Abusive Analogy

Google+

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

From Pirie

'The fallacy of abusive analogy is a highly specialized version of the ad hominem argument.
Instead of the arguer being insulted directly, an analogy is drawn which is calculated to bring him into scorn or disrepute. The opponent or his behaviour is compared with something which will elicit an unfavourable response toward him from the audience.' (29).

Pirie provides the example:

'If science admits no certainties, then a scientist has no more certain knowledge of the universe than does a Hottentot running through the bush.' (29).

'(This is true, but is intended as abuse so that the hearer will be more sympathetic to the possibility of certain knowledge.) (29).'

In other words, science using inductive reasoning, testing and empirical research may not claim certainty, at least in some cases, but there is still considerable, significant knowledge that has been obtained through the scientific method.

A lack of certainty with inductive scientific reasoning, does not for example, by default make certain deductive philosophical and theological reasoning certain.

An analogy is not effective here as inductive and deductive reasoning succeeds or fails based on the soundness of premises and conclusions presented.

Blackburn explains that arguing by analogy is stating that since things are alike in some ways they will 'probably' (14) be alike in others. (14).

The use of 'probably' here is key. Often arguing by analogy produces some similarities and some differences rendering the argument unsound.

If such an argument is used comparing only the things certainly alike it is reasonable.

However, Blackburn cites Wittgenstein, noting it can be irresponsible to generalize one case. (14).

In other words, generalizing by argument of analogy can be irresponsible.

It can also be abusive analogy.

O'Conell Bridge, Dublin: trekearth

Fleet Street, London: trekearth

Ad Hominem/Against the Man

Facebook and Travel+Leisure: Possibly Turkey

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

'If you cannot attack the argument, attack the arguer.' Pirie (2006)(2015: 122). The author states that an insult in itself is not fallacious, (122) but ad hominem is used in a way to attempt to undermine an opponent's argument. (122).

So, therefore, in my opinion, someone could be rightly and justly called a 'jerk' because he/she is acting in such a negative way in an argument and this would not be the use of the fallacious. A fallacy being the use of poor and invalid reasoning; as well it is the use of an invalid structure of argument.

But if someone is called a 'jerk' in an attempt to undermine the opponent's argument then it is fallacious.

The argument is not treated by its merit. (122).

Blackburn explains that ad hominem is an attempt to argue against a person via personal attack, it is less commonly used by praising a person, or it may or may not be used by forceful attacks against a person's position but they do not advance matters intellectually against a person's beliefs and views. Blackburn (1996: 24).

Douglas Walton writes that argumentation ad hominem is an argument against the man. It is a personal attack against an arguer to refute the argument. In the abusive form the character of the arguer is attacked. These arguments are often used to attack an opponent unfairly. Walton (1996: 374).

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

WALTON, DOUGLAS (1996) ‘Informal Fallacy’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Being Reasonable In An Argument

Giethorn, Holland/Netherlands: Facebook & Travel+Leisure

Vancouver

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

The author explains that a person can win an argument by being offensive (as in bad-mannered) as long as the force of the reasoning cannot be withstood by the opponent. Pirie (2006)(2015: 26).

That being stated the author, wisely in my view, points out that it is easier to win an argument 'if your demeanour is pleasant', (26).

Pirie then uses the good example of salesmen convincing people to purchase goods. (26).

A skilled arguer will often allow his opponent 'a let-out, a graceful retreat'. (26). This allows one to concede an argument without losing face. (26). I very strongly hold to the idea of humbly letting an opponent in an argument 'save face'. There are several possible reasons to do this, but one is to love one's neighbour as self (Matthew 22 and Mark 12), and to love those in Christ (John 15, 1 John) and another is that even as it appears one may be winning an argument, persons are finite and sinful and a very humble attitude in arguing is itself reasonable.

One may have made the better premise (s) and conclusion but is not necessarily completely free from potential intellectual error in that context. Even after the most successful arguments there is always some room for humility and doubt as a finite, sinner.

As well, no argument, thesis or post, for example, is completely exhaustive in presentation.

There is also room within an argument to cease argumentation and take the position of student in order to learn.

Even in the next realm with perfected humanity (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 21-22), those in Christ will still be finite.

The author states that in winning an argument it is better to appear reasonable than dogmatic. (26). It is more persuasive to readers and listeners. A warning to those that are philosophically, theologically and religiously fundamentalist (ic). The authors explains that the best way to appear reasonable is to be reasonable. (28). Win the argument he states but in a level and civilized manner. (28).

