Straw Man argument

Originally posted by David C
I'd think my argumentum ad metasmugness was taken with a grain of salt.

It went over right my head.

Originally posted by David C
Yeah, actually my perception of the thread was a lighthearted one. I'd think my argumentum ad metasmugness was taken with a grain of salt.

Besides, the logic there is irrefutable.

Well, it certainly has become lighthearted; I think we've lost our momentum in this experiment. I am going to remember argumentum ad metasmugness, though !🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, it certainly has become lighthearted; I think we've lost our momentum in this experiment. I am going to remember argumentum ad metasmugness, though !🙂

As the experiment never really got going, so I still think it holds all of its original momentum. I do think it is still worth pursuing, either deliberately exercising the straw man or attempting to argue without it. Perhaps this can be done with several fallacies. We can make a series of theads about it. I'll give it some thought. If anyone else want sto start this sort of thing, feel free.

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
As the experiment never really got going, so I still think it holds all of its original momentum. I do think it is still worth pursuing, either deliberately exercising the straw man or attempting to argue without it. Perhaps this can be done with several fallacies. We can make a series of theads about it. I'll give it some thought. If anyone else want sto start this sort of thing, feel free.

WTF? No one proposed an experiment or offered a position? That's what you're saying? That is clearly untrue. Just go back through the thread.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
WTF? No one proposed an experiment or offered a position? That's what you're saying? That is clearly untrue. Just go back through the thread.

Okay, let me see if I can pick this up where Bosse left off.

My offer: Anything that is ordinarily labeled “spirituality” can be explained by purely natural phenomena, including psychology; thus stripped of any supernatural content, it becomes a totally misleading term at best and should be simply dropped in favor of naturalistic descriptive terminology pertaining to such things as perception/sensation, and states/processes of consciousness, including imagination. People who claim to be “spiritual” (as opposed to “religious,” say) are really claiming to be supernaturalists, or are merely using the term "spiritual" to desribe some psychological experience. If it's the latter, let's just call it that; if it's the former, then the debate is really whether or not there are supernatural phenonmena, whatever that may mean.

EDIT: In order to claim that the shift from "spiritual" to "supernatural" represents setting up a strawman, I think one would have to offer a justification for using "spiritual" in a purely naturalistic sense, rather than some more "mundane" term.

A strawman might argue against a Bible believer something like :
You base your argument on your belief in the Bible, yet the Bible condones[insert hideous crime here]
Therefore, you are wrong.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
A strawman might argue against a Bible believer something like :
You base your argument on your belief in the Bible, yet the Bible condones[insert hideous crime here]
Therefore, you are wrong.

Speaking of the Strawman!

Originally posted by vistesd
Speaking of the Strawman!

That term was floating around so much I couldn't resist.
Whatever happened to Ivanhoe?
He's been quiet of late.
EDIT: Maybe he's pining for No1, they were a good couple ...

Originally posted by KneverKnight
That term was floating around so much I couldn't resist.
Whatever happened to Ivanhoe?
He's been quiet of late.
EDIT: Maybe he's pining for No1, they were a good couple ...

Yes, I've missed Ivanhoe.

Originally posted by vistesd
Okay, let me see if I can pick this up where Bosse left off.

My offer: Anything that is ordinarily labeled “spirituality” can be explained by purely natural phenomena, including psychology; thus stripped of any supernatural content, it becomes a totally misleading term at best and should be simply dropped in favor of naturalistic descriptive terminolog ...[text shortened]... for using "spiritual" in a purely naturalistic sense, rather than some more "mundane" term.

What does 'natural' mean in this context? Is it running proxy for the term 'physical'? If consciousness is a non-physical property, does that entail that it is super-natural? That is, is naturalism committed to a particular ontology, or is it merely committed to a particular methodology (e.g., P is natural if and only if P can be a proper object of scientific study)?

Originally posted by vistesd
Yes, I've missed Ivanhoe.

If you click your heels together three times and start a thread on abortion, he'll be back.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
WTF? No one proposed an experiment or offered a position? That's what you're saying? That is clearly untrue. Just go back through the thread.

This was supposed to be a strawman post, but no one called me on it. Was it not a strawman?

Originally posted by bbarr
If you click your heels together three times and start a thread on abortion, he'll be back.

Preferably "for" abortion.

Originally posted by bbarr
What does 'natural' mean in this context? Is it running proxy for the term 'physical'? If consciousness is a non-physical property, does that entail that it is super-natural? That is, is naturalism committed to a particular ontology, or is it merely committed to a particular methodology (e.g., P is natural if and only if P can be a proper object of scientific study)?

What does 'natural' mean in this context? Is it running proxy for the term 'physical'? If consciousness is a non-physical property, does that entail that it is super-natural?

No, I did not mean physicalist. (Question: are physicalist and materialist synonymous?) In Advaita Vedanta, is the Brahman “supernatural?” Is the Tao?

That is, is naturalism committed to a particular ontology, or is it merely committed to a particular methodology (e.g., P is natural if and only if P can be a proper object of scientific study)?

Frankly, I was just using the term in the sense of “within the given universe.” Seemingly, anything within the given universe would be the subject of scientific study, but also philosophy; empiricism and reason. I don’t think I am committed to a particular ontology here. The question being, then, does the term “spiritual” have any proper place anymore?

EDIT: re ontology, would not a phenomenologist approach fit the bill well enough, for example?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
This was supposed to be a strawman post, but no one called me on it. Was it not a strawman?

Ah! He didn't say that. That particular version--"so your saying..." seems to be used a lot.

The trouble is ATY, we got a bit away from the original thread, with the notion of choosing an argument on spirituality--originally proposed by Bosse, to see how far we could go without comitting a strawman fallacy. I thought Bosse bowed out, so I thought I'd give it a go.