Proof of logic

[slingblade]

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/

 

[cyborg]

Do you think that asserting something and putting it in bold the best way to prove it?

It is not a proof, it is a tautology.

 

[blobru]

Can you demonstrate in such a way, or in another that an argument from an authority is a fallacy?
For example, I say : everything that god says is right. Or, everything the dalai lama says is right.
How can you demonstrate it's a fallacy?
...

Argument from authority is a fallacy because no one gets a free pass in logical debate. No one's infallible.
Even God has to "show his work".

 

[Yiab]

Can you demonstrate in such a way, or in another that an argument from an authority is a fallacy?

"Argument from authority" is, as I see it, a special type of "non sequitur". It says "statement A is true since authority B claims that A is true." Clearly B's claiming of A's truth in the preceding is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of A.

 

[Robin]

Eh...

Can you give me another example?

I don't get it, the structure of the argument seems perfectly plausible to me.

Plausibility is the secret of successful nonsense.

But if you can find an argument (or a structure) in what I wrote, please point it out to me. I see just the series of non-sequiturs I wrote.

 

[drkitten]

We see that

Magnet is put near iron -> iron moves towards iron.
Therefore, magnet attracts iron.

Right there, you've already committed a fallacy.

For example, when I put a pencil a few inches above my desk and let go, my pencil will move toward the desk. That doesn't man that my desk attracts pencils. It only (visibly) attracts pencils in one direction (downward), but you would need to do more experiments (for example, holding the pencil a few inches below the desk) to learn that.

And, we know that iron does not move by itself.

No, we don't. All we know is that we've never seen it move by itself.

What else do we need to check? Is it enough?

Nowhere near enough.

 

[JetLeg]

Right there, you've already committed a fallacy.

For example, when I put a pencil a few inches above my desk and let go, my pencil will move toward the desk. That doesn't man that my desk attracts pencils. It only (visibly) attracts pencils in one direction (downward), but you would need to do more experiments (for example, holding the pencil a few inches below the desk) to learn that.

Good example.

 

[JetLeg]

Argument from authority is a fallacy because no one gets a free pass in logical debate. No one's infallible.
Even God has to "show his work".

But how do you prove that?

 

[JetLeg]

"Argument from authority" is, as I see it, a special type of "non sequitur". It says "statement A is true since authority B claims that A is true." Clearly B's claiming of A's truth in the preceding is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of A.

It is unclear to me.

If I respect the person, it is even more unclear to me.

If I respect someone, it seems that I can say X is true, because he says so. And this seems a good epistemological criteria to me. So why do you think it is not a good one?

 

[JetLeg]

Sure, but if someone else makes the same argument about another team at the same time, it remains plausible, but you are left with a contradiction. You can't have two Greatest Team of All Time winners.

But so far, there is no claim that contradicts the buddhist meditastion anatta claim.

 

[blobru]

But how do you prove that?

In certain contexts, argument from authority is not a fallacy. For legal guilt, whatever the judge says [from the bench] is so. For Catholic doctrine, whatever the Pope says [ex cathedra] is so. They are acknowledged infallible authorities within their domains.
Outside those contexts, authority is always debatable. You can say I believe God's infallible and that's good enough for me, but people who don't don't have to agree with you, because your belief isn't proof. Thus you're committing a fallacy -- argument from authority they don't accept.

 

[slingblade]

In certain contexts, argument from authority is not a fallacy. For legal guilt, whatever the judge says [from the bench] is so.

I don't think so. Higher courts can overturn decisions from lower courts, and convicted defendants get appeals, so I'm not sure this makes a judge infallible within his or her domain.

For Catholic doctrine, whatever the Pope says [ex cathedra] is so.

For Catholics, yes. As you stipulate, in your next sentence:

They are acknowledged infallible authorities within their domains.

 

[blobru]

I don't think so. Higher courts can overturn decisions from lower courts, and convicted defendants get appeals, so I'm not sure this makes a judge infallible within his or her domain.

Yes, you're right -- "guilty" until another judge disagrees. The Supreme Court would be a better example for US law.

 

[JetLeg]

Then I think we can supply you with an answer. Sorry I'm back so late. I see others might have already tackled this so I will first check it out.

RandFan,

How would you

-1- show that feelings that Dalai Lama tells the truth don't indicate that?
These feelings don't work for all the people, but they might work for him...

-2- show in general that an argument from authorirty is a fallacy?

 

[cyborg]

These feelings don't work for all the people, but they might work for him...

That pretty much there is the point.

show in general that an argument from authorirty is a fallacy?

If King Cnut tells the tide to go out does it obey him?

 

[drkitten]

But so far, there is no claim that contradicts the buddhist meditastion anatta claim.

Fine. Meditating on the fact that your buddhist medistatia anatta whatsis claim is gibberish makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Therefore your claim is in fact false.

Therefore, the same argument demonstrates your claim to be both true and false, hence the argument is fallacious.

 

[drkitten]

Yes, you're right -- "guilty" until another judge disagrees. The Supreme Court would be a better example for US law.

Except even the SCOTUS is demonstrably not infallible -- case in point, Plessy vs. Ferguson, which was specifically overturned by a later court.

 

[drkitten]

But how do you prove that?

It's easy enough to find false statements in the Bible if you want to prove God's fallability. The list of internal contradictions (who, exactly, killed Goliath? That one was so blatant that the KJV translators had to cheat on it....) and scientific inaccuracies (the waters "above"? The "storehouses of the snow"? Rabbits that chew their cud? Winged insects that "go on all fours"?) that it's quite reasonable to conclude that God is not infallible.

But beyond that -- there is no basis to conclude that God is infallable. Given that in general, argument from authority is a fallacy, on what basis (and from what evidence) do you infer that God should be an exception to the well-understood general rule? You're proposing the exception, YOU should have to justify it.

Especially when this "infallible" being tells us ("Genesis 30:37-39") that cattle who look at striped wooden rods will mutate.

 

[JetLeg]

It's easy enough to find false statements in the Bible if you want to prove God's fallability. The list of internal contradictions (who, exactly, killed Goliath? That one was so blatant that the KJV translators had to cheat on it....) and scientific inaccuracies (the waters "above"? The "storehouses of the snow"? Rabbits that chew their cud? Winged insects that "go on all fours"?) that it's quite reasonable to conclude that God is not infallible.

But beyond that -- there is no basis to conclude that God is infallable. Given that in general, argument from authority is a fallacy, on what basis (and from what evidence) do you infer that God should be an exception to the well-understood general rule? You're proposing the exception, YOU should have to justify it.

Especially when this "infallible" being tells us ("Genesis 30:37-39") that cattle who look at striped wooden rods will mutate.

I am not sure I think that the OT was inspired.

But - if god is omniscient, then he is infallible. Damn, you probably will want me to justify his omniscience...

 

[slingblade]

It is unclear to me.

If I respect the person, it is even more unclear to me.

If I respect someone, it seems that I can say X is true, because he says so. And this seems a good epistemological criteria to me. So why do you think it is not a good one?

President Bush.

Lots of people respected him, and still more respected his office.
He's said many, many things.

Have all his statements been true?


(hint: far fewer people today respect him, as seen by his approval ratings taking a nose-dive.)