ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags logical fallacies

Reply
Old 21st December 2016, 03:01 PM   #41
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,932
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
No, it's not. In order for an argument to be a fallacy, a conclusion has to be drawn from a statement. In other words, the bare accusation of poverty hypocrisy is not a fallacy in and of itself because there is no conclusion drawn from it. If, however, it is concluded that the arguer's own conclusion is false because the argue is arguing hypocritically, the assertion that the arguer's conclusion is false is a tu quoque.

To repeat:

Calling someone a hypocrite is not, in and of itself, a tu quoque.
Big size = bad argument
__________________
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abrahamís seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 03:09 PM   #42
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Big size = bad argument
I see you didn't address it.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 03:13 PM   #43
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,940
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
A: I did not vote for X because Y.

to:

A. Candidates who exhibit X should not be voted for.

which ain't the same
Of course it is, in the context of the syllogism. The syllogism captures in formal 3-line form what is expressed in the single statement "I did not vote for X because Y." You may wish to mock the notion of syllogistic equivalence, but it exists nonetheless and reducing an argument to appropriate syllogistic form is the first step in analyzing a categorical argument. As I said, if you wish to learn more I can recommend some introductory texts.

Quote:
and this "line" of reasoning bit? I already dismantled that because that ASSUMES that the original claimant's reasoning was contradictory...
Absolute rubbish. My argument doesn't rely upon the voter's belief. As previously shown, the truth value of the categorical variable doesn't matter in that way to this analysis.

Last edited by JayUtah; 21st December 2016 at 03:17 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 03:15 PM   #44
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,940
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Big size = bad argument

Non sequitur
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 03:23 PM   #45
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,932
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Of course it is. You may wish to mock the notion of syllogistic equivalence, but it exists nonetheless and reducing an argument to appropriate syllogistic form is the first step in analyzing a categorical argument. As I said, if you wish to learn more I can recommend some introductory texts.



Absolute rubbish. My argument doesn't rely upon the voter's belief. As previously shown, the truth value of the categorical variable doesn't matter in that way to this analysis.
You are not "reducing an argument to appropriate syllogistic form" you are rewriting it to fit your assumptions about it. Oh and adding a "fun" lil' kicker about "recommending introductory texts" (twice even!) as a bit of snarky patronizing which I find absolutely charming!

Absolutely rubbish? Because YOU say so? (see I can do the snarky patronizing thing too)

"used to formulate a contradictory line of reasoning." The "belief of truth" variable is absolutely essential to establishing your claim that it was a contradictory line of reasoning because if our hero does not believe the guy he voted for was dishonest (are ya following me here?) then His "reasoning" is not "contradictory."

Lets take a deeper dive:

"the disparity at the core of the (alleged) hypocrisy was used to formulate a contradictory line of reasoning. When it is the line of reasoning that is rebutted."

Ya see that word "disparity" ( take a minute, it is pretty important) your argument is based on the "fact" that there is a disparity, a "fact' that not only has not been established but is irrelevant to the original claim.

QED.
__________________
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abrahamís seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Last edited by The Big Dog; 21st December 2016 at 03:29 PM.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 03:44 PM   #46
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,940
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You are not "reducing an argument to appropriate syllogistic form" you are rewriting it to fit your assumptions about it.
Asked and answered. You accused me of misstating the argument. You then restated it in brief for my benefit. I dutifully mapped the elements of your restatement comprehensively to the appropriate elements of the syllogism. Subsequently you have simply begged the notion either that to do so is somehow illicit or that the mapping is unfaithful. As to the latter, I already provided a rationale which you haven't addressed.

Quote:
...snarky patronizing which I find absolutely charming!
You seem unfamiliar with the techniques of analyzing categorical arguments. I was offering help. Now you seem to be more interested in personalizing the argument.

