Proof of logic

I have no formal training in logic, and it's taken me quite a while to get through this thread. However, I'd like to take a stab at the particular case of special pleading that JetLeg seems to be making here.

A: Logic applies to everything material, i.e., things that we know about.
B: God is immaterial and unknowable.
C: Therefore, logic does not apply to God.

The trouble comes with the premise A. A only talks about the material and knowable. It states nothing about any properties of that which is unknowable. So it is a fallacious argument to state that logic would necessarily have nothing to do with God.

How'd I do?
 
drkitten said:
Um,... yes, that's right. Given that it's a fallacious argument, I would be extremely surprised if you could. [insert obligatory sarcastic comment]

The point is that if you have reason to accept that A is true, then you have no basis at all for accepting C. And similarly, if you have reason to believe C, then you have a direct counterexample to the potential truth of A.

"Special pleading" is an argument -- in the weakest possible sense of the term -- used to justify (again in the weakest possible sense of the term) holding two beliefs that even the speaker knows to be contradictory. If Barbara really feels that all murderers should be punished, without exception, then she herself must also face punishment. If she feels that her murder deserves some sort of special dispensation, then she must also accept that other murders might equally deserve dispensation. The fact that she does not, and continues to hold those opinions without adjustment is what makes it special pleading.

In this case, JetLag knows (has admitted) that feelings are a lousy basis to assess truth. But somehow he wants to hold out that his feelings are somehow different. He knows that that things that violate the fundamental semantics of English are impossible -- but wants to hold out somehow that God is exempt from this general rule. He knows that no rational person would buy into a statement on the simple grounds that the statement cannot be proven false. But, again, he wants to hold out for a special exception for God.

Special pleading. And it's a fallacy for exactly the reason you outlined. Either A is an oversimplification (most cats, but not all, have four legs) and we should be able to find evidence of that, or C is simply untrue.

Absent any evidence that there is actually a reason to believe that some feelings are epistemologically sound, then a rational obserer would believe that no feelings -- including JetLag's -- are worth a half-cup of warm spit, epistemologically speaking.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that if I hold the feelings of other people not to be a reliable criteria, I have to find a good reason to exclude myself from it, and the burden is on me? A special pleading for you, is excluding myself without finding a good enough reason?


By the way, if I say "My feelings are more true than the feelings of others because I feel so", would that be circular logic?
 
Do you have no clue how to teach yourself?

Or are you simply going to keep asking us to spoon-feed you a dollop of logic at a time? Which you will then ignore?
 
drkitten said:
Um,... yes, that's right. Given that it's a fallacious argument, I would be extremely surprised if you could. [insert obligatory sarcastic comment]

The point is that if you have reason to accept that A is true, then you have no basis at all for accepting C. And similarly, if you have reason to believe C, then you have a direct counterexample to the potential truth of A.

"Special pleading" is an argument -- in the weakest possible sense of the term -- used to justify (again in the weakest possible sense of the term) holding two beliefs that even the speaker knows to be contradictory. If Barbara really feels that all murderers should be punished, without exception, then she herself must also face punishment. If she feels that her murder deserves some sort of special dispensation, then she must also accept that other murders might equally deserve dispensation. The fact that she does not, and continues to hold those opinions without adjustment is what makes it special pleading.

In this case, JetLag knows (has admitted) that feelings are a lousy basis to assess truth. But somehow he wants to hold out that his feelings are somehow different. He knows that that things that violate the fundamental semantics of English are impossible -- but wants to hold out somehow that God is exempt from this general rule. He knows that no rational person would buy into a statement on the simple grounds that the statement cannot be proven false. But, again, he wants to hold out for a special exception for God.

Special pleading. And it's a fallacy for exactly the reason you outlined. Either A is an oversimplification (most cats, but not all, have four legs) and we should be able to find evidence of that, or C is simply untrue.

Absent any evidence that there is actually a reason to believe that some feelings are epistemologically sound, then a rational obserer would believe that no feelings -- including JetLag's -- are worth a half-cup of warm spit, epistemologically speaking.
Click to expand...

What you describe is simply shifting the burden of proof, when saying that a certain member of a group has different characteristics than the whole group.

But I am not sure that shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy actually.
 
JetLeg said:
What you describe is simply shifting the burden of proof, when saying that a certain member of a group has different characteristics than the whole group.

But I am not sure that shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy actually.
Click to expand...

Again... a useless opinion...

You really must learn the difference between facts and everything else to have a discussion with the grown ups.
 
slingblade said:
A is conditionally true, as indicated by the words "as defined." It admits that there are conditions in which not all living cats have 4 legs, but that the definition (the abstract, if you will) of the cat is that it is a 4-legged animal.

I think it's also a kind of oppositional truth, such that a cat is defined as "a 4-legged animal," i.e. a type, as opposed to those types of animals with two legs (like humans), six legs (like insects), and so on.
Click to expand...

Couldn't you make this conform to real-world conditions?

