and why their skills at establishing the truth and debating are so poor. It's the lack of knowledge of the laws of logic. I don't mean the technical laws covering formal logic and Boolean algebra. It's more the informal logical fallacies people should be aware of - so that they can recognise them in other people's arguments, and more importantly avoid using them themselves.
I have no formal training in this area. As a computer programmer I understand the more technical part of logic, like how to evaluate equations involving logical operators such as conjunction and negation, but I have only picked up the informal stuff through my more recent interest in skepticism.
So let's go through some of the more common logical fallacies people use in their arguments and, just to make it all very clear, I'll provide some real examples from recent discussions I have been involved with.
The first is "begging the question" and closely related errors such as "circular reasoning" and "special pleading". When people argue this way they seek to prove an argument by assuming that it's already self-evidently true, or by using a particular point to re-establish that same point, or to insist that certain subjects deserve special treatment (maybe a lower standard of proof) than others. So here's an example...
God must exist because he is the first cause of everything in the universe and because the universe exists it proves there must have been a creator: god. He cannot be studied by science because he is beyond the ability of science to explain.
How many questions are begged in that little argument then? Well first there is the assertion that everything must be created. We are asked to accept that without further proof even though there is good reason to believe that certain phenomena actually do happen without a cause. Then there is the idea that god is beyond the ability of science to explain. Is he? How do we know this? How would we know the difference between a god which we cannot study and explain and one that doesn't exist at all?
Claiming god cannot be explained by science is also a form of special pleading. If a scientist wanted the world to accept a new theory of gravitation he would have to provide scientific evidence and experimental proof of that theory. But the argument above claims that we don't need to do that for god because he is beyond science. Effectively we resort to a faith based approach meaning the standard of proof is not only less than that needed for other phenomena, it is effectively zero!
How do we know which subjects require a high standard of proof and which can be given the special privilege of not requiring such a standard? Are unicorns and fairies also beyond science's ability to explain? I guess they must be since science has failed to find any evidence of their existence!
Finally there is a circular argument there. How do we know god created everything? Because he is the ultimate creator. How do we know that? Just look around and you will see his creation everywhere. So god is the creator because of his creation and his creation exists because he's the creator. A magnificently fatuous argument, isn't it?
When people become trapped inside a belief system they do tend to take things for granted which means that begging the question is easy. They make certain assumptions but they never really question why and they cannot understand when other people don't accept the same assumptions as they do. But what's the best way to stop ourselves from using the same logical errors? It's actually quite easy...
To tell whether your belief system makes sense and whether you have unfortunately succumbed to the (all too easy) error of indulging in one of the fallacies I mentioned above just substitute a similar subject into the statement and make sure it's something you don't have a particular attachment to.
For example, if you use the fallacies mentioned above to support a belief in god then try something like the following: the Flying Spaghetti Monster must exist because his followers believe he is the first cause of everything and if he didn't exist then nothing would exist. Because he is supernatural and exists in a different dimension to ours the FSM is beyond what science can prove.
None of what I have said is internally inconsistent but it relies on the same logical fallacies that I used in the original argument. I don't think many people would take the argument about the FSM very seriously yet they take a basically identical argument about more traditional gods seriously. They shouldn't. If it's necessary to indulge in arguments which have been rejected for several thousand years by the best philosophers and logicians then there's clearly something wrong. Effectively these people are saying "we believe this just because we want to". But if that's the truth then why can't they just be honest enough to admit it?
There are no comments for this entry.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE