A Revelation!

I realized something this morning. As you might know, I have a second blog with a Catholic friend of mine called AtheistCatholic. We have tried to keep the atmosphere friendly, but the comments get a bit heated and get very debate-like which drives me nuts.

I don't like to debate. For someone like me, it makes me incredibly frustrated. Well, I don't mind having arguments with some people. For instance, I can disagree with my husband and many of my friends and we can have a friendly argument where we have different points of view. I usually end up feeling we both hopefully learned something and it seems productive. Awesome.

But there are some people (and some types of people) that I just can't stand arguing with. With them it turns into a debate and I end up feeling extremely frustrated or downright angry. I don't like being frustrated or angry. My revelation is why it's so irritating.

It's because they don't play fair. They use logical fallacies like cats take naps. They play the "offended card" at the slightest disagreement. But the main reason is that their logic is so flawed that it makes me feel crazy just trying to figure out what they said.

My problem is that I can tell that they are doing these things intuitively now, but I can't name the logical fallacy or explain the flawed logic and straighten it out. Sometimes it's because I know the topic well enough to understand it, but not well enough to explain the mistakes of someone else. For this issue, the only solution I see is to learn more deeply about the topics that matter to me.

And I guess I can study the logical fallacies more, right? But the flawed logic, that just boggles my mind. I think I need to study that more. If you have any suggestions for good books that teach logic, let me know! Preferably something that is understandable in everyday language.

Do you have people that you deal with who don't play fair and are really irritating to argue with? How do you deal with them? How do you avoid debating but still get your point across? I can't figure that out either.

 

Thoughts on Arguing

I have been wondering about arguing lately. How we argue, how we get set in our world view and dig in like a donkey sits back on its hind legs and won't budge. The reason this has been in my mind is because I've been trying to learn about determinism. When I first heard about it in a podcast by the Reasonable Doubts guys, I resisted and thought, this is ridiculous! Of course I have free will! I feel like I do!

But after 4 hours of them explaining it, I felt like I was getting it. Then we had our Morgantown Atheists group have a meeting on determinism and free will. A professor from WVU came and talked about it and I got it even more. Now I've tried to explain it to my husband Butch and my friend Jeff, who are both extremely resistant and argue against it. Part of that is probably because I don't understand it enough to explain it well. But part of it is because the idea of determinism is huge. It rocks your world when you hear about it.

What I'm really trying to get at, though, is how we, as humans, seem to always fight for what is most comfortable and familiar to us. We always seem to resist new ideas. And something else, we always seem to pick the other side of an argument if we're up in the air. For instance, when I was explaining determinism to my friend Jeff, he objected heartily.

But then we were talking about this topic, about how people stick to their comfort zones, and he told me that he ended up explaining determinism to his son, and found himself defending it, while his son objected.

Isn't that interesting? Why do we do this? I'd love to see some research on this. I've heard of a few studies that might apply to this, but I can't recall them clearly enough to find them for you. If I can think of how to search for them, I'll add them here. If you know of any studies please let me know!

Also, do you find this is true for you and your friends and family? Or do you see it differently?

Logical Fallacy 11: God of the Gaps in Science and Faith

"I can't understand this so God did it."

I like what Iron Chariots says about this argument: It is a form of non sequitur, since the hand of God is posited without proof and often with complete disregard to other possible explanations. In a nutshell, this is an argument from ignorance. But ignorance is never an argument for something. It just means we don't yet know the cause of something.

This is Part 11 in a series about Logical Fallacies. We are going through one fallacy at a time. There are many types of fallacious arguments. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur. Please comment or email if there’s a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share.

I want to share this video of a talk by Neil deGrasse Tyson from 2006 is about 38 minutes long. He talks about the god of the gaps throughout scientific history, intelligent design and then about Stupid Design. Highly recommended watching:

Logical Fallacy 10: The Slippery Slope

The logical fallacy known as The Slippery Slope wrongly assumes that one thing must lead to another, and another and before you know it you get to something awful. Therefore you can't do the first thing. This is a very common fallacy. It's also known as the Fallacy of the Beard.

In an argument, it is the situation where acceptance of a minor detail of the opposing position will greatly weaken your position.