Quote:
The "belief of truth" variable is absolutely essential to establishing your claim...
My claim is that your diagnosis of tu quoque is incorrect. The post you are diagnosing does not rely upon the belief of the voters. It alleges as a matter of objective fact that behavior X applies equally to Candidate A and Candidate B. It then goes on to identify a proposition that is proffered to arise only from X, but which evidently arises also from other (unnamed) factors that, in context, amount to special pleading. Thus it is an attack on the proffered logical structure.

Quote:
Ya see that word "disparity" ( take a minute, it is pretty important) your argument is based on the "fact" that there is a disparity...
But not the disparity you're desperately trying to cram into my mouth.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 03:51 PM   #47
Archie Gemmill Goal
Master Poster
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 2,836
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You are not "reducing an argument to appropriate syllogistic form" you are rewriting it to fit your assumptions about it. Oh and adding a "fun" lil' kicker about "recommending introductory texts" (twice even!) as a bit of snarky patronizing which I find absolutely charming!

Absolutely rubbish? Because YOU say so? (see I can do the snarky patronizing thing too)

"used to formulate a contradictory line of reasoning." The "belief of truth" variable is absolutely essential to establishing your claim that it was a contradictory line of reasoning because if our hero does not believe the guy he voted for was dishonest (are ya following me here?) then His "reasoning" is not "contradictory."

Lets take a deeper dive:

"the disparity at the core of the (alleged) hypocrisy was used to formulate a contradictory line of reasoning. When it is the line of reasoning that is rebutted."

Ya see that word "disparity" ( take a minute, it is pretty important) your argument is based on the "fact" that there is a disparity, a "fact' that not only has not been established but is irrelevant to the original claim.

QED.
I guess you are right:

"I didn't vote for Clinton because she's dishonest, I did vote for Trump even though he's dishonest" could just be plain old misogyny rather than hypocrisy I suppose.

Either way it's certainly not logical. Not that logic seems to trouble voters much these days.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 03:51 PM   #48
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,932
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Asked and answered. You accused me of misstating the argument. You then restated it in brief for my benefit. I dutifully mapped the elements of your restatement comprehensively to the appropriate elements of the syllogism. Subsequently you have simply begged the notion either that to do so is somehow illicit or that the mapping is unfaithful. As to the latter, I already provided a rationale which you haven't addressed.

You seem unfamiliar with the techniques of analyzing categorical arguments. I was offering help. Now you seem to be more interested in personalizing the argument.

My claim is that your diagnosis of tu quoque is incorrect. The post you are diagnosing does not rely upon the belief of the voters. It alleges as a matter of objective fact that behavior X applies equally to Candidate A and Candidate B. It then goes on to identify a proposition that is proffered to arise only from X, but which evidently arises also from other (unnamed) factors that, in context, amount to special pleading. Thus it is an attack on the proffered logical structure.

But not the disparity you're desperately trying to cram into my mouth.
"It alleges as a matter of objective fact that behavior X applies equally to Candidate A and Candidate B."

Oh no, oh no, no, no. Not at all.

It is a response to a claim.

C'mon man. Here it is again:

A: I did not vote for X because Y.
B: You are a hypocrite because you voted for Z who also did Y.

B did not prove either that A was a hypocrite, nor falsify A's claim (B also did not show Z did Y nor that A knew believed that Z did Y).


and no one ever stipulated that claim B was a matter of objective fact because that would be pants on head silly.

/By the way, this: "You seem unfamiliar with the techniques of analyzing categorical arguments. I was offering help. Now you seem to be more interested in personalizing the argument." Is COMEDY GOLD!
__________________
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abrahamís seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 03:52 PM   #49
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,214
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
There is a bit of a derail occurring in this thread starting at this post. Stripping away all the ponderous prose--some of which is unfortunately mine, I think the argument can be summarized in the following dialogue:

Person A: Trump voters didn't vote for Clinton do to her being untrustworthy because she did X.

Person B: Trump also did X, so why did Trump voters vote for Trump?

Person B: Tu quoque!!!