1. All healthy cats have exactly 4 legs. (premise)
2. My cat has exactly 3 legs. (attribute)
3. But, my cat is healthy. (special pleading)
4. OK, my cat would be healthy if he had one more leg. (hypothetical)

The premise conforms to how most people understand the term, "healthy".
If you accept 1., you cannot accept 3. without special pleading.
You need a "but", rather than a "therefore" to get from 1. to 3.
 
articulett said:
Again... a useless opinion...

You really must learn the difference between facts and everything else to have a discussion with the grown ups.
Click to expand...

Well, why is it a fallacy?

If you assert it is a fallacy, then according to you-> the burden of proof is on you to prove that.
 
JetLeg said:
So you are saying that if I hold the feelings of other people not to be a reliable criteria, I have to find a good reason to exclude myself from it, and the burden is on me? A special pleading for you, is excluding myself without finding a good enough reason?


By the way, if I say "My feelings are more true than the feelings of others because I feel so", would that be circular logic?
Click to expand...


Yes, and yes. And it's not "special pleading for me" -- it's the standard meaning of the term as used by philosophers since Plato or thereabout. Of course, when Plato used the term, he used it in Greek....
 
drkitten said:
Yes, and yes. And it's not "special pleading for me" -- it's the standard meaning of the term as used by philosophers since Plato or thereabout. Of course, when Plato used the term, he used it in Greek....
Click to expand...

So special pleading is a subcategory of shifting the burden of proof?

Anyway, does not it seem to you that the difference between falsifiable-unfalsifiable hypothesis, and material-immaterial beings is big enough so that proving a certain way of thinking for one of them does not prove it automatically for the other?
 
JetLeg said:
So special pleading is a subcategory of shifting the burden of proof?

Anyway, does not it seem to you that the difference between falsifiable-unfalsifiable hypothesis, and material-immaterial beings is big enough so that proving a certain way of thinking for one of them does not prove it automatically for the other?
Click to expand...

Logic is universal.
 
JetLeg said:
So special pleading is a subcategory of shifting the burden of proof?
Click to expand...

Only inasmuch as any invalid argument attempts to persuade me of a statement without sufficient grounds, and is therefore an attempt to shift the burden of proof. A simple "non-sequitor" would also be an attempt to shift the burden of proof in that loose sense.

"My socks are orange, therefore squirrels are messengers from God!"
"Huh? What does that have to do with anything?"
"Oh, yeah? Can you prove me wrong?"



Anyway, does not it seem to you that the difference between falsifiable-unfalsifiable hypothesis, and material-immaterial beings is big enough so that proving a certain way of thinking for one of them does not prove it automatically for the other?
Click to expand...

I am rapidly running out of ways to say "no" politlely to you. No, it does not seem that way to me. It does not seem that way to any rational observer. No, no, no, no, no.

And even if it did -- that would still not matter. Because the simple fact that I cannot prove that the material world follows the same rules as the immaterial world, or the simple fact that I cannot prove that unfalsifiable hypotheses are subject to the same rules of logic as falsifiable ones does not -- in any way, shape, or form -- imply that the rules are different. That may be your most glaring fallacy yet, as it combines about three fallacies.

First, there's a false-dichotomy. Just because X cannot be proven to be true does not mean that X is false.

Second, it's an argument from ignorance. Just because I cannot prove something does not mean that it cannot be proven.

Third, it's another form of argument from ignorance. If we do not know whether or not the immaterial follows the same rules as the material, then we cannot know whether or not it follows different rules. You cannot then assert without evidence that the rules for it are different -- the best you can do is shut up at that point.

Three fallacies in one short paragraph. Even by your standards, that's rather impressive.
 
Last edited:
JetLeg said:
Anyway, does not it seem to you that the difference between falsifiable-unfalsifiable hypothesis, and material-immaterial beings is big enough so that proving a certain way of thinking for one of them does not prove it automatically for the other?
Click to expand...

It does seem that way, JetLeg, for beings that have different ways of thinking.

Unfortunately, we do not. As my earlier post to you explained, humans have no choice but to think logically because logic is nothing more than a formalization of the way we think.
 
JetLeg said:
Huh?

If a person testifies that something is important to him, it usually is.

If a person puts a large part of his time to his religion, probably it is important to him.
Click to expand...

My point was that disagreeing doesn't mean thinking you're superior. It just means you think you're right.

And to your first statement: people can lie.
 
JetLeg said:
Anyway, does not it seem to you that the difference between falsifiable-unfalsifiable hypothesis, and material-immaterial beings is big enough so that proving a certain way of thinking for one of them does not prove it automatically for the other?
Click to expand...

Nope.

Even if I accepted the existence of a divine being, which I certainly do not, I could never, never, never, ever, ever, ever, ever concede that it can defy the rules of logic. The rules of logic simply stem from existence itself.

If something exists, it simply cannot NOT exist simultaneously. That's pretty much the basis of logic.
 
Belz... said:
Nope.

Even if I accepted the existence of a divine being, which I certainly do not, I could never, never, never, ever, ever, ever, ever concede that it can defy the rules of logic. The rules of logic simply stem from existence itself.

If something exists, it simply cannot NOT exist simultaneously. That's pretty much the basis of logic.
Click to expand...

Right. The basis of logic is consistency.

A = A.

Special Pleading is a type of inconsistency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom