 |
| Sydney: Google+ |
Preface
A short but tricky article from 20151107, where I continued to review the Pirie text on fallacies. Slight revisions and additions for an entry on academia.edu 20240817.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
Cited
Pirie explains that this fallacy assumes the 'freak features of an exceptional case are enough to accept rejection of the general rule'. (33). The features in question may be accidental and may be considered an unusual, allowable exception. (33). Almost every generalization could be rejected because of a possible accidental case it does not cover. But to always maintain this is the fallacy of accident. (33).
It is fallacious to treat a general, qualified statement as if it is unqualified. (33). The author states that it is a fallacy that appeals to anarchists because it appears to overturn general rules. (33).
General rules with a few exceptions.
It is fallacious to treat a general, qualified statement as if it is unqualified. (33). The author states that it is a fallacy that appeals to anarchists because it appears to overturn general rules. (33).
General rules with a few exceptions.
Clarification
In philosophy:
An unqualified statement is considered certain.
Unqualified = Certain
A qualified statement has levels of uncertainty.
Qualified = Uncertain
Accident Fallacy
Blackburn writes that the accident fallacy is from the unqualified (certain my add) statement to the statement qualified (uncertain, my add). (7). Pirie explains that this fallacy assumes the 'freak features of an exceptional case are enough to accept rejection of the general rule'.
'a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid ' (7).
Blackburn writes that is an (alleged) fallacy. (7). Arguing from the general case to the specific, particular case, without recognizing some qualifying factors. (7).
He lists as example: 'If some snakes are harmless then some snakes in this bag are harmless.' (7).
I take it that philosophically, one should be careful in the diagnosis of accident fallacy, as it may not always be so.
'a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid ' (7).
Blackburn writes that is an (alleged) fallacy. (7). Arguing from the general case to the specific, particular case, without recognizing some qualifying factors. (7).
He lists as example: 'If some snakes are harmless then some snakes in this bag are harmless.' (7).
I take it that philosophically, one should be careful in the diagnosis of accident fallacy, as it may not always be so.
My example:
Florida won the 2024 Stanley Cup.
Florida will therefore will the next three Stanley Cups.
Technically possible, but highly unlikely. There are 32 teams competing and the odds are Florida will not win the next three Stanley Cups. In a sense, it is an exception that any one particular team is that year's winner. It is always more likely that one of the other 31 teams will win the Stanley Cup, at least mathematically. Even a favoured team before the season would not likely even receive even odds to be champions from the odds makers.
We can see here why Blackburn calls it an alleged fallacy. My example could theoretically occur. A team can win four Stanley Cups in a row, but it has only be done by the Montreal Canadiens (2x) and New York Islanders (1x).
Converse Accident Fallacy
From the qualified (uncertain, my add) statement to the unqualified (certain, my add). (7).
'a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter' Blackburn (7).
The fallacy of taking out a needed qualification. (7).
Also known as 'converse fallacy of the accident'. (7).
'If it is always permissible to kill in war, then it is always permissible to kill'. (7).
The fallacy of taking out a needed qualification. (7).
Also known as 'converse fallacy of the accident'. (7).
'If it is always permissible to kill in war, then it is always permissible to kill'. (7).
My example:
I would question even the qualified (uncertain) statement in the example.
It is permissible to kill willing opposing combatants.
It is not permissible to kill unwilling opposing combatants (surrendered or injured).
It is not permissible to kill civilians.
Therefore, it is not always permissible to kill in war.
However, for the example listed, it is not always permissible to kill (answering the unqualified, certain premise) because warfare operates with a different set of legal and ethical rules than does non-warfare.
---
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
Cited
'Converse Accident: (hasty generalization) the fallacy of considering two few cases or certain exceptional cases and generalizing to a rule that fits them alone. (Note that the fallacy of converse accident is the opposite of the fallacy of accident.)'
'Converse accident fallacies arise since many different logical generalizations are consistent with a finite amount of data. But not all of those generalizations are consistent with each other.'
webmaster@philosophy.lander.edu
I am now on the Focus on the Family mail list, from Colorado.
ReplyDeleteI agree with much of what I have read and heard but not all.
In regard to dating and marriage, there is the usual North American assumed ageism which is also very prevalent in the Church.
I was listening to some 'FOF' dating advice and it is assumed one must pursue someone his/her own age.
There was no Biblical support offered. Simply cultural assumption.
It was never even a consideration that mutual interest might be more important than age, which to me should have been raised as at least a possible important proposition in some cases. Not every case, I will state, to avoid accident fallacy. Generally people like to date and marry someone of the same age and are more comfortable with that, not having interest in other. I have no argument with that in general.
Note, a secular relationship coach that claimed to have vast people experience, including working for intelligence agencies, told me fundamentalist Christians, I take it he meant Biblical Christians and by that, the younger women (18-29), would not date older men 35+ because these Christian women were inexperienced and naive in relationships. Immature, I think he stated.
He stated I would need to look outside the Church. Although I did not agree with his assertion I was merely a divinity student, which I never was, I was a Christian Theologian and Philosopher of Religion, he did make a good point...
