Genetic Fallacy/Damning The Origin/Damning The Source

Vancouver

My new site URL and the 'first' post:

drrnm.blogspot.com

I have gone through Blogger, Facebook and Google+ and as far as I know all the links should have transferred over as far as main page and archived posts.
---

Back to a review of the Pirie text.

At Northview Community Church in Abbotsford, Wednesday night, 'Genetic Fallacy' was mentioned several times by the two speakers working within Christian apologetics.

So, how is this fallacy reviewed by Pirie?

And I shall also cite Blackburn.

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

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

Pirie:

'The genetic fallacy has nothing to do with Darwin'... (116) But a great deal to do with not liking where an argument comes from. (116). People give less credence to views which emanate from those they detest, regardless of the actual merit of the views themselves. (116).

Note that this demonstrates a lack of objective thinking. Objective thinking being a view and/or approach primarily based on the object, facts not feelings.

Instead this fallacy shows the use of subjective thinking, which more so as a view or approach reflects the thoughts of the person thinking, subjectively, than objective thoughts on the issue in question. This view and/or approach would therefore be more influenced by feelings than facts.

To dismiss an argument based on source alone is to commit the genetic fallacy. (116) An example as potential sub-conscious and perhaps conscious thoughts:

I will not consider anything that Dr. Russell Norman Murray writes on his website,
because he is Christian and Canadian and I am non-religious and European.

Genetic fallacy is sometimes also known as 'damning the origin.' (116).

'Damning the source' would work as well as a term. My add, having read this elsewhere previously.

The author notes that the wicked can have good arguments and that saints can be silly. (116).

Arguments need to be considered objectively for soundness and not subjectively scorned because of source. Another example that comes to mind is a debate with a critic and friend from a few months ago.

The critic stated (paraphrased):

The academic work of Biblical scholars cannot be trusted because they are all Christians.

However:

Biblical scholars presenting academic work are Christians and non-Christians.

(There are for example, Jewish and Hebrew, Hebrew Bible scholars and some non-religious, Biblical scholars presenting academic work).

Christian scholars can have objectivity.

(The terms Christian and Biblical scholar are not mutually exclusive. By definition to be a scholar, recognized at a Masters and/or Doctoral level with a degree by a significant University, requires at least a significant level of objectivity. To work at a significant academic institution requires at least a significant level of objectivity, to have an academic book or work published by a significant publisher requires at least a significant level of objectivity).

Therefore the critic used the genetic fallacy and damned the origin and damned the source.

Interestingly, philosopher Blackburn again, as with elsewhere in his text, uses the word 'alleged' in regard to the subject of fallacy and in this case genetic fallacy.

'The alleged mistake of arguing that something is to be rejected because of its suspicious origins.' (155).

A useful entry for balance:

'More widely, any mistake of inferring something about the nature of some topic from a proposition about its origins. Frequently such reasoning is, actually quite appropriate, as when one uses the make of an automobile as an indicator of its likely quality.' (155).

Without disagreeing with the speakers or Pirie and the documented academic fallacy, I also once again can appreciate Blackburn's cautious and balanced academic approach as reasonable.

This article is part of a posting on academia.edu

Vancouver 

Fear Of Abstraction?

Vancouver 2015

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

Chapter 1: The Study of forms (Continued from two previous articles)

'The consideration of a form, which several analogous things may have in common, apart from any contents, or "concrete integuments," is abstraction. (33). To speak of for example a set of twins or pair of gloves, these forms are abstracted as two in numerosity. (33). To write or speak of the form of a couple or two without respect to its content is a form of abstracto. (33).

The author states:

'Most people shy at the very word "abstraction." It suggests to them the incomprehensible, misleading, difficult, the great intellectual void of empty words. But as a matter of fact, abstract thinking is the quickest and most powerful kind of thinking, as even an elementary study of symbolic logic tends to show. The reason people are afraid of abstraction is simply that they do not know how to handle it. They have not learned to make correct abstractions, and therefore become lost among the empty forms, or worse yet, among the mere words for such forms, which they call " empty words" with an air of disgust. It is not the fault of abstraction that few people can really think abstractly, any more than it is the fault of mathematics that not many people are good mathematicians.' (34).

This reads philosophically accurate in regard to academics and education.

Further, Langer writes:

'There is nothing in our educational curriculum that would teach anyone to deal in abstracted forms.' (34).

Interestingly for years I have commented on the lack of formal philosophical education (theology and religious studies included) for most in Western society and that it is a continual issue in regard to developing and understanding worldview.

For the most part those that take and study abstract type philosophical thinking are at a college or University level.

Langer explains that the one form of abstraction taught 'is that empty form of arithmetic which is called algebra'. (34) It seems implied this is a notable abstraction taught within the Western world grade school system and she writes that even some philosophers and almost all laymen 'believe abstraction to be vicious and intrinsically false'. (34).

She reasons there is lack of logical insight and related training. (34). There is nothing abstruse, esoteric or "unreal" about abstract thinking. (35). Rather the knowledge of these logical forms needs to made explicit, conscious, and familiar. (35).

The author asks what the opposite of abstraction is. (44). It is important within education to make the abstract: explicit, conscious, familiar, clear, concise, and understandable.

This would significantly alleviate the abstraction problem academically.

Some academic study is by nature abstract. For example, studying this text and the Pirie philosophical text on fallacies I am also blogging on.

Previously, I had to study eschatology and Revelation during my teaching internship at Trinity Western University and the work was abstract because of figurative literal language and imagery in Scripture with very few scholars in that field of study.

My United Kingdom problem of evil and theodicy theses work also contained several abstractions which I had to work through.