Is the bare fact of mentioning that Trump engaged in the same behavior that caused Clinton to be untrustworthy to Trump voters a tu quoque?
A tu quoque (which seems to be the overused fallacy accusation lately) occurs when we dismiss an argument on the basis that the proponent does not act consistently with his conclusion. Thus, if I make a brilliant argument that eating meat is wrong, it is a fallacy to dismiss my argument on the grounds that I eat hamburgers.

In this case, if we change the above dialogue slightly, it will be a clear example of this fallacy.

A: One shouldn't vote for dishonest politicians, because blah blah blah.

B: But you voted for Trump and he's a dishonest politician. Therefore, I dismiss your claim.

Yeah, okay, so I don't write dialogue worth a damn, but that's the classical form of tu quoque. In practice, as with all informal fallacies, we leave so much unsaid in our posts that it is hard to know whether this is the sort of implicit reasoning which occurred or not. We must take a decent guess, ask questions about what the poster meant and always interpret one's arguments in a charitable light (but not so charitable that we twist his words into a completely different argument).

It is far better to ask the poster to explain what he meant than to leap straight to our list of informal fallacies.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 03:52 PM   #50
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
You're still missing the point that it is the reasoning--not the reasoner--that is being addressed. Therefore, even if the conclusion drawn from the putative contradiction is fallacious, the fallacy is still not tu quoque.

A logical contradiction does not depend on the putative truth value of the statement, since every logical contradiction can be reduced to the form p∧¨p--which is itself always false, regardless of the truth value of p.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 03:53 PM   #51
I Am The Scum
Master Poster
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,840
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
A: I did not vote for X because Y.

to:

A. Candidates who exhibit X should not be voted for.
Why is this a problem? It seems pretty obvious to me that anyone who affirms the first proposition, yet denies the second, is contradicting themselves.
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 03:55 PM   #52
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,932
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
"I didn't vote for Clinton because she's dishonest, I did vote for Trump even though he's dishonest" could just be plain old misogyny rather than hypocrisy I suppose.
.
There ya go! I hilighted that was completely made up*

Well done.

* aka ""reducing an argument to appropriate syllogistic form".
__________________
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abrahamís seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 03:57 PM   #53
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,940
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oh no, oh no, no, no. Not at all.
Yes, the post you're attempting to diagnose does. It stipulates that Candidate A misbehaved, then pointed out documented instances of Candidate B's similar misbehavior. At no point did that post rely upon, or even mention or allude to, the beliefs of voters.

Quote:
...and no one ever stipulated that claim B was a matter of objective fact because that would be pants on head silly.
I said it was alleged in the post that X in each case was a matter of objective fact. You are trying to interpolate the voters' belief as a necessary factor both in the original post and in the subsequent analysis of it. Voter belief is not a factor in determining that the diagnosis of tu quoque is incorrect. The correctness of the allegations may be a different point of attack, as I mentioned above, but that would not qualify as tu quoque.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 03:59 PM   #54
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,940
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
* aka ""reducing an argument to appropriate syllogistic form".
Mockery is not an argument.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 04:01 PM   #55
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 25,457
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
the accusation of hypocrisy was a tu quoque fallacy.

Are you asserting that "the accusation of hypocrisy was a tu quoque fallacy" because you believe that sts60 was also being a hypocrite?

If so, you're still wrong, because he later stated quite clearly:


Quote:
I don't think Powell or Clinton belong in jail for their email sins. Censure or other administrative penalties, I can see.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8#post11637268

Unless you can show evidence that he did, in fact demand that Powell be "locked up" for his actions, then there is no hypocrisy on his part.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 04:03 PM   #56
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,932
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
Why is this a problem? It seems pretty obvious to me that anyone who affirms the first proposition, yet denies the second, is contradicting themselves.
Because the claim stands on its own merits. In other words, it did not deny the second, why would it?
__________________
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abrahamís seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 04:10 PM   #57
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,932
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
documented instances of Candidate B's similar misbehavior.
false and there was no showing that the original claimant knew of those alleged claims of misbehavior, agreed that they were misbehavior nor that they in anyway formed the "line of reasoning that is rebutted."