Arguing On The Internet

Lake Como, Italy-trekearth

Arguing On The Internet

Preface

This article is part of my Pirie, entry by entry, book review, published originally October 10, 2015. Edited with additions for an entry on academia.edu, March 23, 2024.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Arguing On The Internet: Pirie

'In regard to arguing on the internet'. Pirie (2006)(2015: 22). Arguments can take place 'in the comments responses to blogs'. Pirie (22). I will add for 2024, on websites and on social media. Further he states 'Not many people who read blogs bother to go through the comments section, below them', (22). He explains that those who do comment are not likely a typical reader. (22). 'Interested minority' (22) is the what he states in regard to persons that comment. Those who comment may be very opinionated and have their minds made up and what takes place in comments is a form of 'jousting'. (22). As these types of readers are set in their views, the object in writing blog comments is not so much to change the views of others but to score intellectual points. (22).

As I have noted with the rise of Facebook and far more social media options, my Blogger website comments drastically declined over the years, to virtually nil. In fact, my Blogger website posts are previewed on a Facebook Business page, Russell Norman Murray, PhD which would more likely receive any related comments, but the number of comments are few.

Blogger pageviews for both this website and my other related Blogger website, Satire Und Theology. vary from year to year in amount, but according to official Blogger statistics, both websites still receive thousands of pageviews most months. I am fine with the change from basically a blog format to a website format, as I have transitioned from full-time student, part-time employee to full-time, government employee and part-time scholar. I still do the academic work, mostly on the weekends, and listening to messages and reading during the week, but frankly I do not have the time or energy for answering many comments. I need to also be more in-person social than while I was a student.

Pirie opines that in blog comments the 'level of courtesy is much lower than would be expected in face-to-face confrontation'. (22). True enough in many cases and it should be remembered by those claiming a public Christian faith, philosophy and walk that Biblical views on love, truth, morality and ethics would in no way be altered because an interaction was virtual and not actual! Similarity, those of non-Christian worldviews should also seek consistent morality and ethics in both offline and online contexts. The author mentions internet trolls and their ability to hide online and be abusive to online writers. (22). I reason there is too much 'hiding' online in many contexts, rather than dialogue, but being an internet troll is cowardly and distasteful, especially when ad hominem, against the person, attacks are used. I do realize that there is online fear in other contexts, such as women being defensive in protecting their identity and motives. 

I reason that many people hold to views too emotionally and subjectively, as opposed to seeking a more rational, objective approach to propositions/statements, and as well premises that lead to conclusions. I trust that rationally and objectively, everything that I have is from the Lord, and that everything I do not have is from the Lord. I therefore can read and listen to views I do not agree with rationally and objectively, not trusting primarily in myself as the source of truth, but in the Lord as the source of the truth. This gives me peace whether I agree or disagree with the views of others. The following verse from the NASB (and an interesting bonus, technical explanation) is at the core of my worldview.

New American Standard Bible (NASB) John 14: 6 

6 Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me. 

Logos.com 

Cited 

'Did you ever notice this little asterisk in your New American Standard Bible? 

This is what the NASB says it’s doing: “A star (*) are [sic] used to mark verbs that are historical presents in the Greek which have been translated with an English past tense in order to conform to modern usage.” For example, instead of, “They go into Galilee,” which is a literal translation of the Greek, the NASB will have, “They went* into Galilee,” which is more natural in contemporary English.'

'This article was originally published in the January/February 2021 issue of Bible Study Magazine. Slight adjustments, such as title and subheadings, may be the addition of an editor.'

End citation

Pirie advises blog writers to keep blog comments short and factual. (22). Short comments are not difficult to present as the Blogger format is meant to limit the length. Being factual should be absolutely, positively essential for academic websites such as mine. Revising material where and when necessary. Publicly note it where and when necessary. The author also claims response should be 'immediate'. (23). Deal with an issue while relevant and I agree. Again, seeking to be rational and objective, in my case prayerfully, through grace through faith (notably Ephesians 1-2).

Ad hominem: Blackburn

Blackburn writes that ad hominem is an attempt to argue against a person by personal attack, less commonly by praising a person, or it may or may not be forceful attacks against a person's position but they do not advance matters intellectually against a person's beliefs and views. Blackburn (1996: 24).

Ad hominem: Walton

Douglas Walton explains that argumentation ad hominem is an argument against the man. It is a personal attack against an arguer to refute the argument. In the abusive form the character of the arguer is attacked. These arguments are often used to attack an opponent unfairly. Walton (1996: 374). In other words, it is an informal fallacy, to use name-calling and abusive actions to attempt to win an argument. A formal fallacy is concerned with presenting a logical form to avoid being fallacious, and an informal fallacy occurs when there are errors in reasoning with a premise (s) and conclusion.

Ad hominem: Pirie

Ad Hominem/Against the Man 

'If you cannot attack the argument, attack the arguer.' Pirie (2006)(2015: 122). The author states that an insult in itself is not fallacious, (122) but ad hominem is used in a way to attempt to undermine an opponent's argument. (122). The argument is not treated by its merit. (122). Therefore, in my opinion, someone could be rightly and justly called a 'jerk' because he/she is acting in such a negative way in an argument and this would not be the use of the fallacious. An informal fallacy being the use of poor and invalid reasoning. The invalid structure of argument is a formal fallacy. But if someone is called a 'jerk' in an attempt to undermine the opponent's argument then it is fallacious. 

