PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
Continuation of the entry by entry review of the Pirie text, edited for an article presentation on academia.edu on December 3, 2022.
Omitting the benefit
When evaluating the benefits of an activity, both the good and bad consequence, should be considered. (157).
If each may exist.
A surprisingly (157) common fallacy consists of omitting the benefits produced by an activity or proposal and counting only the adverse consequences. (157).
The author's expertise on fallacies is abundant. But within western society, it is no surprise to me that many omit the benefits of views found disagreeable.
Pirie states that for example, many people have reasons for drinking, smoking and eating questionable foods. (158). The reasons for these should be addressed by campaigns that oppose. (158).
Agreed. This would be an attempt at presenting objectively reasoned premises and conclusions for and against certain concepts, philosophy, beliefs and activities. As opposed to rather emotionally held to premises and conclusions.
Pirie example:
'We should ban mountaineering because it is too dangerous. Several people are killed or injured doing it every year.' (157).
That idea would go over like an atomic bomb, in many areas, including in British Columbia where I was born and have lived most of life.
A potential upside to the downside described is the exercise and health benefits that occur when mountaineering.
My example
Radical liberal secularist in the western world
'The government should ban Christian parents from teaching their children the Bible, because it
brainwashes these children to believe in a God that is not empirically verifiable.'
God by nature, being infinite, non-material, spirit, the first cause, existed eternally prior to finite matter and energy (In physics, the ability to do work). God cannot be scientifically measured by material means. To insist that God must be empirically provable is a philosophical error and risks scientism.
Omitting the benefit
When evaluating the benefits of an activity, both the good and bad consequence, should be considered. (157).
If each may exist.
A surprisingly (157) common fallacy consists of omitting the benefits produced by an activity or proposal and counting only the adverse consequences. (157).
The author's expertise on fallacies is abundant. But within western society, it is no surprise to me that many omit the benefits of views found disagreeable.
Pirie states that for example, many people have reasons for drinking, smoking and eating questionable foods. (158). The reasons for these should be addressed by campaigns that oppose. (158).
Agreed. This would be an attempt at presenting objectively reasoned premises and conclusions for and against certain concepts, philosophy, beliefs and activities. As opposed to rather emotionally held to premises and conclusions.
Pirie example:
'We should ban mountaineering because it is too dangerous. Several people are killed or injured doing it every year.' (157).
That idea would go over like an atomic bomb, in many areas, including in British Columbia where I was born and have lived most of life.
A potential upside to the downside described is the exercise and health benefits that occur when mountaineering.
My example
Radical liberal secularist in the western world
'The government should ban Christian parents from teaching their children the Bible, because it
brainwashes these children to believe in a God that is not empirically verifiable.'
God by nature, being infinite, non-material, spirit, the first cause, existed eternally prior to finite matter and energy (In physics, the ability to do work). God cannot be scientifically measured by material means. To insist that God must be empirically provable is a philosophical error and risks scientism.
Scientism
Scientism: A pejorative term for the concept that only the methods of natural science and related categories form the elements for any philosophical or other enquiry. Blackburn (1996: 344). From Oxford Scientism: 1 a a method or doctrine regarded as characteristic of scientists b the use of practice of this. 2 often derogatory, an excessive belief in or application of scientific method. Oxford (1995: 1236).
It may be considered pejorative when used by critics, from a secular British perspective, but there is significant accuracy to this term. A scientism approach omits and ignores as beneficial the non-empirical, scientifically speaking, premises and conclusions that work as evidences for God with historical, biblical revelation, such as Genesis 1-3 and the creation description (God as spirit, John 4: 24 for example). However, the historical characters, for example, within the Hebrew Bible and New Testament are empirically documented.
An approach using scientism also ignores philosophical support within philosophy of religion for theism that would parallel theological, biblical concepts in regard to God. Notably, first-cause.
If such supports for the idea of the biblical God were not omitted as non-beneficial, it would then clearly be philosophically quite reasonable for Christian parents to teach their children the Bible.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Scientism: A pejorative term for the concept that only the methods of natural science and related categories form the elements for any philosophical or other enquiry. Blackburn (1996: 344). From Oxford Scientism: 1 a a method or doctrine regarded as characteristic of scientists b the use of practice of this. 2 often derogatory, an excessive belief in or application of scientific method. Oxford (1995: 1236).
It may be considered pejorative when used by critics, from a secular British perspective, but there is significant accuracy to this term. A scientism approach omits and ignores as beneficial the non-empirical, scientifically speaking, premises and conclusions that work as evidences for God with historical, biblical revelation, such as Genesis 1-3 and the creation description (God as spirit, John 4: 24 for example). However, the historical characters, for example, within the Hebrew Bible and New Testament are empirically documented.
An approach using scientism also ignores philosophical support within philosophy of religion for theism that would parallel theological, biblical concepts in regard to God. Notably, first-cause.
If such supports for the idea of the biblical God were not omitted as non-beneficial, it would then clearly be philosophically quite reasonable for Christian parents to teach their children the Bible.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.
ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Genesis’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.
FRETHEIM, TERENCE E. (1994) ‘Is Genesis 3 a Fall Story?’, in Word and World, Luther Seminary, pp. 144-153. Saint Paul, Luther Seminary.
GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH. (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) Della Thompson (ed.), Oxford, Clarendon Press.
THE ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE, NEW TESTAMENT AND PSALMS (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.
Additional on December 3 2022
The author is Adam Frank
Cited
Cited
Cited
Cited
'What is scientism, and why is it a mistake?'
'Science is a method of inquiry about nature, while scientism is philosophy.'
Agreed.
Cited
'And scientism is no longer up to the challenge of meeting the most pressing issues of our day.'
It never was...
Cited
'Science and Scientism are not the same. You can deeply value the former while rejecting the latter. Scientism is the view that science is the only objective means by which to determine what is true or is an unwarranted application of science in situations that are not amenable to scientific inquiry. Science is a method for asking questions about the world. Scientism is just one philosophy among many about the relationship between human beings and their experiences.'
Scientism definitely has worldview and philosophy aspects to it.
'The folly of scientism'
'Now I am a passionate scientist who is passionate about science, but I also think scientism is a huge mistake. The most important reason it is a mistake is because it is confused about what it’s defending. Without doubt, science is unique, powerful, and wonderful. It should be celebrated, and it needs to be protected. Scientism, on the other hand, is just metaphysics, and there are lots and lots of metaphysical beliefs.'
Every academic discipline needs to be handled with objectivity. Scientism risks subjectively dismissing non-scientific academic disciplines.
'There are in fact many philosophical positions — many kinds of metaphysics — that you can adopt about reality and science depending on your inclinations. The good ones illuminate critical aspects of what is happening as human beings collectively go about trying to make sense of their experiences. Scientism claims to be the only philosophy that can speak for science, but that is simply not the case. There are lots of philosophies of science out there.'
Agreed. A philosophy of science, does not have to embrace any kind of scientism.
'Adam Frank is a professor of astrophysics at the University of Rochester and a leading expert on the final stages of evolution for stars like the sun. Frank's computational research group at the University of Rochester has developed advanced supercomputer tools for studying how stars form and how they die.'