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Mockery is not an argument.
Well then stop offering to buy me a "introductory" textbook, get my drift??

Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Are you asserting that "the accusation of hypocrisy was a tu quoque fallacy" because you believe that sts60 was also being a hypocrite?
Nope
__________________
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abrahamís seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Last edited by The Big Dog; 21st December 2016 at 04:11 PM.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 04:11 PM   #58
I Am The Scum
Master Poster
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,840
Truth values don't really have anything to do with tu quoque fallacies.
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 04:13 PM   #59
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,932
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
Truth values don't really have anything to do with tu quoque fallacies.
which is why I keep explaining:

"B did not prove either that A was a hypocrite, nor falsify A's claim (B also did not show Z did Y nor that A knew believed that Z did Y)."

It has come up in connection with the specious "we are attacking his 'line of reasoning'" claim.
__________________
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abrahamís seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 04:16 PM   #60
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
A: One shouldn't vote for dishonest politicians, because blah blah blah.

B: But you voted for Trump and he's a dishonest politician. Therefore, I dismiss your claim.

Yeah, okay, so I don't write dialogue worth a damn, but that's the classical form of tu quoque.
And therein lies the problem, because the claim the is being dismissed is not simply any generic claim pbit the particular claim "X's dishonesty justifies my not voting for X". If that specific claim is true when X is Clinton but not one X is Trump, there is a contradiction in justification for voting for Trump at least insofar as not voting for Clinton was justified by Clinton's dishonesty. The dismissal of the arguer's claim therefore lies not in the arguer's hypocrisy itself but in the arguers faulty justification, meaning that the fallacy--if there is any fallacy--is not a tu quoque.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 04:17 PM   #61
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,214
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
Why is this a problem? It seems pretty obvious to me that anyone who affirms the first proposition, yet denies the second, is contradicting themselves.
Not necessarily.

(A) I don't listen to X because he is a rap singer.

(B) One shouldn't listen to rap singers.

If (A) is about personal preferences, rather than a claim about something like objective values, then (A) doesn't give evidence for (B).

Sometimes, our political choices come down more to personal preferences than objective values (and there's not necessarily anything wrong with that --- depending on whether there are any objective norms which ought to eliminate any of the candidates. You know, like incompetence, ignorance, etc.).
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 04:23 PM   #62
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,940
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
false and there was no showing that the original claimant knew of those alleged claims of misbehavior, knew that they were misbehavior nor that they in anyway formed the "line of reasoning that is rebutted."
The post in question simply names "[Candidate A] fans" without identifying them. It is assumed (but not shown) that these voters were suitably informed about Candidate A. But now suddenly there's a problem that it hasn't been shown that they were also suitably informed about Candidate B. That's just more special pleading. As I said, if you want to make an evidentiary case out of it then go back and argue that in the original thread. Here, discussing it as a pure problem of logical analysis, you have no such refuge -- especially since practically all formulations of tu quoque require that criterion X applies equally to elements A and B as a prerequisite of the diagnosis. If it doesn't, then the refutation proffered on the basis of tu quoque fails itself by subversion of support.

Quote:
Well then stop offering to buy me a "introductory" textbook, get my drift??
I'm offering to help you understand the mode of analysis I'm using. You seem unfamiliar with it, so it seemed polite to offer help. Lately, however, you just seem to be dismissive of categorical analysis, which from my point of view is tantamount to conceding defeat. You don't get to mock or dismiss analysis techniques simply because you are unfamiliar with them or because they produce results you disagree with.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 04:31 PM   #63
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,940
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
If (A) is about personal preferences, rather than a claim about something like objective values, then (A) doesn't give evidence for (B).
Agreed, however in the incident case it's not a matter of personal preference in that fashion. The vital premise is "Dishonest people are unsuitable to be President." That is still, at its heart, a subjective opinion upon which you and I may disagree. But it still establishes a category, and if a proposition is said to follow from the category alone, then all members of the category must be similarly situated with respect to the proposition. If the category is "Dishonest People," then all elements of the category must be treated equally for propositions that follow solely from Dishonest People.