I had to read through and evaluate Immanuel Kant, in regard to 'pure reason' which was abstract for my extensive, required Doctoral, Philosophy of Religion additions.

Overall, I can agree that there needs to be academic and educational simplification but also an understanding of the complex and abstract is needed at times.

---

This post is from my Facebook Blog Page with live link that I use primarily to promote my Blogger blogs. It received far more 'people reached' than usual and perhaps demonstrates what I need to present to be more popular...

Not that popularity is my main focus.

Here was was my eye-catching header:

For you Star Wars nerds (certain friendly neighbours, for example).

May the farce be with you?

Russell Norman Murray Facebook Blog Page

Analogy & Forms

Drachenburg Castle near Bonn-Wikia

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

Preface

I have been involved in three free courses the last two weeks. Two courses offered through a secular college affiliated with the Provincial and Federal governments related to career directly and one course through a local megachurch, related to career indirectly; the church course still in progress. There are of course ministry and spiritual considerations with the church course.

I will comment that in the secular context, although the instruction was good, a minority of the participants caused me to be reminded me of the secondary school environment and the dangers of substance abuse in effecting the mind in making career-related decisions. I state this far more in an analytical context as opposed to judgemental context (judging the person). I am saved by grace through faith alone, for good works and not by good works. (Ephesians 1-2).

I continue to work through the weighty Symbolic Logic material...

---

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

Chapter 1: The Study of forms (Continued from previous article)

Logical Form

'Form' as a term is defined beyond simply meaning shape. (23). This would be reasoned out from my previous related article, if not from Langer's section alone, then the philosophical additions I included.

The Langer text is specifically concerned with 'logical form' as opposed to form as in shape or physical shape. (24). This makes sense in the context of symbolic logic in the disciplines of mathematics and philosophy.

Structure

The logical form of something is the way it is constructed. (24). Its structure. It is the way it is put together. (24). If something has a definite form, it it constructed and structured in a definite way. (24).

Form and content

Material in a form may not be physical at all (26). Logicians attempt to avoid this connotation by calling that 'medium wherein a form is expressed, its content'. (27).

The author explains that we have so far (In the text) considered how the same content can appear in different forms. (27). But as well the same form may be exemplified by different contents. (27).

Different things may take the same form. An example is given of a human face carved out of a stone mountain, so therefore these different things would have a sameness of form. It (the carving) is arranged, (27) but still there is an aspect of sameness of form.

Analogy

'Analogy is nothing but the recognition of a common form in different things.' (29).

'A "logical picture" differs from an ordinary picture in that it need not look the least bit like its object. (29).

Its relation to the object is not of a copy, but an analogy. (29).

That is excellent, philosophy, so there is of course so such thing as a perfect analogy!

'It is only by analogy that one thing can represent another which does not resemble it.' (30). By analogy a map can mean a certain place. (30).

Forms

Cologne Cathedral: Carforhiredotcodotuk

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

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

Preface

And online forms are often not enjoyable to fill out and many times not all that helpful, either.

As I mentioned last article, I plan to review this text and to continue to review the Pirie philosophical text.

Reviewing two philosophy texts is a research, writing, learning phase. I have wanted to learn symbolic logic more thoroughly since dabbling with it during my United Kingdom theses education days, and the Pirie text on fallacies is a book I bought fairly recently at a book store. Both texts will take time to go through properly.

I will still post theology, Bible and philosophy of religion articles when they come to mind and may post a documented type article on Satire And Theology, but I tend to keep the two site approaches different to avoid copying myself.

In Chapter 1: The Study of forms

The Importance of forms

'All knowledge, all sciences and arts have their beginning in the recognition that ordinary, familiar things may take on different forms.' (21).  Different forms of the same thing may be so widely diverse in appearance, it may be difficult to think of them as essentially the same substance. (21). Science treats these as the variants of the same stuff. (21).

Langer opines there are two kinds of knowledge:

Knowledge of things. (22). Direct intimacy which our senses give us. Empirical knowledge (my add).

An example is given that a baby can know its mother that feeds him/her, but know nothing about its, his/her, mother. (22).

Knowledge about them. (22). This requires more than 'direct sensuous' (22) knowledge.

The author states that 'transformations' or 'transformation' (22-23) explains changes in form. (22-23).

The growth of science demonstrates the importance of forms, according to the author. (23).

There are variations in forms that have been discovered through scientific discovery, and this is noted as very important by Langer.
---

Form Theory

Blackburn writes that philosophically form theory can be traced back to Plato and his doctrines (143), as well as Pythagorean theory (Pythagoras) with the 'conception of form as the key to physical nature'. (143). It (form theory) is stated to also be associated with a sceptical doctrine of Cratylus, according to Aristotle. (143). Aristotle one of the teachers of Plato. (143).

'Plato attempts to present a way in which the forms of things are intelligible but abstract shared features. Ordinary things gain their natures by either 'imitating' forms (which then become thought of as transcendent and somehow independent of the sensible world) or 'participating' in them (in which case they are immanent, present in things, and perhaps less mysterious).' (163).

Form theory can be very theoretical on the philosophical front, in particular without the guidance of divine revelation.

This from my Biblical Christian theological and philosophical worldview and bias.

A valid form for an argument, as example, is a form that has practical use in mathematics, theology and philosophy.

I could opine theologically and in the context of philosophy of religion that theorizing on the forms and ontological nature of God's created angelic beings that are non-corporeal and yet finite, beyond what Scripture has already documented, would be very speculative. Not very practical. My view being the Scriptural revelation had ended with the closing of the New Testament and New Testament era.

Therefore, the forms and ontological nature of angelic beings is likely not going to be further discovered by the use of reason and speculation alone in this present realm.