This is Part 10 in a series about Logical Fallacies. We are going through one fallacy at a time. There are many types of fallacious arguments. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur. Please comment or email if there’s a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share.

Formula:

• If A happens, B will happen. If B happens, C, D, E, ... Z will happen! (oh noes!)
• We don't want Z to happen.
• Therefore A can't happen.

Example 1:

• If I take aspirin, I'll start taking Oxycontin for headaches. If I take Oxycontin, I'll start buying it on the street. If I do that, I'll start looking for heroine to shoot up. If I start shooting up heroine, I'll get a dirty needle and get HIV, then die of AIDS....
• I don't want to do heroine and die of AIDS.
• Therefore I can't take anything for my headaches.

Of course this is not logical. For most people we have the ability to moderate and restrain ourselves to some degree. It is possible to stop after the first step and not go down the slippery slope.

Some Great Advice by Robert Gula

I belong to a book club that has been reading Nonsense: Red Herrings, Straw Men and Sacred Cows: How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language by Robert J. Gula.

I really wanted to share part of chapter 17 with you. Mr. Gula lists the most important principles to be gleaned from the rest of the book. I highly recommend getting the book and reading it. It has really helped me think more logically. The other thing it's helped me with is to realize when someone has used a logical fallacy on me. I might not remember the name, but I remember that it is nonsense. It sort of gives me a red flag when someone uses bad logic in an argument. I think that's pretty invaluable.

So here's the list of important principles from Robert Gula:

How To Argue

Almost all of us argue or have discussions. But there's actually a right way and lots of wrong ways to go about it. As an ethical person, I don't really want to do it wrong because that's being dishonest and unfair. I am definitely not a debater, which is where people actually use logical fallacies on purpose to win an argument. I don't really care for debates because they seem forced to me. It's about winning, not about finding out the truth. I think the main reason I hate arguing is because most people fight dirty. I am sure I've done it too, mainly out of ignorance. Now, with the following information, we can argue more logically.

Yesterday while being domestic, I was listening to podcasts. The following one was so cool, I actually decided to transcribe it for you because it was both concise and chock full of good information.

Here is a pretty close transcript to this podcast episode. It's not exact, so you can listen to it to get everything I left out, which was where someone started a sentence or a thought and didn't finish it, stuff like that. I also turned it into more of an article and less of a conversation. So really, it's a companion to listening to the podcast (which is about 6 minutes) and for your convenience.

How To Structure A Logical Argument
by the Skeptics' Guide 5x5, Episode 62, March 19, 2009

Thanksgiving and Family Fundie Nonsense

Thanksgiving is just around the corner. I'm a bit bummed out that I don't have a great outfit to wear to dinner on Thursday. Like one of the 30 or so anti-religious shirts my husband Butch I have created on Zazzle and Cafepress with maybe some nice black cargo pants. I just don't think I could get one shipped to me in time. Maybe if I order soon, I can have something festive for baby jesus' birthday.

Oh if I only had the nerve. Maybe it's not nerve but respect for the people who throw the family get-togethers - Butch's aunt and uncle. She's a bit on the religious side, so I wouldn't want to upset or offend her. She's the kind of christian that I don't mind at all. I know she's a christian because she goes to church every Sunday, but we've never talked religion and she's never tried to push her faith on me. She is a good person, one of the few christians I know that I truly respect, because she walks the walk without talking the talk, if you know what I mean.

Her mother, on the other hand, she's nasty. The typical fundie moron that is unbearable and full of lies and hatred for anyone who actually thinks for themselves. As a schoolteacher, I just wish she wouldn't be so ignorant about simple facts like oh, I dunno, maybe that we're not a christian nation, and that the founding fathers created a separation of church and state very deliberately.

Logical Fallacy 5: Argument From Authority

(also called Appeal to Authority) Stating a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it's true. The claimant emphasizes the many years of experience and/or formal degrees held by the person or organization making the claim.

This argument is the opposite of the Ad Hominem Argument because the arguer appeals to positive characteristics of the source to support their argument, such as its perceived authority. If an advertisement shows someone wearing a white labcoat or a stern business suit, that is an appeal to authority.

This is Part 5 in a series about Logical Fallacies. We are going through one fallacy at a time. There are many types of fallacious arguments. I'm going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur. Please comment or email if there's a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share.