In your personal-preference example, the major premise then simply becomes, "I don't listen to rap singers," instead of a universalized maxim "One shouldn't..." And if A and B are both rap singers, and you listen to A and not B, then under the terms you presented you are logically inconsistent. You remedy that by adjusting the premises to establish more accurate categories.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 04:39 PM   #64
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,214
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
And therein lies the problem, because the claim the is being dismissed is not simply any generic claim pbit the particular claim "X's dishonesty justifies my not voting for X". If that specific claim is true when X is Clinton but not one X is Trump, there is a contradiction in justification for voting for Trump at least insofar as not voting for Clinton was justified by Clinton's dishonesty. The dismissal of the arguer's claim therefore lies not in the arguer's hypocrisy itself but in the arguers faulty justification, meaning that the fallacy--if there is any fallacy--is not a tu quoque.
No argument from me.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 04:41 PM   #65
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,214
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Agreed, however in the incident case it's not a matter of personal preference in that fashion. The vital premise is "Dishonest people are unsuitable to be President." That is still, at its heart, a subjective opinion upon which you and I may disagree. But it still establishes a category, and if a proposition is said to follow from the category alone, then all members of the category must be similarly situated with respect to the proposition. If the category is "Dishonest People," then all elements of the category must be treated equally for propositions that follow solely from Dishonest People.

In your personal-preference example, the major premise then simply becomes, "I don't listen to rap singers," instead of a universalized maxim "One shouldn't..." And if A and B are both rap singers, and you listen to A and not B, then under the terms you presented you are logically inconsistent. You remedy that by adjusting the premises to establish more accurate categories.
Sure, I agree. I was just correcting the Scum's claim that (A) implies (B).
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 04:47 PM   #66
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,940
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Sure, I agree. I was just correcting the Scum's claim that (A) implies (B).
He got that from me, so blame me. The category that arises from some antecedent need not be universal, so I shouldn't have phrased it that way.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 04:56 PM   #67
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,214
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
He got that from me, so blame me. The category that arises from some antecedent need not be universal, so I shouldn't have phrased it that way.
I guess I missed your post on that point.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 05:08 PM   #68
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,932
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The post in question simply names "[Candidate A] fans" without identifying them. It is assumed (but not shown) that these voters were suitably informed about Candidate A. But now suddenly there's a problem that it hasn't been shown that they were also suitably informed about Candidate B. That's just more special pleading. As I said, if you want to make an evidentiary case out of it then go back and argue that in the original thread. Here, discussing it as a pure problem of logical analysis, you have no such refuge -- especially since practically all formulations of tu quoque require that criterion X applies equally to elements A and B as a prerequisite of the diagnosis. If it doesn't, then the refutation proffered on the basis of tu quoque fails itself by subversion of support.



I'm offering to help you understand the mode of analysis I'm using. You seem unfamiliar with it, so it seemed polite to offer help. Lately, however, you just seem to be dismissive of categorical analysis, which from my point of view is tantamount to conceding defeat. You don't get to mock or dismiss analysis techniques simply because you are unfamiliar with them or because they produce results you disagree with.
Special pleading? Completely inapplicable

Suitably informed? Ridiculous

Say, you know what we are all not suitably informed on? Why y'all keep dodging the fact that the fallacious response does not falsify the original claim.

/ I chuckled when you declared victory though!
__________________
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abrahamís seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 05:14 PM   #69
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Say, you know what we are all not suitably informed on? Why y'all keep dodging the fact that the fallacious response does not falsify the original claim.
We're not dodging anything; your accusation of fallacy is false.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 05:21 PM   #70
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,940
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Special pleading? Completely inapplicable

Suitably informed? Ridiculous
You continue to be dismissive of all the rebuttals without addressing any of them. You accept an assumption in the case that favors your argument and reject the same assumption in the case that disfavors it. That is exactly special pleading.

