July 20, 2004

• I wonder if religion is something for the weak to use as a crutch when life takes a turn for the worse, to define their morals and the consequences that occur when they do not abide by those morals.  I don't mean to offend anyone that ascribes devoutly to any particular religion.  I myself consider myself very spiritual, yet with the scientific background that I have, I am skeptical as well.  Even the evidence behind evolution does not guarantee that it is true.  It is, after all, evidence toward something.  Just as evidence is introduced in court, it is not conclusive.  It is the gathering of evidence that allows us to come to a better and more refined position and conclusion.

  
  

  Most conclusions result from a few premises.  This is the basis of argumentation.  Sometimes, however, the premises used are fallacies in logic. One of the most common is the Ad Hominem argument, where the character of a person is attacked.  So for example, Person A claims that yelling shouldn't be tolerated and was emotionally devastating for them.  Person B attacks person A, saying that they needed it, concluding that Person A's claim is false.  The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made or the quality of the argument being made.

  
  

  Another common fallacy is the appeal to authority, where one claims to be an expert in some subject.  Most people do verify credentials.  I however, feel that it is necessary to do so.  Some standards of assessment include making sure that expert in question has had sufficient expertise in the subject matter in questions.  Another is that the argument is within that person's field of expertise.  Yet another is that there is an adequate degree of agreement.  Similarly, the person should not be significantly biased.

  
  

  Another fallacy in arguments is the circumstantial ad hominem, where one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest.  Again, a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made.  While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own.

  
  

  This is similar to poisoning the well, where one tries to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information about the person.  The red herring is often used where an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.  The only reason that these come up right now is because this is what I am seeing happening to my community and its leaders.

  • 4:31 pm
  • 1 Comment