So, how much of this evangelical objection is nature and how much is culture?
A red flag arose during one FOF show as a young woman emailed that she had rejected a guy a couple of years ago and that she wondered if she did right, because although she did not like him, he may have liked her and now he moved away. She wondered if she missed on God's will.
The counsellors assumed that if she did not like the man, that her theology must be bad for even considering what she was considering.
They assumed God would not allow her to be confused about attraction...
But my red flag is, why is she still thinking of this man if she did not have some feelings for him?
I know, that when I have rejected women, I never wondered if I did wrong, when I had no feelings for them. I may question how I treated them as in how good was I to them, but I have never wondered if I should date or marry someone I am not attracted to.
So, the red flag leads to the trillion dollar question.
Was she really not attracted to this man at all?
Or was she rather more so not supposed to be attracted to him due to cultural and church social pressures?
Or other men were more attractive, but not available?
I am not stating, that she would likely reject her dream man, but I wonder if there is some legitimate doubt on the Godliness of her rejection which the two female councillors quickly dismissed. Is the person of our dreams, even God's perfect will?
Again, why think so much about and seek advice about a man with whom you had no attraction?
Perhaps the rejection was done in an naive and immature way?
A friend of mine stated maybe she was in a state of desperation, so she thinks she might have made a mistake by not taking the opportunity. That is reasonable as well.
Overall this example, may and I state may, be confused reasoning and repressed attraction which the counsellors should have recognized and considered.
I can see why there would be problems in US evangelical culture with this type of limited advice.
So, to go on, let us break this subject down somewhat...
ReplyDeleteBy my deduction and reasoning, a typical US Evangelical, FOF psychologist would state in regard to someone younger dating someone 35+, let us state in my context younger female & older male; the problem was lack of similar relationship experience, interests and life goals. Even if there was mutual spiritual, intellectual and romantic attraction.
Therefore, the relationship should not be considered.
However, if I could object with the counter...
My relationship experience is limited and therefore similar to someone much younger, and that I may have similar interests and life goals as someone younger. For example, I still want to be married with a family in a Biblical model. God willing.
Therefore, the relationship should be considered, where there is mutual spiritual, intellectual and romantic attraction.
I reason this would be largely ignored by FOF professionals, due to pre-set bias and views and countered with...
Anyone, 35+ that does not have significant relationship experience must be significantly flawed.
(This may be alluded to and not clearly stated.)
They need counselling.
(By the way, I have friends in counselling and psychology and no one that knows me well has seriously criticized my views.)
(It is only outsiders that do.)
Therefore, the relationship should not be considered.
But I would counter, that this a mere assumption.
The post-Christian era is among us.
Christianity and the Church in decline.
Numbers of Christians low, especially in BC and Canada.
The evangelical church has lost its ways theologically in many cases.
The number of available committed, theological Christians of any age in significantly limited.
People should consider more reasonable, Biblical options.
Therefore, the relationship should not be rejected as a possibility due to lack of relationship experience of the older man.
Now, I do not want to use an accident fallacy.
Generally most younger women will not be attracted to older men.
Therefore, generally a relationship should not be considered.
However, there are exceptions and these should be handled in Christ, in truth and not merely be pre-set approaches not willing to consider other propositions.
I actually emailed two different female counsellors at FOF on this issue and both declined to email with me, it appears. It was instead pushed to the Canadian office which replied and did not deal with my theological and philosophical queries, instead signing me up for the site and stating the Canadian site offered Master's degree level counselling.
So, there were three opportunities to deal with my issues. All ducked.
To me, this is yet another sign that many in the evangelical church are unwilling to seriously deal with difficult issues if it MAY require significant worldview changes.
If unable to deal with serious internal issues how can the Church seriously witness to the World (Matthew 28) in many cases?
Palms Out, Everyone
ReplyDeleteWhat should we do with the bread left over from the Lord’s Supper? I was in a high-church wedding once, up on the platform. After the marriage ceremony came the Supper, and then the man in charge looked hard at us up there and said, this must all be consumed (because it had been “consecrated” I think). So that high-class wedding had its grand finale with a bunch of guys in robes pigging out. My own tradition features John Murray walking around right after the Amen with a basket full for the starving kids.
We low-church types believe in priests though, even more so--since we know we all are! We give Martin Luther credit for “the priesthood of all believers,” but it comes from I Peter 2:4-5, As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
ReplyDeleteJesus the Anointed is our high priest forever, as we come to the Lord only through him. This is the best part of the Westminster Confession for me, the conclusion to Christ the Mediator, 8:8 To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same; making intercession for them, and revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mysteries of salvation; effectually persuading them by his Spirit to believe and obey, and governing their hearts by his Word and Spirit; overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power and wisdom, in such manner, and ways, as are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable dispensation.
ReplyDeleteJesus does that best, because of who he is, especially since he’s been tempted in every way we are, and knows how to pray for us. But we do that too, if we take the trouble to get to know each other and find out where we all are. It’s like a sermon, if it’s going to amount to anything it has to be specific, zeroing in on what the preacher knows where we are.
