Advice to icontinent fallacy accusers

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can you stop using acronyms please - what is NPF - I presume F is fallacy, but N and P?

You'll have to take that up with Gordon. I have asked him which fallacy NPF is and am awaiting an answer.

[ProfessorDavey]

You'll have to take that up with Gordon. I have asked him which fallacy NPF is and am awaiting an answer.

But you have used it in your OP - why would you use an acronym when starting a thread if you don't know what it stands for.

Anyhow it doesn't really help if an acronym isn't defined, and I don't particular care why enlightens us - so, to anyone, please can someone tell me what NPF stands for and then perhaps I can engage in this discussion.

[Udayana]

Negative Proof Fallacy - specifically, that being unable to show that god does not exist does not prove that he does exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Negative Proof Fallacy - specifically, that being unable to show that god does not exist does not prove that he does exist.

There you go then, all in favour?

[ProfessorDavey]

Negative Proof Fallacy - specifically, that being unable to show that god does not exist does not prove that he does exist.

Thanks.

So this is the flip side of 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence'.

[Udayana]

Thanks.

So this is the flip side of 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence'.

Yes. In fact i think that is Vlad's original point actually ...  for anyone to be accused of use of the "NPF" they must be using it as a conclusive argument. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes. In fact i think that is Vlad's original point actually ...  for anyone to be accused of use of the "NPF" they must be using it as a conclusive argument.

Ok - kind of makes sense.

Personally I think both the NPF and 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence' are both correct. Which is why I describe myself as agnostic regarding knowledge or proof of the existence of god or gods. There is no evidence that they exist and they haven't been proved not to exist (which may be impossible anyhow) so we don't know that they exist or don't exist.

However the lack of evidence for their existence leads me to be an atheist - i.e. I do not believe in the existence of god or gods, and I therefore choose to live my life on an assumption that god or gods do not exist.

[SteveH]

More fallacy-spotting nerdery. Do you fallacy-hunters get off on this crap?

[ProfessorDavey]

More fallacy-spotting nerdery. Do you fallacy-hunters get off on this crap?

Not really - it is about adopting a robust and consistent approach.

If you don't accept NPF with regard to god (i.e. you think that there being no proof that god doesn't exist provides evidence that he/she/it does) then you are compelled, out of consistency, to apply the same standard to pixies, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, invisible floating teapots and invisible pink unicorns etc.

[Shaker]

More fallacy-spotting nerdery.

More anti-intellectual inferiority complex.

Do you fallacy-hunters get off on this crap?

I for one would much rather people didn't keep on churning out the same shitty arguments day in and day out, but if they insist on doing so (and they do) then I'm not going to wave them aside without comment. Why would I? That's saying poor reasoning and faulty thinking are things that get a free pass.

[Udayana]

More fallacy-spotting nerdery. Do you fallacy-hunters get off on this crap?

I do ... fallacies, paradoxes, infinite regressions, recursion, self-reference ... Cretan liars, Spanish barbers, tortoises that can't be caught and arrows that cannot fly. Alice's pills and visions of Xanadu. Dragons, the double helix and snakes consuming themselves. Scales and towers that never start or end. 

... Just a bit tiresome when people keep beating themselves with the same ones - hmm, maybe they are stuck in a loop?

[Rhiannon]

More fallacy-spotting nerdery. Do you fallacy-hunters get off on this crap?

It's important because a fallacy - a falsehood - can't be debated. It has no substance.

[wigginhall]

Yes, it seems odd to overlook fake arguments.   Why would I do that?  It's also rather insulting to the other person, or even patronizing, and defeats the point of a discussion.   If someone says 'I find X hard to believe, therefore God', am I supposed to grin manfully and move on?   

[SteveH]

More anti-intellectual inferiority complex.I for one would much rather people didn't keep on churning out the same shitty arguments day in and day out, but if they insist on doing so (and they do) then I'm not going to wave them aside without comment. Why would I? That's saying poor reasoning and faulty thinking are things that get a free pass.

I am perfectly capable of spotting dodgy logic, and do not have an inferiority complex. However, it is possible to counter a logically fallacious argument without showing off by spouting "petitio principii!", "No true Scotsman!", "Consequentialist fallacy!" "Post-hoc!", or whatever, which doesn't help, and just pisses off the poster you are replying to.

[wigginhall]

I am perfectly capable of spotting dodgy logic, and do not have an inferiority complex. However, it is possible to counter a logically fallacious argument without showing off by spouting "petitio principii!", "No true Scotsman!", "Consequentialist fallacy!" "Post-hoc!", or whatever, which doesn't help, and just pisses off the poster you are replying to.

Well, these are abbreviations.   I could set out the details of the no true Scotsman fallacy at length, with copious examples, but the phrase is a handy bookmark.   

