Refuting the example

Five places to teach abroad: Seoul

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

Refuting the example

Examples are often used in support of arguments. When critics attack the example and not the central thesis, it is considered fallacious and is known as refuting the example. (176).

Based on Pirie's example: (176).

'Teenagers are bad-mannered these days.' 'A teenager was running and bumped into me yesterday and did not apologize to me'

Pirie based reply:

'That is wrong, as the boy in question, was no longer a teenager.' (176).

The interjected complaint and example in regard to the incident with the former teenager does not support the central premise that 'teenagers are bad-mannered these days'. The young male mentioned in the example, is not a teenager.

Example premises:

'Right-wing, American fundamentalist, Christians do not regard science seriously enough.'

'Russ Murray on his blog, mentioned the Kingdom of God, which is not scientific.'

I am not right-wing, I am a moderate conservative, I am slightly right of centre, politically, and it would be a very debatable premise to call me right-wing, if the concept of far right is meant.

I am a moderate conservative, biblical Christian within the Reformed tradition. Incidentally, sadly, some within the University of Manchester, Religions and Theology Department committed the fallacy discussed, on this point, assuming I was an American, fundamentalist, Christian, or at least a Canadian of the same views.

According to my two passports, I am Canadian and British. I do not possess an American passport.

Discussing the Kingdom of God, academically, would make sense in the context of theology and biblical studies. I also do discuss science concepts at times with academic references.

The example does not support the premise.

The red herring

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

Riot Act, Inc

Related entry April 26

Ignoratio elenchi 

'An ancient fallacy identified by Aristotle. (128). When one attempts to argue something, but instead succeeds in arguing something else. (128).'  Based on my reading some commentators view these as the same fallacy. Regardless, they are related. This is a reminder than even technicalities and terminology are debated at times, within philosophy and academia.

The red herring

This fallacy is committed when irrelevant material is used to divert people away from the point being made, and to proceed to a different conclusion. (174).

'You never remember my birthday.'

'Did I ever tell you what beautiful eyes you have?' (175).

Logically fallacious

'Logical Form: Argument A is presented by person 1. Person 2 introduces argument B. Argument A is abandoned.'

Person A premise: I enjoy reading Russ Murray's websites.

Person B premise: He looks a bit like a twelve-pack, kingpin.

My muscular, non-pretty boy, non-six-pack appearance is not related in context with the quality or lack of quality of my written presentations.

Aristotle: Fundamentum Divisionis

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

The Langer philosophy text review, continues.

Some key symbols from the textbook:

≡df = Equivalence by definition
: = Equal (s)
ε = Epsilon and means is
⊃ = Is the same as
⊨ is Entails
˜ = Not
∃ = There exists
∃! = There exists
∴ = Therefore
· = Therefore
< = Is included
v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives).
x = variable

Fundamentum Divisionis

Whenever there is a class formed within any universe of discourse, then every individual in that universe must either belong to the class, or not belong to it. (142). A class of two-storeyed houses has every house in it that is two-storeyed, or the house is not in that class. (142).

In the universe of creatures there is a sub-class of cats, then every creature is a cat or non-cat. (142).
With Aristotle's class of fundamentum divisionis, there is what is A and what is not A. (142). For every x, either x is an A or x is not an A. (142).

In this example, the variable, x (creatures).

Therefore x ε A, or there are creatures that are cats is one defining form, there is also the defining form ˜(x ε A) that there are creatures that are not cats. (142). Everything in this universe of discourse belongs to A or ˜A. (142).

A creature is either a cat or is not. Therefore  (x ε A) V ˜(x ε A). There are creatures that are cats, therefore it is true, there are creatures that are not cats.

The universe class of all creatures is defined by Langer as I, therefore, I = A + -A (142-143).

All creatures equals cats and non-cats.

I = H + -H

All creatures equals human beings and non-human beings.

(x ε H) V ˜(x ε H)

There are creatures that are human beings, therefore it is true, there are creatures that are not human beings.

Antifeminism?

The Fraser River: July 12

Antifeminism

Lately on You Tube, I have noticed some 'men's movement' videos in the featured videos under 'Recommended'. I have watched a few of these videos. I have viewed over the years several sermons on dating and marriage, which I do use for material for my academic websites. I also have viewed, over the years secular and Christian psychological lectures on human nature. Perhaps this explains why these videos appear.

To be clear, any kind of the 'men's movement' or antifeminism is not embraced within my personal worldview.

Much of the philosophy, so far, is nearly identical to psychological material from secular perspectives on dating and marriage.

One gentlemen I  have listened to, makes some good and reasonable philosophical points that I can agree with based on how I have been treated by many women within western society and the Church. But, he is also so radically negative on women, with unbalanced evaluations, that I will not endorse this person or embed one of his videos. He supports MGTOW: Men going their own way.

This presenter reasons that he needs to share his views with the men of western society. He opines that within evolution, due to feminism, women now have been exposed as having an evil nature.

Of course, with my years of study on the problem of evil, theodicy, free will and determinism, this interests me.

The presenter is correct that women have an evil nature, as do men. A biblical worldview explains the universal fall of humanity (Genesis 1-3) and the corrupted and sinful nature of both male and female (Romans). A finite nature that is sinful by nature and choice, is not perfectly good. Therefore, strictly speaking, humanity is evil. A Reformed theological perspective of total depravity is that humanity is depraved and tainted in nature as a whole. This does not mean that people are maximally evil.

I do not reason that a reasonable solution to degrees of feminism and antifeminism is for both sides to villainize the other sex. As bad as many of the attitudes in western society today are, including  by some in the Christian Church, I do not agree with teaching that each sex should avoid dating and marriage, and only use the other side for sexual activity, which seems to be the implication of many of the radical antifeminism and feminism approaches. I am not stating all the views expressed are radical. As with many worldviews, concepts can range, including from very moderate, moderate to radical.

A biblical, New Testament response is that through divine enlightenment by the gospel message, for male and female to repent of sin within the battle of sexes and seek the guidance of God.

Note:

Blackburn provides a definition of feminism, where feminism is committed to correcting biases leading to the subordination of women. (137). In my view, this is not by definition, strictly equated with 'radical feminism', although radical feminism will take place as forms of feminism.

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