ReplyDeleteThere’s joy in a general blessing for each other too. At the end of worship many of us hold up our hands palms up, to “receive” the Lord’s blessing, while the leader up front does his hands palms out to “give” it. What if we desire someone to enjoy God’s blessing, may we pray for that while she’s right there with us? Shouldn’t we all build that into our prayer lives? Palms out too?
ReplyDeletePeter said that when we pray for each other, what we’re doing is offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Jesus does so much for us all the time, cleaning up our hearts to make them acceptable to God! That would make a good opening prayer wouldn’t it, O Lord in the name of Jesus and only for his glory, I call on you to accept my feeble prayers for my brothers and sisters. Then the palms out would really make sense, wouldn’t it?
ReplyDeleteWe’re OK when the priest upfront wears his collar backwards. (I get nervous when he turns his back on me at the Table and mixes up something, but I’m getting over that). He’s a priest, fine, so are all of us, join the party. I’ve been interested in “the role of women” in the church of Jesus, and I’m glad my PCA has a committee working on that. But in the meantime, how about being joyful about “the role of all of us,” priests that we are? Oh, since only the high priest could come into the Lord’s holy presence, and that’s what we do all that time, I should have said, “high priests that we are.” Palms out!
ReplyDeleteGreat post. I was checking continuously this blog and I'm impressed!
ReplyDeleteExtremely helpful info particularly the last part :) I care for such information much.
I was seeking this particular information for a long time.
Thank you and good luck.
Also visit my homepage -
“To make Routine a Stimulus
ReplyDeleteRemember it can cease —
Capacity to Terminate
Is a Specific Grace —.”
-Emily Dickinson, “To make Routine a Stimulus,” 1196
ReplyDeleteHi Russ,
Here are the latest insights about your Facebook Page. Great new features for your Page
Read about our new messaging features for Pages that make it even easier to communicate with your audience. Learn more.
Week of Nov 2 - Nov 8
Russell Norman Murray
Build Audience · Promote Page
See Insights
Last Week Previous Week Trend
Page Visits 70 44 59.1%
Weekly Total Reach 30 24 25.0%
People Engaged 9 6 50.0%
Total Page Likes 75 75 0.0%
The above is my Facebook page/blog stats...
ReplyDeleteIntroverted Faith?
ReplyDeleteProbably I have bladder cancer and my friend Anne is helping me by describing it as “introverted, not interested in making friends with its neighbors” (her way of saying not spreading, I think). That gets my attention, as describing my withdrawn way of living my faith, not saying much about it to others. I think I’m not the only one. I like to chat with people after church and I hardly ever hear much about the worship. (The lazy way to explain that is to grumble about a sermon full of platitudes, but that’s not helpful. How did the preacher himself get that way?) Maybe the worship should include models of possible conversations? So the preacher could suggest, if a friend has this happening in her life, you might be able to help by suggesting how you’ve been working with what we just learned.
Preaching as modeling is always a good plan, not just helping people understand a biblical truth, but also suggesting how it works in life, maybe even in the preacher’s life. But some of us get nervous about that, isn’t that somehow relativizing and shrinking down some grand truth to fit the tiny dimensions of my life? That could happen, but as we look at the Bible doesn’t it happen all the time, this or that calamity being dealt with by the biggest picture of what’s the Lord’s plan? That’s how I read Psalms, isn’t that right?
ReplyDeleteChristian counseling has been so helpful. Here is someone’s very real and very hard personal problem, and here’s the biblical setting for that and how to move ahead with it—God’s hope for your life! That beats the threatening alternative, the Bible can’t help, you have to get wisdom from the world. Do we think of it as a speciality, not something we all need to understand and use? We need to lean against that, don’t we? Oh, if you’re picking a seminary, be sure to check out the quality of their own counseling program.
ReplyDeleteIn the theology world we know we have to be very alert to all those attempts to undermine and trash the word of God by showing how to twist it around until it makes sense, much too big a price for some short-term help. But we also need to be alert to the opposite error, being against all cultural relevance because it seems to undermine biblical authority. That’s just not how the Bible works! It tells us both/and, that it’s God’s word and that it fits where we are.
ReplyDeleteDoing this right has a lot to do with our expectations, and you can see that in what you pray for. Prayer just about equals your understanding of the Lord--can he really make a difference in the hard places of your life or not? What about praying like this: O Lord, I’m about to read your word/come to church/go to a conference. I rejoice that you're about to show me your plan and your wisdom in a deeper and clearer way. But I ask of you something else too: as I learn your truth, remind me of that person in my life in deep need who would be so lifted up when she knew this too. Amen.
ReplyDeleteD. Clair Davis
You are in my prayers, Clair...
ReplyDeleteAndy Griffith's Peaceful Town
ReplyDelete>
> The reason Mayberry was so peaceful and quiet was possibly because nobody was married.
>
> Andy, Aunt Bea, Barney, Floyd, Howard, Goober, Gomer, Sam, Earnest T Bass, Helen, Thelma Lou,
>
> Clara, and of course Opie, all single. The only married person was Otis, and he stayed drunk.
>
> Just sayin'.....