While it's reasonable to take into account the proper background of education and credentials, or to be suspicious of someone without such expertise, it must inevitably come down to logic and evidence to support the claim, not the person promoting it.

A good authority supports a position because there is evidence or other justifiable reasons that the argument merits, not the other way around. So, good scientists do not attach significance to their own authority. The theory needs to stand on its own and be peer reviewed. There is no need for an appeal to authority.

Observations and Interesting Things

A week ago I did a post called 50 Old Testament Inconsistencies. It was just something I thought might be a bit different to share with everyone. I didn't write it but I linked to where I had found it and also to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible's list of contradictions. Apparently some people found it recently and it's gotten some traffic, mainly by christians who are none too pleased. I guess I hit a nerve.

In my experience, most people don't know how to argue effectively. I myself am not very good at it. I hate arguing, and conflict in general. But I think personal attacks are really uncalled for, especially when one person states an opinion and the other person counters with a personal attack. It just shows lack of ability to handle a disagreement.

By the way, this is called the Ad Hominem Logical Fallacy as I wrote about previously.

Sometimes I wonder if people do it on purpose because it's so easy to lash out at someone and so hard to defend. I think they do, the more I see it happen. And frankly I think it's weak and lazy.

Logical Fallacy 4: Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam

Argumentum Ad ignorantiam means the Argument from Ignorance. It basically states that a specific belief is true because we don't know that it isn't true. This logical fallacy can also be called the Negative Proof Argument, or Appeal to Ignorance.

This is Part 4 in a series about Logical Fallacies. We are going through one fallacy at a time. There are many types of fallacious arguments. I'm going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur. Please comment or email if there's a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share.

James stated it quite perfectly in the comments of our last fallacy lesson:

Atheist: “You cannot prove that God exists.”
Theist: “Oh yeah? Well, you cannot prove that God DOESN’T exist!”

Of course this brings up the rule: The burden of proof lies on the person making the positive claim. Basically, if you state that god exists, the burden of proof lies on you.

Edit: I found this video today. Here is Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson explaining it:

Logical Fallacy 3: Tu quoque (you too)

Tu quoque is Latin for "You too". So you justify your wrong action because someone else also does it. "My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours."

This is Part 3 in a series about Logical Fallacies. We are going through one fallacy at a time. There are many types of fallacious arguments. I'm going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur. Please comment or email if there's a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share.

My mother did this on the phone the other day. We were talking about religion when my mother told me I should start a cult or my own religion, because they make so much money. (WTF?)

Logical Fallacy 2: Ad Hominem- A Personal Attack

Today's logical fallacy is also very common, in my experience. It's called Ad Hominem, which is roughly translated from the Latin for "to the person." It's a personal attack against you instead of your argument. It can be subtle because it isn't just that they call you a bad name, but they use a weakness or characteristic of you to imply that your argument is weak.

This is Part 2 in a series about Logical Fallacies. We are going through one fallacy at a time. There are many types of fallacious arguments. I'm going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur. Please comment or email if there's a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share.

Example: You: I don't believe in UFO's.
Opponent: You're so close minded!

Example: Opponent: I believe in UFO's.
You: You're crazy and/or stupid.

Logical Fallacy 1: Straw Man

This is Part 1 in a series about Logical Fallacies. We are going through one fallacy at a time. There are many types of fallacious arguments. I'm going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur. Please comment or email if there's a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share.

Our first Logical Fallacy is the Straw Man Argument. This is a great one to start with on our journey because it's quite common and easy to spot.

A straw man: a dummy stuffed with straw. It's too weak to fight back.

Arguing against a position specifically created to be easy to argue against, rather than the position held by someone who opposes that point of view.

So, when you state your position, your opponent replies not to what you said, but to a distorted and exaggerated caricature of what you said, that is obviously harder to defend.

Example: You state your argument: People who commit minor offenses should be let out of jail sooner.
Opponent replies: Emptying out all the jails would create havoc in society.

While that may be true, it isn't what you suggested. It's irrelevant. Your opponent didn't refute your point, he invented a different point that is easier to argue against. The opponent can take satisfaction in having a point that no reasonable person could argue with. He appears to have successfully defeated your argument when in fact he simply dodged it.