cheapsuprise
disgraced, in exile.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7122
Local time: 10:34 PM
Location: Next door.
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 3:34 am Post subject: A chalange to josephpalazzo |
  |
|
A hereby challenge josephpalazzo to a moderated debate on the fallowing issue.
An analogy can be false.
My position is that an analogy CAN be false.
The conditions for moderation:
I have none, except that if josephpalazzo wishes to use HUGE RED TEXT, OR HUGE TEXT OF ANY OTHER COLOR, or size and color outside the default, or bold, or italics. he must close the tags at the end of each of his paragraphs himself. If I choose to break a paragraph of his to insert my own response, within, I will gladly close the tags myself, or I may not depending on the amount of text I have to deal with. To sum up, I will not be responsible for maintaining the integrity of josephpalazzo's use of tags. All that any moderator that cares to volunteer for this debate need do in this case is enforce my option. This is to say that josephpalazzo can not use my disregard of his own tags as a pretext to abort the debate honorably. Effectively I'm not asking the moderators to do anything except avoid validating any complaints that he might bring with regards to me not undertaking to close his tags when quoting him. Simple enough.
Now, if josephpalazzo has a condition of his own, he is welcome to offer it for negotiation, but all he need do to satisfy my one condition is to be attentive to his own tags.
I will now offer some background on how I came to bring this challenge, then I will make my opening statement.
The back ground:
Now, to be fair, It was I who initiated our exchange. It first started with this:
http://www.atheistforums.com/post142552.html#142552
The reason why I attacked Josephpalazzo (from here on referred to as "JOE") is that JOE could have asked Ivan to split the thread with some degree of class, and good manners. The unnecessarily rude posture that he took was exacerbated by the irony of his complaint.
How was this ironic? Well, JOE is well known for such valuable one-line contributions to threads as:
| josephpalazzo wrote: | | Liar. |
and,
| josephpalazzo wrote: | | Moloth has scruples?!? I'm flabergasted... |
This is the same member who made this assertion:
| josephpalazzo wrote: |
You are a fucking delusional dick who parades on this board thinking you know anything about logic, when your posts show over and over that you know sweet fuck all about logic. If anyone who should volunteer to leave this forum is YOU. Your contribution so far is in the negative digits... |
I call your attention to the last sentence. Coming from JOE, THAT is the part that I take exception to. The material before was just the mold that he forced his own "position" into as we continued.
The exchange really took shape here:
http://www.atheistforums.com/post143385.html#143385
and, climaxed with this:
http://www.atheistforums.com/post144668.html#144668
OPENING STATEMENT:
Joe has claimed that an analogy can not be false. IE:
http://www.atheistforums.com/post143667.html#143667
| JOE wrote: | An analogy can be badly constructed or irrelevant to a discussion, or may have other attributes, BUT NOT A FALSE ATTRIBUTE.
IN LOGIC, ONLY FACTIVE STATEMENTS HAVE TRUE/FALSE VALUES.
How many times do you need to be told that in order for you to understand this elementary concept? Analogy may contain a series of statements. Some of them may be factive. But T/F values would apply only to those factive statements. The analogy, as a whole, CANNOT be false. Get it, fucking moron... |
Why JOE thinks that analogies can't be true or false because they may or may not contain "factive statements" that could be true or false is difficult to understand. How the word "attribute" fits into that is any one's guess.
It's not a coherent idea.
For example, I may say that apples have X in common with oranges because they are both round, roughly the same size, come from trees, and are both fruit. I could draw an analogy between the fruit by comparing the use of the fruit, or the farming of the fruit, or anything else that they might trivially have in common. By trivial I mean something such as Elephants, and mice are both mammals.
X could represent anything such as:
The cost to the farmers of producing the fruit.
The nutritional value of the fruit.
The merit of applying the same agricultural subsidy to both fruits.
A proposition in any analogy might be false or true. IE: Apples my or may not require the use of more pesticides than oranges.
