The Complex Question (Plurium Interrogationum)

Italy: People&countries, Facebook

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

The Complex Question (Plurium Interrogationum)

Pirie

Immediately, one can connect the Latin term interrogationum with English terms interrogate, interrogation and related. An open dialogue is not desired by the interrogator, but instead there is a definite agenda in which certain responses are sought. This can be accomplished through an aggressive approach and by asking multiple questions, without allowing time for reasonable dialogue.

Pirie explains that this is the use of 'many questions' and 'the fallacy of the complex question.' (60).

Several questions are combined into one and these require yes or no answers and the person being asked has no opportunity to answer each question individually. (60).

This can be seen in interrogation techniques, but also in the context of debating when one debater attempts to bully the other debater through a barrage of questions while not allowing time for each point to be answered. Incidentally, in this situation, I would expose the intellectual bully and state that one will not be permitted to attempt to win an argument through this fallacious means. In other words, allow reasonable dialogue or the debate in ended.

Pirie explains that with this fallacy, in regard to the questions, 'All of them contain an assumption that the concealed question has already been answered affirmatively.' (61).

Not all the facts have necessarily been established with some of the questions. (61). 'Why did the chicken cross the road? (61). Why did the chicken come from KFC (my add)?  The author explains that these type of fallacious questions preclude answers such as 'There was none' (61), or 'it didn't'. (61).

'Why did Chucky, kill that other doll?', precludes 'He did not.'

This type of fallacious argumentation can be used by someone that is angry and/or emotional and wants to promote his/her agenda in an argument and does not desire to seriously ponder and consider the views of other.

Look for this fallacy within certain political, religious and personal issue debates when persons hold to positions emotionally more so than intellectually, and therefore do not want to seriously dialogue with the opponent. There is no emotional willingness to change view.

Logically fallacious

Logically fallacious referencing Menssen & Sullivan (2007) 

Cited

'Complex Question Fallacy plurium interrogationum (also known as: many questions fallacy, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, trick question, false question)

Description: A question that has a presupposition built in, which implies something but protects the one asking the question from accusations of false claims. It is a form of misleading discourse, and it is a fallacy when the audience does not detect the assumed information implicit in the question and accepts it as a fact. 

Logical Form: Question X is asked that requires implied claim Y to be accepted before question X can be answered.' (End citation)

My example: How many times a day do you stop believing in Reformed theology?

(There will not be a times a day that my worldview changes)

Logically fallacious referencing Menssen & Sullivan (2007)

Cited

'Exception: It is not a fallacy if the implied information in the question is known to be an accepted fact. How long can one survive without water? Here, it is presumed that we need water to survive, which very few would deny that fact.' (End citation)

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). 

MENSSEN S & SULLIVAN T.D  (2007) The Agnostic Inquirer: Revelation from a Philosophical Standpoint, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Complex-Question-Fallacy 

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

Jude/Problem of Suffering

Castle Sanflaouro Messinia, Greece: trekearth

An aspect of my biblical training is online audio bible. The smaller books, as example, can be listened to again and again in one sitting, or while I am working out.

This section from Jude has impacted me:

Jude 1:5

Jude 5 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

5 Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that [a]the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, [b]subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.

Footnotes:

Jude 1:5 Two early mss read Jesus
Jude 1:5 Lit the second time

Jude 5 English Standard Version (ESV)

5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved[a] a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

Footnotes:

Jude 1:5 Some manuscripts although you fully knew it, that the Lord who once saved

Jude 5 King James Version (KJV)

5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
---

From these three Biblical versions, it is Scripturally documented that among those that were brought out of the land of Egypt, some were destroyed because of lack of belief.

Within Jude, this Exodus group without belief is compared to fallen angels (6) and Sodom and Gomorrah (7), and therefore it can be reasoned that all three groups mentioned did not have a belief, trust and faith in God as revealed in the Hebrew Bible. This God, further revealed as triune in the New Testament. This would not be merely an intellectual belief in God, which fallen angels would posses having experienced God in a supernatural context. Strong documenting that belief here as written is tied to faith, to entrust, to trust. (77).

Although the Jude text is in a sense commenting on the older Exodus text, it is also provided in light of progressive revelation and therefore can be taken as Scripturally authoritative in this non-exhaustive article context. I do acknowledge the original Hebrew Bible revelation and for example, Exodus 32 and the 'molten calf' (NASB) episode where a significant lack of belief was demonstrated by the people of the Exodus, however, again this article is intentionally short and not-exhaustive.

From

Bible Hub

'Strong's Concordance pisteuó: to believe, entrust
Original Word: πιστεύω
Part of Speech:
Verb Transliteration: pisteuó
Phonetic Spelling: (pist-yoo'-o)
Short Definition: I believe, have faith in Definition: I believe, have faith in, trust in; pass: I am entrusted with.'

 '...James 2:19; acknowledgment joined to appropriate trust, absolutely, Jude 1:5; εἰς Θεόν, John 12:44; John 14:1; equivalent to to believe and embrace what God has made known either through Christ or concerning Christ: τῷ Θεῷ,'

David F. Payne explains from Jude 1: 5 that these people were 'guilty of presumption, lack of faith, or gross immortality and they had all paid the dreadful penalty.'

