11 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderThe fallacy of begging the question is non-formal. It occurs when your conclusion is hidden in your premises. It is not a true fallacy, because it is not formal. It is not a true informal fallacy because it is not a case of ambiguity. The argument may in fact be formally valid. But it may be less convincing. Especially if you are being disingenuous about hiding you conclusion in your premises.
Try reading the third sentence of my post above for the proof that your reasoning is circular. In logic, a circular argument is invalid by definition; you cannot prove the conclusion of an argument by claiming the conclusion proves the premises! Try taking a course or reading a book on logic, since you refuse to waste your valuable time reading important political philosophers like John Locke.
For any proof to be valid, the terms of the conclusion must be found in the premises. So in reality, all valid deductive proofs are circular. If the terms of the conclusion are absent from you premises, there is no logical chain that demands the conclusion is true.
The proof of this can been seen in the very laws of logic. One of the three laws of logic say A implies A. In other words, the truth of A implies the truth of A.
A -> A is always true and never false.
Now your third sentence: "Saying that Scripture says something and therefore I must believe it because the same Scripture claims it is the Word of God is non-rational, if not irrational. "
I did not say Scripture claims to be the Word of God. But it would be strange if I were to claim it was the Word of God, and Scripture did not. If something is the Word of God, you'd expect it to say it is.
But that still does not make my argument circular. My argument was not a proof of scripture, but a proof of the sinful nature of man. I gave a scripture proof for my argument, something you insisted on. And so my argument is still valid.
11 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiI don't know where you learned your version of "logic" but begging the question is a logical fallacy. http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
The fallacy of begging the question is non-formal. It occurs when your conclusion is hidden in your premises. It is not a true fallacy, because it is not formal. It is not a true informal fallacy because it is not a case of ambiguity. The argument may in fact be formally valid. But it may be less convincing. Especially if you are being disingenuous abo ...[text shortened]... cripture proof for my argument, something you insisted on. And so my argument is still valid.
If you look under "begging the question" you'll find an example of a logical fallacy very similar to your argument here.
And I didn't ask you to provide proof of the "sinful nature of man" (which you didn't anyway) but that man's nature was "vile" or "evil". As far as I can tell, the only "argument" you've made is that Man's nature is "evil" because you believe Scripture says so. I asked for something more specific than a mere assertion somewhere in Scripture; I asked for Jesus' words saying that man's basic nature was "evil" or "vile". I haven't seen that yet; his offhand comment to the rich man that no one is good but God hardly qualifies as a statement that Man's nature is evil or vile. So, your basic argument is logically fallacious as "begging the question" and your "evidence" was non-responsive to my request. Hardly the way to frame a "valid argument".
11 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's called an "appeal to authority" - another fallacy. Just because so-and-so say it, therefore it must be true.
I don't know where you learned your version of "logic" but begging the question is a logical fallacy. .
Consider what the definition of begging the question:
The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises.
Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a
slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the premise is
a consequence of the conclusion.
Now think about it. If you did not assume the truth of the conclusion, why are you arguing.
Now consider what I said: "The fallacy of begging the question is non-formal. It occurs when your conclusion is hidden in your premises."
Essential I said what they said and it can be found in any textbook on logic. So the author just confirmed my definition.
However if you look at his examples you can see that a this fallacy not formal.
"Since I'm not lying, it follows that I'm telling the truth."
Is that false? It would be false to say "since I'm not lying, it follows I am lying." That would be a contradiction. And it is also valid. That is a formally valid inference. That is the true within the laws of logic. The law of identity - a statement implies itself.
For it to be a true fallacy - it would violate a law of logic.
The only objection to a circular argument is it may be unconvincing, not that it is invalid. You can not even say it is unsound. It is true statements inferring true statements.
P.S. Here's an article that better explains how this is a fallacy that actually logically valid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
11 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiThis is utter nonsense, but it is consistent with your hostility to science and rational thought. Apparently you believe that you can create your own rules of logic in contravention of those accepted by the experts in the field and that those are binding on me. The site I gave relied on the standard texts in logic to explain and categorize the fallacies; a list of the source materials is at http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/refernce.htm.
That's called an "appeal to authority" - another fallacy. Just because so-and-so say it, therefore it must be true.
Consider what the definition of begging the question:
[quote]The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises.
Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a
slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the p ...[text shortened]... alid. You can not even say it is unsound. It is true statements inferring true statements.
Your humpty dumpty approach to logic and argument is simply ridiculous.
11 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderDid you read
This is utter nonsense, but it is consistent with your hostility to science and rational thought. Apparently you believe that you can create your own rules of logic in contravention of those accepted by the experts in the field an ...[text shortened]... humpty dumpty approach to logic and argument is simply ridiculous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
BTW: Look up appeal to authority while your surfing. It says an appeal to experts as proof is fallacious.
11 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderAlso look up abusive ad hominem.