Quote:
Why y'all keep dodging the fact that the fallacious response does not falsify the original claim.
The question in this thread is whether you have appropriately diagnosed the tu quoque fallacy in a certain post. You have not, and you have been presented with a clear, cogent, concerted argument why you have not. Now you seem to be reduced to nothing but knee-jerk mockery, so I can't imagine we aren't done here.

Quote:
I chuckled when you declared victory though!
I'm glad you find it amusing, but a chuckle doesn't explain anything. I applied a straightforward analysis method to your argument. You seemed unconvinced about the method, so I offered to introduce you to it. You rebuffed the invitation and doubled down by simply dismissing the analysis offhand without further consideration. As I said, such a dismissal does not count as a refutation, so we're left with your unwillingness to address an analysis that shows your claim to be in error. If a proponent is unwilling to address refutations, how does that not equate to defeat?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 05:27 PM   #71
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,940
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
We're not dodging anything; your accusation of fallacy is false.
Which, of course, has nothing to do with the validity of the original claim, no matter how much he wants to rewrite this thread to argue that. This thread is about whether he has properly diagnosed a certain fallacy. He has not. That doesn't mean the original claim cannot not fail for some other fallacy, or upon the merits of evidence. The truth value of the original claim has nothing to do with this thread.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 05:28 PM   #72
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,932
Well! I am just regular folk. I don't have a big fancy office in a big fancy building filled with "introductory" textbooks. Now them big fancy books might say you can go right ahead and change a man's claim. I ain't seen it. But I reckin that is how you get a big fancy office in a big fancy building filled with introductory textbooks.

Now maybe what he said wasn't a fallacy, hell I been wrong once and again. I don't think so here, I ain't seen it but maybe I been reading from the advanced textbook we call life rather than the intruductory textbook.

Maybe it weren't no fallacy maybe it was just an INSULT like they say.

I like to think better of them arguments. And so would you, I hope
__________________
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abrahamís seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 05:30 PM   #73
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
The Big Dog-

The most important reason that the statement redeemed in the OP is not a tu quoque is that it is not an argument; it simply lacks any conclusion. It is a bald assertion that Trump voter are hypocrites.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 05:39 PM   #74
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,940
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Well! I am just regular folk. I don't have a big fancy office in a big fancy building filled with "introductory" textbooks.
Mockery is not an argument, and you are treading close to a personalization of the debate.

Quote:
Now them big fancy books might say you can go right ahead and change a man's claim.
Asked and answered. I showed explicitly the steps in the normalization of your claim. You accuse me of changing your claim in the process, but you showed no evidence of that except the fact that it had been normalized. This led me to believe you didn't understand the process of reduction and normalization, which seems, with this post, to be ever more the case. Further, you seem to have a very low opinion of this form of categorical analysis, for no good reason. These various forms of dismissal are unpersuasive. As I said, you may not rationally dismiss with mockery processes you do not care to understand or which produce results you do not agree with.

Quote:
Now maybe what he said wasn't a fallacy, hell I been wrong once and again. I don't think so here, I ain't seen it but maybe I been reading from the advanced textbook we call life...
Straw man. You diagnosed it as a particular fallacy, but you are wrong in those particulars. A number of people have explained why you are wrong. Appeals to life experience are irrelevant because they don't address the explanations you have been given for your error. Your life experience may lead you to disbelieve or discount the original claim for any number of reasons, but that doesn't equate to a correct diagnosis of a certain specific fallacy.

Quote:
Maybe it weren't no fallacy maybe it was just an INSULT like they say.
Or maybe it was a legitimate identification of a contradictory argument. In any case, throwing as much mud on it as you possibly can does not refute it, nor does it rehabilitate your erroneous diagnosis.