In New Testament terms, the unbelieving people of the Exodus are grouped with fallen angels and those from Sodom and Gomorrah. These are those that do not believe in the Lord with trusting faith.

Yesterday, I received via email a non-exhaustive theological opine that mentioned the Israelites in the Exodus context. Christians were warned against the dangers of complaining against God as it is (paraphrased) a very serious sin, a great sin. The concept I gathered, being that God meets the needs of his people and therefore not to complain because real needs will always be met. It was stated (paraphrased) that our supposed 'needs' are often 'greeds'.

In the past a pastor at the church I attend has stated that many times our supposed needs while suffering are 'felt needs'.

I can agree that at times supposed needs can be 'greeds' and 'felt needs'. This is often true in a materialistic Western culture.

However, when I connected the written theological opine with my online audio learning, based on the Jude text, it was clear that unbelieving people of the Exodus were not destroyed by God for complaining about supposed unmet needs. To be clear, the email opine did not deal directly with the Jude text.

Therefore:

I can acknowledge that complaining to and against God can be a serious and great sin. But, in light of my significant, theodicy, problem of evil and problem of suffering research and analysis, I reason that God is infinite, holy and the only being that exists by necessity. His will is always prioritized over human needs, both real and unreal needs. Unreal needs could be defined as wants.

There are real human unmet needs within the problem of suffering, such as blind persons that cannot see and starving children in Africa that do not have sufficient food and drink. Some of these persons are Christians and/or belong to Christian families and therefore could be defined as God's people from a New Testament perspective. At the same time acknowledging God is the creator of all persons and his Hebrew Bible relationship with the people of Israel.

PAYNE DAVID F. (1986) 'Jude' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

Compact Symbols (And post)

May 31: Colounized photo turning Spring into Summer

I am an online subscriber to Focus On The Family.

I support their biblical, Christian focus, but I am not always in agreement with theological and psychological explanations provided.

This takes me back to one of the critiques from United Kingdom educational days and the need for robust theology and robust theological answers.

This just arrived via email from Focus as email header:

'Get Marriage Done Right Free with a donation of any amount!'

For a book.

Ah, that is the solution! Having completed an online copywriting course, several years ago, this header is as much about copywrite as theology and psychology.
---

Compact Symbols

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

Langer explains that symbols used within symbolic logic should be easy to write and recognize and be compact. (59).

Langer used 'ch' for chess-playing. (54-59).

The symbol 'ch' could in another context symbolize 'chess'.

The author explains:

'A chess-man'  used within symbolic logic, would unless 'highly conventionalized' (59), be a poor symbol for chess-playing. (54-59).

She explains that the 'A' as a poor symbol example provided, could be easily confused for the symbol 'a'. (59). Symbols such as '2' and 'i' could also be confused with other symbols that were similar to those. (59). Unless specific symbols are 'conventionalized', they should be avoided for the sake of clarity. (59).

The author also mentions the legitimate problem of 'typographical convenience' (60), and indeed this was an issue documented in my last article, also reviewing the Langer text, as my laptop keyboard is not equipped to correctly type all of Langer's symbols. I also could not find her exact examples online to copy and paste.

Symbols should be presented clearly and compactly.

Another reasonable possibility for a  'chess-playing' symbol.

'cp'

As noted 'ch' could also be used as a symbol for chess, and I reason the following could be as well.

From Chess symbols:

Wikipedia

Two examples cited:

white chess king ♔
black chess knight ♞

Possible uses within symbolic logic:

♔=chess
♞=chess

♔p=chess-playing
♞p=chess-playing

However, I was required to copy and paste the chess symbols and therefore for the sake of clear and compact communication these symbols would need to be 'conventionalized' and available within typographical convenience for reasonable, clear and compact, dialogue.

No, I do not play chess, but have been known in the past to play British computer soccer.

Brief But Significant Symbolic Glossary

Burnaby Mountain Park

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

Cited

'...a given symbol equals by interpretation a certain term or relation. (58).

Interpretation is abbreviated as 'int'. (58)

Glossary

Note my keyboard does not have the correct symbols in order for me to copy Philosopher Langer's glossary exactly. Where I am using an approximate symbol, it will be noted with *

This also allows an example of symbolic logic...

"=" =int "identical with"
"e" =int "membership in the class"*
"C" =int "entailment"*
"E!"=int "there exists" (58).

Therefore:

Howard James Bartel=Pope Chucklins=Saint Chuckles=Chucky

Batman e superhero

To sleep C to dream (57).

To eat C to digest.

Langer's example is:

E! God (57).

E! FC Bayern Munich
E! Donald John Trump
E! Justin Pierre James Trudeau

Langer warns:

'The assignment of arbitrary meanings to signs with traditionally established uses should be avoided. That is to say, one should not use = to mean chess playing...' (59).

The = symbol having similar traditional uses in philosophy, mathematics and science, therefore it would be reasonable for clarity to use = in its traditional context within symbolic logic. Certain symbols are 'generally used within those connotations.' (59).

Professor Langer (December 20, 1895 – July 17, 1985) Wikipedia, is a clear and concise philosophy presenter in regard to material presented in the text.

Burnaby Mountain Park

Burnaby Mountain Park

Burnaby Mountain Park