This is utter nonsense, but it is consistent with your hostility to science and rational thought. Apparently you believe that you can create your own rules of logic in contravention of those accepted by the experts in the field and that those are binding on me. The site I gave relied on the standard texts in logic to explain and categorize the fall ...[text shortened]... /refernce.htm.
Your humpty dumpty approach to logic and argument is simply ridiculous.
11 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiAn appeal to the rules of logic to show that "begginng the question" is a fallacy, is no more of a fallacy then looking up the word "begging" in a dictionary to ascertain its meaning is. You can't just make up the rules as you go along and then say your using "logic". Simply, your argument is a begging the question fallacy pure and simple and thus logically invalid.
Did you read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
BTW: Look up appeal to authority while your surfing. It says an appeal to experts as proof is fallacious.
Your posts are simply Humpty Dumpty like: a fallacy is what I say it is, a word means what I please. Give it up, Coletti; if you want to believe in your fairy tale God be my guest, but don't say a belief that Man is by nature evil because the Scripture says so and scripture can't be wrong isn't begging the question. Come to think of it, it's also a pretty obvious "appeal to authority" fallacy as well, isn't it?
11 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderLet's list how many fallacies you have used in one post:
An appeal to the rules of logic to show that "begginng the question" is a fallacy, is no more of a fallacy then looking up the word "begging" in a dictionary to ascertain its meaning is. You can't just make up the rules a ...[text shortened]... retty obvious "appeal to authority" fallacy as well, isn't it?
"An appeal to the rules of logic to show that "begginng the question" is a fallacy, is no more of a fallacy then looking up the word "begging" in a dictionary to ascertain its meaning is."
This is a fallacy of definition and an unintentional contradiction. You don't appeal to the rules of logic - you must adhere to the laws of logic.
Your posts are simply Humpty Dumpty like: a fallacy is what I say it is, a word means what I please. Give it up, Coletti; if you want to believe in your fairy tale God be my guest,
And your usual abusive ad hominem.
At least three obvious fallacies.
And your previous was an appeal to authority.
I have shown you that "circular logic is not a true fallacy" through reasoning, the laws of logic, and (for your benefit) an article that explains it.
A logically fallacy is an invalid argument: an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
Since the conclusion of a circular argument is guaranteed to follow, it is formally valid.
You have failed to consider reason. You have ignored my arguments. You have employed numerous ad hominem attacks in you attempt to make your case. I'm not sure you know the definition of valid or fallacy - even when spelled out for you.
So, I think it is time for you to "give it up."
11 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderYes it is begging the question, but do you know why? And it is a completely valid argument. And as far as an appeal to authority - it is in fact the only valid authority to appeal too.
... but don't say a belief that Man is by nature evil because the Scripture says so and scripture can't be wrong isn't begging the question. Come to think of it, it's also a pretty obvious "appeal to authority" fallacy as well, isn't it?
Why ask for examples of scripture unless you were considering an ad hominem argument. If you wanted to show my philosophy was irrational from within my system - you have failed. If you want to show it is irrational outside of my system - you have no reason to ask for scripture. Either way, you have failed to make you case.
11 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiYou're completely moronic. From the site I provided:
Yes it is begging the question, but do you know why? And it is a completely valid argument. And as far as an appeal to authority - it is in fact the only valid authority to appeal too.
Why ask for examples of scripture unless you were considering an ad hominem argument. If you wanted to show my philosophy was irrational from within my system - you hav ...[text shortened]... system - you have no reason to ask for scripture. Either way, you have failed to make you case.
These fallacies have in common a general failure to prove that the conclusion is
true.
The following fallacies are cases of missing the point:
Begging the Question (The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises)
Irrelevant Conclusion (An argument in defense of one conclusion proves another)
Straw Man(The arguer attacks a weak version of an opponent's argument)
"Begging the Question" is a fallacy that fails to prove the conclusion is true. Therefore, it is a NOT a valid argument; an argument that is a fallacy cannot be valid by definition.
Again, you gave NO examples in Scripture of Jesus stating that Man's "nature" was "evil" or "vile". What your philosophy is I haven't a clue except it apparently omits the words of Jesus. I gave you perfectly good evidence that Man's basic "nature" was towards cooperation. kindness and compassion and I gave you scriptural evidence that that is what Jesus says men will be judged on at Judgment Day. I have not relied on circular arguments or other fallacious reasoning. You, dear Coletti, have failed to provide any evidence to prove your assertion that Man has an "evil" or "vile" nature and I have presented evidence to the contrary. Just admit that the only reason you believe that Man has an "evil" or "vile" nature is because you interpret Scripture (not Jesus) that way and we can be done with it.
11 Apr 05
1 edit
I want to try and clear up some confusion here. I am not taking sides in this debate.
Here is an instance of begging the question:
Theist: There is good evidence for the existence of God.
Atheist: No, there is not.
Theist: But I have an argument that runs as follows:
1) The Bible is the word of God.
2) Hence, everything in the Bible is true.