All of the propositions might be true, IE both come from trees and both are fruit, but the analogy could still be false as the similarity is not sufficient to support the objective of the comparison. (which could be ANYTHING)
This is the problem with describing analogies, or the possible arguments over there truth or falsehood. The comparisons made in the real theater of debate are often more convoluted, or at least more original than something commonly understood such as apples vs oranges.
Regardless of how complex or confusing it is, you can have an argument over weather or not an analogy is false, but this is not what JOE is attempting. Joe thinks that an analogy CANT be false at all.
This is automatically wrong simply by virtue of the English language. JOE might call it a "poorly constructed analogy" but structure doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. This is ironic seeing as his main straw-man against me is that I have made some pretence at being good with logic. If the premises are false, then the structure is moot. More over, truth or falsehood is applied to more than just "factive statements", as he would like to frame them. That is a FACT and there is nothing he can do about it.
For example:
THIS article is about False scorpions
http://forest.mtu.edu/kidscorner/ecosystems/scorpian.html
These are like scorpions in many ways, but they are not scorpions. I have seen one in person. It looked exactly like a scorpion in every respect except that it had no tail, and was smaller than pencil head.
THIS page is about False Creek Vancouver
http://www.seethewestend.com/false/false.htm
Perhaps some explorer mistook this small inlet for a creek. It's not a creek though, and yet it's called "false creek". I guess it's most significant attribute is that it's so much like a creek, and yet not a creek. Regardless, the name stuck.
HERE is an article which contains information on False Bottoms
http://hbd.org/uchima/misc/lauter.html
Self explanatory.
HERE is a FAQ from the British Dental Health Foundations web site which contains information about False Teeth
http://www.dentalhealth.org.uk/faqs/leafletdetail.php?LeafletID=10
Same deal.
FINALY, we have the most relevant example that I know of, being The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#False%20Analogy
| IEP wrote: |
False Analogy
When reasoning by analogy, the fallacy occurs when the analogy is irrelevant or very weak or when there is a more relevant disanalogy. See also Faulty Comparison.
Example:
"The book Investing for Dummies really helped me understand my finances better. The book Chess for Dummies was written by the same author, was published by the same press, and costs about the same amount. So, this chess book would probably help me understand my finances." |
To state the obvious, the word "FALSE" is widely used.
Anyone can make an analogy, and it may be VIVID. However, if that analogy does not support an argument because it's flawed, then-- for the sake of argument-- It's not useful as an analogy, and can be rebuked as a "false analogy". An argument over the ANALOGY it's self might come, but this hardly maters. Who is right or wrong doesn't enter into this debate, as the LABLE "false analogy" is proper, as is the use of the word "false".
JOE has made an attempt to explain this away here:
http://www.atheistforums.com/post144668.html#144668
At least I ASSUME he has made an attempt. His response consists of his repeating of the same confused straw-man he has before, and his totally bootless attack on my level of education. I have never claimed to be a logician, or even a philosopher. I'm not even sure that I'm a high school graduate. If JOE has attended university, whatever he learned hasn't helped him here. Even if I was the most ignorant person on the forums, (which I may be) If I correctly identified a false analogy in this case (which I did) I would be right, and he would be wrong, simply by virtue of the definition.
To conclude:
All JOE would have to do to refute my position would be to prove that professional philosophers are wrong to except the term "false analogy". The fallacy comes under a few different names, but even so, good luck JOE.
A better option for JOE would be to quote me asserting that the referenced analogy in this case was false because ONE of it's propositions was FALSE, and also quote me asserting that from this falseness, the entire analogy was false because analogies are "factive statements." In other words, JOE has to quote me asserting the inverse of his incoherent explanation of why analogies cant be false, even as MANY things are "false" for the same reason that analogies can be false, IE: Creeks. They appear to go some where, but they don't.
Be my guest JOE.
_________________
"-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli |
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