[SteveH]

Well, these are abbreviations.   I could set out the details of the no true Scotsman fallacy at length, with copious examples, but the phrase is a handy bookmark.

Only if everyone likely to read the post understands what the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is. Since there are people on here who probably don't, you will need to explain it anyway, so naming it is just redundant, and looks like showing off.

[Shaker]

I am perfectly capable of spotting dodgy logic, and do not have an inferiority complex. However, it is possible to counter a logically fallacious argument without showing off by spouting "petitio principii!", "No true Scotsman!", "Consequentialist fallacy!" "Post-hoc!", or whatever, which doesn't help

It should help though. It should be the case that when presented with the reasons why you've just advanced a fallacious arguments, reasonable people would say "OK, fair enough; I was in the wrong and I hold my hands up to it." That however relies on people being both reasonable and possessed of some level of intellectual humility, and they're not as prevalent as they ought to be.

and just pisses off the poster you are replying to.

That would be their problem, wouldn't it?

[SteveH]

It should help though. It should be the case that when presented with the reasons why you've just advanced a fallacious arguments, reasonable people would say "OK, fair enough; I was in the wrong and I hold my hands up to it." That however relies on people being both reasonable and possessed of some level of intellectual humility, and they're not as prevalent as they ought to be.
That would be their problem, wouldn't it?

I meant the obsessive naming of the logical fallacies. You can show why the argument is fallacious without doing so. Read C.S.Lewis's popular works to see how it's done. You don't catch him writing "Circualr argument", "Appeal to consequences", etc. all the time, but he nails the fallacy effectively in his own words.

[Shaker]

Only if everyone likely to read the post understands what the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is. Since there are people on here who probably don't, you will need to explain it anyway, so naming it is just redundant, and looks like showing off.

And this is why certain things you've posted look like anti-intellectualism and, yes, an inferiority complex. The terms you mentioned in #38 mean something. They refer to specific things. They're not just scenery or pleasant but useless verbiage - they serve a purpose in identifying particular things. Whether it's medicine or meteorology or engineering or carpentry or baking or whatever, particular disciplines have their own nomenclature to refer to relevant things within it. Do you accuse those of 'polysyllabic nerdery' as well?

[wigginhall]

Only if everyone likely to read the post understands what the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is. Since there are people on here who probably don't, you will need to explain it anyway, so naming it is just redundant, and looks like showing off.

Well, that works the first time.  But on this forum, certain fake arguments such as Scotsman are trotted out again and again, and did I say, again.   It's almost like an obsesssion with fake arguments, so of course, respondents tend to abbreviate their response.   It would be barmy to give a full description of it every time.  Maybe we need a glossary somewhere but then Wiki already does that.

[SteveH]

And this is why certain things you've posted look like anti-intellectualism and, yes, an inferiority complex. The terms you mentioned in #38 mean something. They refer to specific things. They're not just scenery or pleasant but useless verbiage - they serve a purpose in identifying particular things. Whether it's medicine or meteorology or engineering or carpentry or baking or whatever, particular disciplines have their own nomenclature to refer to relevant things within it. Do you accuse those of 'polysyllabic nerdery' as well?

Yes, if they use arcane technical terms unnecessarily, when writing for a general audience.

[Shaker]

Well, that works the first time.  But on this forum, certain fake arguments such as Scotsman are trotted out again and again, and did I say, again.   It's almost like an obsesssion with fake arguments, so of course, respondents tend to abbreviate their response.   It would be barmy to give a full description of it every time.  Maybe we need a glossary somewhere

I have considered a (hopefully stickied) thread to that very purpose, in fact. Doubt if it would actually achieve anything, though.

[Rhiannon]

Only if everyone likely to read the post understands what the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is. Since there are people on here who probably don't, you will need to explain it anyway, so naming it is just redundant, and looks like showing off.

When I started posting here I didn't know what most of the terms you refer to meant, so I educated myself with a bit of googling. Why would anyone not want to do that and prefer something dumbed down? I don't always follow every argument. So what? My mind is being stretched.

[Shaker]

Yes, if they use arcane technical terms unnecessarily, when writing for a general audience.

The ones in question aren't particularly arcane and certainly not unnecessary, though. As for this forum I don't think it's a particularly general audience - we're all here because we're interested in the same subjects, and if you're discussing religion in anything other than the most facile and superficial way you're going to run into philosophical and scientific concepts and therefore terminology.

[Shaker]

When I started posting here I didn't know what most of the terms you refer to meant, so I educated myself with a bit of googling. Why would anyone not want to do that and prefer something dumbed down? I don't always follow every argument. So what? My mind is being stretched.

You see?

And she's a woman, so there's no excuse.