3) The Bible clearly indicates that God exists.
Hence, God exists.
Now, has the theist committed a fallacy? He has not committed any formal fallacy, that is true. The theist has presented an argument that is logically valid (if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true; this is the definition of logical validity). Nonetheless, the theist is still guilty of begging the question, because premise (1) of the argument above is only justified if God exists, which is the very issue at hand. The theist must presume that God exists in order for premise (1) to be justified. The problem with begging the question is not that it leads to arguments that are formally invalid. The problem with begging the question is that is leads to premises that the opposing side has absolutely no reason to accept. When a premise is justified based solely on the presupposition that some claim P is true, when the claim P is precisely the thing being argued about, then that premise bears no justificatory relation to the claim that P. Begging the question amounts to claiming nothing other than that if P is true, then P is true. Since it is P that is precisely at issue, you can’t merely assume that P.
11 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderAgain you have failed to grasp the basic meaning of logical fallacy. The conclusion of a circular argument does follow from the conclusion because the conclusion is one of the premises.
..."Begging the Question" is a fallacy that fails to prove the conclusion is true. Therefore, it is a NOT a valid argument; an argument that is a fallacy cannot be valid by definition.....
If you construct a truth table of the following you will see the proof.
A & B & C => A
the following is from http://logik.phl.univie.ac.at/~chris/formular-uk-zentral.html
A B C | ((A & B) & C) -> A
-------+--------------------
1 1 1 | 1 1 *1
1 1 0 | 1 0 *1
1 0 1 | 0 0 *1
1 0 0 | 0 0 *1
0 1 1 | 0 0 *1
0 1 0 | 0 0 *1
0 0 1 | 0 0 *1
0 0 0 | 0 0 *1
Notice the the inference is valid in all cases. Not a single case is invalid. Therefore the conclusion follows EVERY TIME.
A fallacy is an invalid argument. An argument is invalid if the conclusion does not follow from the premises. So by definition of validity and fallacy, circular arguments are valid.
Your problem is not with looking up definitions, it is in critical thinking. You're not asking yourself "what is a fallacy" and "why is a circular argument considered a fallacy." If you examine the information described in any textbook, you will see that a circular argument in not invalid without contradicting the definition of fallacy.
I've already addressed the issue of the nature of man. And I've addressed circular arguments fully also. I'd be glad to debate "begging the question" in another thread - with some other people - since listening to reason is not your strong point.
It was entertaining.
11 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiThe problem with circular arguments is not that they are invalid. The problem with circular arguments is that they have no justificatory weight. Circular arguments cannot justify their conclusions. Presenting a circular argument is no different, epistemically speaking, then merely asserting the very claim at issue. So, the rejection of circular arguments is not a rejection based on their form, it is rather a rejection based on their ability to support their conclusions.
Again you have failed to grasp the basic meaning of logical fallacy. The conclusion of a circular argument does follow from the conclusion because the conclusion is one of the premises.
If you construct a truth table of the following you will see the proof.
A & B & C => A
the following is from http://logik.phl.univie.ac.at/~chris/formular-uk-zent ...[text shortened]... ome other people - since listening to reason is not your strong point.
It was entertaining.
Suppose that you and I are arguing about whether God exists, and I present the following argument:
1) God created human beings
2) Only something that exists could create a human being.
Hence, God exists.
Now, this argument is valid. So, formal validity is not at issue. Nonetheless, the argument is still radically defective. Why? It is defective because the first premise is only justified if we presume that the conclusion of the argument is true. But I can't merely presume this, as then I would be presuming the thing I set out to argue for. Circular arguments are fallacious in an informal manner, in that these arguments give us absolutely no reason to think that their conclusions are true. Good arguments, on the other hand, give us some reason to think that their conclusions are true.
11 Apr 05
Originally posted by bbarrThis might make a good thread debate. But I could only disagree with you on fine points. Your description was as good as any I've read so far that looks at the point from a critical view.
I want to try and clear up some confusion here. I am not taking sides in this debate.
Here is an instance of begging the question:
Theist: There is good evidence for the existence of God.
Atheist: No, there is not.
Theist: But I have an argument that runs as follows:
1) The Bible is the word of God.
2) Hence, everything in the Bible is true ...[text shortened]... , then P is true. Since it is P that is precisely at issue, you can’t merely assume that P.
So a good debate might help educate the masses.
A better start might be the difference between inductive and deductive logic. (and abducted?)
The laws of logic would be a true foundational point to start with.
11 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiO.K. Now both you and Rwingett have requested an introduction to forms of inference and epistemological concepts generally. So, since I care about both of you and want you to be happy, I will write something up and post it here.
This might make a good thread debate. But I could only disagree with you on fine points. Your description was as good as any I've read so far that looks at the point from a critical view.
So a good debate might help educate the masses.
A better start might be the difference between inductive and deductive logic. (and abducted?)
The laws of logic would be a true foundational point to start with.