Ad Hominem Argument Circumstantial 

With this fallacy 'the appeal is to the special circumstances of the person with whom one is arguing. Instead of trying to prove the contention true of false on the evidence, its acceptance is urged because of the position and interests of those appealed to.' (124). 

Cited

'You can't accept the legitimacy of lending for profit. You are a Christian, and Christ drove out the money lenders from the temple.' (124). Pirie explains that the Christian is invited to agree because of Christian convictions. (124). I agree that this would be fallacious argumentation. Jesus Christ in the biblical context is removing the business of moneychanging and related banking from the temple. This should not be expanded to Christian theology and philosophy where all moneychanging, money lending and banking is therefore considered, sinful, immoral and unethical. In other words, banking outside of the temple, or in our modern context, the Christian Church, is not necessarily sinful, immoral and unethical. Interestingly, the British author also documents the example of nominal Christians that in reality do not follow biblical views in their personal lives. The nominal Christian could then be 'forced into a reluctant and resentful acquiescence you could never have gained otherwise.' (125). Problematically, many nominal Christians are biblically illiterate to the point where he/she may very well be unaware whether Jesus Christ's actions of removing moneychanging and banking from the temple, in the New Testament Gospels, would therefore require a modern-day Christian theology and philosophy that is anti-lending and anti-banking. Context is extremely important within Biblical Studies. 

Tu quoque 

A type of ad hominem. Tu quoque means 'you also'. (201). This fallacy is committed by the claim that the proponent is guilty of what he/she accuses the opponent of. (201). This fallacy does not adequately deal with the subject under discussion. (202). Premises and conclusions do not reasonably deal with and resolve the subject under discussion. The truth or falsehood of the discussion is avoided and instead the background of the proponent, making the argument, is attacked by the opponent. (202). As well, the opponent may attempt to demonstrate inconsistency in the proponent's position, again without dealing without reasonably resolving the issue. (202). The previous views of the proponent are claimed to be inconsistent with present views. (202). 

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville. 

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic. 

FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press. 

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

HARPUR, GEORGE (1986) Ephesians in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE, 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. ORR, R.W. (1986) 'The Letters of John' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

WALTON, DOUGLAS (1996) ‘Informal Fallacy’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Arguments and Logical Fallacies

Arguments and Logical Fallacies

Preface

Updated for a posting on academia.edu, 20240309. This was the first review of the Pirie text.

Photo was of recent books purchased. The Kant book was a PhD reference.

---

Philosopher Madsen Pirie explains that 'sound reasoning is the basis of winning at argument. Logical fallacies undermine arguments'. Pirie (2006)(2015: xii). He writes that any trick of logic or language which allows a statement or claim to be passed off as something it is not, actually, has the 'admission' card to the enclosure known as fallacies. (xii).

In describing 1. What is an argument

It is stated that an argument begins with a disagreement. (1). A first person puts forward a point or view or opinion and this is contrasted by a point, view or opinion differing.These views are not compatible, in other words the two views cannot simultaneously be held to.

An argument supports one side and position and undermines the other side and position. (1).

This is a loose term for an argument, states the author, when people assert opposing positions; the term argument is more correctly applied with supporting material. (2).

Point, view and opinion could also be called a premise (s) leading to a conclusion, notably from my MPhil and PhD questionnaire work. 

(A proposition/statement would be a singular point/claim. Not technically an argument)

The Elements texts states that an argument is a set of claims, one of which is supported by the others.

A claim or a set of claims support a claim. Elements (1997: 5).

The conclusion is supported by the premise (s). My add.

A conclusion is a claim meant to be supported by the claims or reasons provided in the argument.
A premise is a claim put forward to support a conclusion. (5).

Elements states 

Argument=conclusion+premises, (5)

Or again from my United Kingdom theses work, it could be stated

Argument=premise (s)+conclusion

One infers or makes an inference each time a conclusion is drawn from a premise or premises. (6).

An argument can fail if it has a false premise (s) or has premise (s) that is irrelevant or provide inadequate support for a conclusion. (7). But the authors point out that a bad argument is still an argument. (7).

In other words a bad argument is not sound or true.

Further from Pirie: A valid argument can have a false premise. (69). As long as the premise (s) are not true and the conclusion false, it is logically possible to have a valid argument. Premise-Conclusion TT, FF, FT, TF combinations. A true premise (s) and false conclusion (TF) from these combinations, cannot possibly be logically valid. The other combinations are logically valid. However, as Pire recognizes, a sound (true) argument has all true premises. (69). I am not placing a limit on the number of premises within every type of argument. The conclusion would also be true.

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

VR Zone/Facebook