Audio/Video: New Logitech h340

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

The end of this text review.

Why wasn't it done already?

There has to be a first time for everything. It is a fallacy to claim that anything worthwhile has already been done. (214). It should not should be assumed that new ideas are always wacky (214) or just always wrong.

My example:

Person X: One day medical science will be able to repair amputated limbs.

Person Y:  I am against it. It is a bad idea, let God's will stand!

It could also be God's will for a certain person to have a repaired amputated limb (s).

Wishful thinking

This is when premises are accepted because one would like them to be true, rather than because reasonable premises and arguments have been presented in support of premises. (215). This fallacy is not concerned with whether premises and conclusions are true or false. (215).

Pirie mentions philosopher David Hume and his views on the subject of the afterlife. It is opined that it is wishful thinking to believe in the afterlife for deceased relatives and friends. (216). Pirie mentions that some philosophers, such as Hume view (viewed) the afterlife as an absurd notion. (216).

Connected to wishful thinking, I view sentimental theology as often absurd in regard to death and the afterlife. (See sentimental theology in archives).

The biblical, historically revealed, Christian theology in support of the afterlife idea is based on the promise of everlasting life in Jesus Christ. This through his atoning and resurrection work applied to believers via the triune God.

This everlasting life as in heaven, takes place in two stages. For those in Jesus Christ and the Hebrew Bible covenant, prior to the atonement and resurrection work of Jesus Christ.

Paradise (2 Corinthians 12, Philippians 1) for disembodied spirits. Then upon the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15) within the culminated of Kingdom of God, the new heaven and new earth (Revelation 20-22).

This same biblical revelation reveals two stages of hell, also in an everlasting context. For those outside of Jesus Christ and the Hebrew Bible covenant, prior to the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ.

Hades for disembodied spirits (Luke 16) and then ultimately the lake of fire (Revelation 20) for those outside of Jesus Christ. Those in the lake of fire are presumed to be resurrected by many within scholarship.

As secondary support, within philosophy of religion, it can be reasoned there exists the necessary. Within theism, the necessary equates to first cause, which parallels the biblical and theological concept of God, that existed prior to any matter, or anything else for that matter (Genesis and Revelation). The first cause and as well the infinite, eternal author of the initial earthly life can offer everlasting life, if God so chooses and to whom he chooses.

This is not an absurd notion, when not left to wishful thinking and speculation alone.
---

It looks like my face is further thinning out with my fruit, vegetable, fish and natural peanut butter diet. If you do not mind me stating, my friends Darren and Kelly are correct, my arms do look muscular (Those 30 and 50 pound dumbbell curls and lifts.).

We must do something

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

'This fallacy consists in supposing that doing something ineffective is better than doing nothing at all' (213).

Based on the author's example:

Person A: I am getting a 'Love, Don't Hate' tat.

Person B: What difference will that make in the world?

Person A: I have to do something.

Person C:  Every little bit helps!

Random actions can be fallaciously justified by being connected to worthwhile causes. (213).

Actual human actions of love might make a difference in the world, where as a tattoo is not likely to.

Action is usually more useful and effective than symbolism.

This is unobtainable

Durham, 1997

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

Any argument has its limitations.

When accessing premises, any other option for premises comes from the 'available alternatives'. (208).

Therefore, when premises are criticized as imperfect and the alternatives are imperfect as well; those presenting alternatives as perfect, risk the fallacy of 'Unobtainable perfection'.

I am reasoning here that those presenting alternatives may not reason his/her premises are perfect, but rather are not applying a reasonable critique to these alternative views.

Based on the author's example (2008):

Nuclear power and energy should be made illegal as it is dangerous.

(Coal and hydro-electric, and oil are all dangerous too. A key question is which forms of energy production are more dangerous than others.)

In other words, it would be fallacious to rule out nuclear power and energy because it is imperfectly dangerous when this applies to all major energy sources. (2008). The status quo is imperfect and so will be alternatives. It is fallacious to claim there is a perfect solution to the status quo, at least in this present fallen realm.

I caution my politicized friends on the further left and further right that claim their side should rule and could create any type of utopia. Sinful human nature taints all political movements in this fallen realm.

Pirie points out two variants:

Claiming status quo premises do not go far enough. (209). The more drastic change may be (maybe not) better, but it too will be imperfect.

Seeking premises that are beyond a human ability to provide by those making the decisions. (210). So the impossible is suggested over the possible. The impossible but supposedly perfect suggestion (argument) is fallaciously preferred over imperfect, possible premises.

All horses are dogs?

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

The undistributed middle

All horses have four legs and all dogs have four legs, so all horses are dogs. (205).

Neither horses or dogs occupy the entire class of four-legged creatures. (205). See archives for my Langer, symbolic logic articles on 'class'.

Pirie:

'The 'middle' which carelessly omitted to get itself distributed is the term which appears in the first two lines of a three-line argument, but which disappears in the conclusion. The classic three-liner requires that this middle term must cover the whole of its class at least once. If not, it is undistributed.

All men are mammals. Some mammals are rabbits, therefore some men are rabbits.

(Even though the first two lines are correct, the middle term 'mammals' never once refers to all mammals. The middle term is thus undistributed and the deduction invalid. . . .

The standard three-liner (called a 'syllogism') works by relating one thing to another by means of a relationship they both have with a third. Only if at least one of those relationships applies to all the third thing, do we know that it is certain to include the other relationship.' (205-206).

Logically fallacious

'Fallacy of (the) Undistributed Middle (also known as: maldistributed middle, undistributed middle term)

Description:

A formal fallacy in a categorical syllogism where the middle term, or the term that does not appear in the conclusion, is not distributed to the other two terms.

Logical Form:

All A's are C's.
All B's are C's.
Therefore, all A’s are B’s.

Example #1:

All lions are animals.

All cats are animals.

Therefore, all lions are cats.'

To avoid a fallacy,  the first two premises must both relate to the third premise, the conclusion. (206). 

The classic syllogism

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.

Therefore Socrates is mortal.

My recent example

What exists as necessary is good.

God exists as necessary.

Therefore, God is good.