Last edited by JayUtah; 21st December 2016 at 05:46 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 05:47 PM   #75
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Or maybe it was a legitimate identification of a contradictory argument. In any case, throwing as much mud on it as you possibly can does not refute it, nor does it rehabilitate your erroneous diagnosis.
Calling someone a hypocrite is an insult due to the negative connotations that "hypocrite" had, so sending a post wherein a group of people are called hypocrites is probably not the most conducive thing to reasoned debate. However, asserting that calling someone a hypocrite makes their argument a tu quoque is false and deserves recognition as false.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 06:02 PM   #76
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,932
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post

Or maybe it was a legitimate identification of a contradictory argument. In any case, throwing as much mud on it as you possibly can does not refute it, nor does it rehabilitate your erroneous diagnosis.
Maybe, maybe it was a "legitimate identification of a contradictory argument."

Maybe indeed.

Now it is awful hard to see how the argument "I did not vote for X because Y" can be "contradictory" I assume you'll be showing us that at some point in this thread.

Just like I am sure as god made little green apples that you will address the fact that the response did not falsify the original claim.

But I am just a simple country lawyer poster, and it has been years since this old guy has been treated to an introductory text book.
__________________
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abrahamís seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 06:17 PM   #77
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Now it is awful hard to see how the argument "I did not vote for X because Y" can be "contradictory" I assume you'll be showing us that at some point in this thread.
Maybe it's because "I did not vote for X because Y" is not the entirety of the argument.

Again here is what was being said in dialog form:

A: I did not vote for Clinton because she did X which made her untrustworthy enough for me not to vote for her.

B: Trump also did X. So why didn't doing X make Trump on trustworthy enough not to vote for you not to vote for him?

A: Tu quoque!!!

If it is in fact true that Trump did do X, then it is inconsistent for A to justify or not voting for Clinton because doing X made Clinton too untrustworthy for A to vote for her. Disputing whether Trump did do X is a legitimate attempt to refute the implication of inconsistency. However, asserting that the argument that voting for Trump and not voting for Clinton based on both doing X is a tu quoque is false, because there was no assertion that the conclusion to vote for Trump was false, just that the reasoning behind voting for Trump rather than Clinton appears to be inconsistent from the justification given.

Last edited by mijopaalmc; 21st December 2016 at 06:20 PM.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 06:40 PM   #78
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,932
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post

A: I did not vote for Clinton because she did X which made her untrustworthy enough for me not to vote for her.

B: Trump also did X. So why didn't doing X make Trump on trustworthy enough not to vote for you not to vote for him?

A: Tu quoque!!!

If it is in fact true that Trump did do X, then it is inconsistent for A to justify or not voting for Clinton because doing X made Clinton too untrustworthy for A to vote for her. Disputing whether Trump did do X is a legitimate attempt to refute the implication of inconsistency. However, asserting that the argument that voting for Trump and not voting for Clinton based on both doing X is a tu quoque is false, because there was no assertion that the conclusion to vote for Trump was false,
just that the reasoning behind voting for Trump rather than Clinton appears to be inconsistent from the justification given.
seems consistent to me. Take another look and ignore the bull **** I took out.

You'll thank me
__________________
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abrahamís seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 06:46 PM   #79
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,940
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Maybe indeed.
My theory is as good as yours for what the original claimant hoped to accomplish in his post. It seems that, faced with your inability to make headway justifying your diagnosis, you've now taken to beating that irrelevant horse.

Quote:
Now it is awful hard to see how the argument "I did not vote for X because Y" can be "contradictory"...
That's not my claim.

Quote:
Just like I am sure as god made little green apples that you will address the fact that the response did not falsify the original claim.
Already addressed several times.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2016, 06:51 PM   #80
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,932
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
My theory is as good as yours for what the original claimant hoped to accomplish in his post. It seems that, faced with your inability to make headway justifying your diagnosis, you've now taken to beating that irrelevant horse.



That's not my claim.



Already addressed several times.
Already addressed? Well, we'll take your word for it.
__________________
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abrahamís seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:55 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.