FSTDT Forums
Community => Religion and Philosophy => Topic started by: future colours on June 21, 2013, 12:58:21 am
-
" Actually, if you take a class or read a book on logic, you will be surprised to learn that circular reasoning is always valid. It is not always sound. This is an important distinction that you should learn." http://www.jasonlisle.com/2013/03/27/its-not-human-reason-vs-gods-word/comment-page-4/#comment-4248 okay something seems really wrong about this statement....
-
There is, of course, a perfectly logical explanation for why Lisle acts the way he acts. It's called, the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Off topic, but GODDAMN IT AUTO-CORRECT!
-
yeah i know,i just dont think he understand what an axiom is
-
No, actually, his statement is technically correct. In this context, "valid" means that the conclusion follows from the premises. If I say "A, therefore A" then that is circular, but also logically valid, i.e. every time the premise is true, the conclusion is also true (because they are the same thing!).
It's just not a useful way of backing an assertion, because since the argument uses the conclusion as a premise, it lends no extra strength to it.
-
so then is using circular reasoning aways a fallacy then? cause Lisle said that is not
-
Depends on what you mean by "fallacy". The term is sometimes defined as the opposite of a valid argument (as per the definition above), so in that case you could argue it isn't.
In the actual useful sense of the word, though, fallacy means "an argument that can't help support a position it is being used to defend" or something to that effect. In which case, yes, circular reasoning is fallacious. Lisle recognises this here (http://www.jasonlisle.com/2013/03/27/its-not-human-reason-vs-gods-word/comment-page-4/#comment-4240):
Circular reasoning is always valid. It is often unsound, which is why it is classified as a fallacy. You are confusing soundness with validity.
This is not to defend Lisle, mind you. The argument he puts forth is deeply flawed. It just happens that he's a sophisticated arguer and can easily trip up some of the people debating him (Those I saw, anyway. There might be a decent refutation there, but the thread was too long and annoying to read through it).
-
This is not to defend Lisle, mind you. The argument he puts forth is deeply flawed. It just happens that he's a sophisticated arguer and can easily trip up some of the people debating him (Those I saw, anyway. There might be a decent refutation there, but the thread was too long and annoying to read through it).
Well, he admitted that his argument is pointless in convincing anyone, and that its use in a debate is irrational and illegitimate. He's preaching to the choir, people who already accept his God's existence as an axiom. Instead of admitting it plainly, he resorts to sophistry in order to make himself look smarter than he actually is. I don't see how that makes him a sophisticated arguer.
-
yeah i know i even mentioned that, and i generally just use him as a guinea pig to see how a creationist would respond
-
This is not to defend Lisle, mind you. The argument he puts forth is deeply flawed. It just happens that he's a sophisticated arguer and can easily trip up some of the people debating him (Those I saw, anyway. There might be a decent refutation there, but the thread was too long and annoying to read through it).
Well, he admitted that his argument is pointless in convincing anyone, and that its use in a debate is irrational and illegitimate. He's preaching to the choir, people who already accept his God's existence as an axiom. Instead of admitting it plainly, he resorts to sophistry in order to make himself look smarter than he actually is. I don't see how that makes him a sophisticated arguer.
Sorry, I sometimes forget when the words I use in my head don't match typical terminology. By "sophisticated arguer", I mean a person who has some knowledge of fallacies, biases, etc and uses them as excuses to defend his position and nitpick opposing arguments, while failing to notice similar weaknesses in their own beliefs.
My impression of Lisle is that he's not an idiot. He might be quite clever, actually. It just so happens he uses his cleverness in defence of a stupid idea.
-
My impression of Lisle is that he's not an idiot. He might be quite clever, actually. It just so happens he uses his cleverness in defence of a stupid idea.
That's apologetics in a nutshell.
-
but is there a time where circular reasoning can be considered sound because Lisle says it can be, and it seems his entire argument rides on that
-
but is there a time where circular reasoning can be considered sound because Lisle says it can be, and it seems his entire argument rides on that
Consider the judgment Γ ⊢ A (which reads as "A is provable from Γ"). The judgment is valid if, for all interpretations, whenever the premises Γ are satisfied, the conclusion A is as well. It is sound if it is valid and, when interpreting the premises Γ, it is found that they are actually satisfied.
A ⊢ A ("A is provable from A") is valid no matter how A is interpreted. It is sound exactly when A is satisfied—but if A is satisfied, then we have no need to prove A in the first place!
This means that a circular argument, when sound, is strictly redundant. This lack of content is what makes it an informal fallacy.
-
and another question when he asks how do you know your reasoning is working, whats the best way to answer him?
-
I am not an expert on debate tactics and this is to an extent a matter of personal preference (and personal philosophies). That being said: I think the best way to engage that sort of question is to not answer it. His argument is that any justification for reasoning suffers from an infinite regress problem. (Except Christianity, because it's special somehow). Anything you say, he will ask you to further justify it, and so on and so forth. Instead, engage him on why he thinks his worldview doesn't suffer from the infinite regress problem and attack the argument on that angle.
It's not the most satisfactory of answers, but then I don't have a fully satisfactory answer to the problem of infinite regress of justification. (Nor does anyone else, as far as I can tell, but if it exists, it will certainly not be "goddidit")
-
What Murdin says. Pure sophistry, used to wow the yokels.
-
so his arugments will never actually convince anyone?
-
he also said this "But how on your worldview do you know that you are not a mud-puddle with chemistry that you interpret as "thoughts" and "axioms"?"
is that a classic fallacy of divison?
-
No, I think it's the same tired argument of "you can't know anything because yadda yadda yadda".
-
but i think that's a fallacy of division, because the chemicals in a mud puddle is not the same as chemicals in a brain
-
True, but I don't think that's relevant for the argument involved. Once you're considering the possibility of a person being a mud-puddle, you're far beyond the point where it matters what the mud-puddle is made of.