Bad Arguments That Make You Smarter

[Nick_A]

D P wrote: Quote me properly, or don't quote me at all Nick.

It doesn't matter what you want to put in a kids head. Don't do it. I'm against instilling any belief system into a child who can't reasonably question it, or question the authority figure.

My parents were nominally Anglican. They left me to figure out my own way, and decide for myself.. As it should be. You? You think you way is the right way, and want to infect another with it, who doesn't have the wherewithal to question anything for themselves.

A child who is raised a Muslim will be a Muslim. A Jew, a Jew. A Hindu, the same. And you all get them young, so your foolish ideas will be carried down, because most rational adults can't be duped this way, and your faith will end. And because you have a vested interest in it, you fear it failing.

I did quote you D P but that doesn’t matter. The question remains. You didn’t understand what I mean by teaching spirituality. You believe I mean indoctrination but that is wrong. I mean opening the mind. I have the same objection to education that Einstein did which as you pointed out is teaching by rote. Education is defined now as the ability to pass tests. This is the ultimate in spirit killing. Education should include creating an atmosphere which allows a student to remember, to open to reality. Plato describes it. People on this site have become so indoctrinated in one way or another that a discussion on this would be impossible. I know it is normal but at the same time it proves how education has lost its primary purpose which is awakening to the direction of the GOOD through the process of remembrance.

"If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom, but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows." ― Plato, Phaedrus

[Arising_uk]

I never argued about anything else that henrick said. I only wrote directly in relation to those three sentences that henrick wrote and I never disguised anything. I said, "To Me, henrik does not appear very smart at all with these type of statements. henrik only appears as an elitist who thinks that having some sort of intellect puts one person above another." which, to Me, is not an attack of the character of the person but only what appeared to Me from those three thoughts. ...

Fair enough, so you think there is nothing wrong with being an elitist or the thoughts he puts forward because of this?

It was pointed out that "Henrik Schoeneberg gets smart about fallacious reasoning", so, i thought it appropriate to say henrick does not appear smart, to me, when using fallacious reasoning whilst expressing, especially this point. However, with hindsight and considering the topic name is "Bad Arguments That Make You Smarter", then it could be now argued that noticing and labeling various different types of bad arguments like henrick's bad, fallacious argument here could make us all smarter.

Which bad fallacious argument did he put forward?

I NEVER argued that that henrick's point is not worth it just because it came from what appeared to be an elitist's viewpoint, to Me. ...

BUt since you don;t think was an ad hominem what was the point in mentioning it?

What I did argue was the point trying to be expressed in those three sentences may well, and in all circumstances would, work in a discussion with a more and very intellectual person educated on the subject of philosophy, but it would not necessarily work, and may in fact counter work, on with someone of My caliber, i.e., very simple and not 'educated' at all. 'Educated', from the present day meaning of educated that is. ...

But his point was not to tell others the name of what they are doing but to recognise that they may be uneducated like you and are doing it and to then choose how to counter it.

I never once thought that and I never suggest that anywhere.

You just did again above?

Yes that is how I read the article also.

But what I was just pointing out was in the fallacy, itself, in the thinking within those three sentences. Fallacies after all is what we are being asked to look out for. Making any assumption in any way is, I see, faulty reasoning and a "wrong move" to make when making any arguments. But to make the assumption that if i speak in a certain way or use terminology, or language, in a certain way that then has the authority of logic, and, then thinking that infers that just because what i was pointing out had a technical name - ad hominem - then the interlocutor would perhaps believe i was really onto something, is even further faulty reasoning and another "wrong move" to make here. If a person thinks that another person is perhaps 'really onto something' just because they have used a technical name is a fallacy, itself. ...

But that's not what he said and you agreed?

This type of thinking I view as elitist thinking, which may work for those people who like to think that a person is some how more or better than another just because they know some technical names or that superiority comes from having learned more, or more technical names. But, to Me, this is type of thinking is just another fallacious reasoning, in of itself, i.e., elitist thinking, which I now call elitist fallacy.

You appear to have a chip on your shoulder, the terms come from Philosophy and are there to identify informal fallacies when reasoning about something.

Henrick wrote, "A particular step forward has been the identification and labelling of various different types of bad argument, collectively known as informal fallacies. These now go by widely-recognized and sometimes colourful names." All I am doing is just pointing out a bad argument, which came from the faulty reasoning of what assuming, itself, is.

Why is knowing what makes a bad argument a bad argument?

[Arising_uk]

This is just silly. You may actually be awarded the legendary brass figlagee with bronze oak-leaf palm if you can demonstrate any understanding of my preferred form of 'spirituality' that should be taught to children.

I can't because you appear unable to describe what it is yourself but I can say that you wish to teach in a manner that supposedly allows the recognition of a 'God'. Could be wrong, maybe you are just saying meditation should be taught on the school curriculum as well, if so then I think this would be a useful tool.
p.s.
what's a brass figlagee?

[Dalek Prime]

This is just silly. You may actually be awarded the legendary brass figlagee with bronze oak-leaf palm if you can demonstrate any understanding of my preferred form of 'spirituality' that should be taught to children.

I can't because you appear unable to describe what it is yourself but I can say that you wish to teach in a manner that supposedly allows the recognition of a 'God'. Could be wrong, maybe you are just saying meditation should be taught on the school curriculum as well, if so then I think this would be a useful tool.
p.s.
what's a brass figlagee?

http://www.flicklives.com/index.php?pg=203&ID=x024

Something to do with one Jean Shepperd.

[Nick_A]

D P wrote: A

rising_uk wrote:
Nick_A wrote:
This is just silly. You may actually be awarded the legendary brass figlagee with bronze oak-leaf palm if you can demonstrate any understanding of my preferred form of 'spirituality' that should be taught to children.
I can't because you appear unable to describe what it is yourself but I can say that you wish to teach in a manner that supposedly allows the recognition of a 'God'. Could be wrong, maybe you are just saying meditation should be taught on the school curriculum as well, if so then I think this would be a useful tool.
p.s.
what's a brass figlagee?

Yes that was Shep's classic phrase. I am an old Jean Shepherd fan. One of the funniest and revealing incidents I ever learned of was Shep's I,Libertine hoax. This is very insulting to the intelligentsia so I put my life at risk for bringing it up but can you imagine a whole nation discussing a book that doesn't exist? The intelligent BS artists couldn't admit they hadn't read it so just began BSing about it as though they had read it. This is what the intelligentsia does. Only Shep could pull this off since he was with the "Night" people. The "Day" people didn't know the hoax was coming. Priceless

http://bobkaye.com/ilibertine.html

Now arising, what I mean by teaching spirituality I mean opening the mind so it can experience it. This is my answer to D P

You didn’t understand what I mean by teaching spirituality. You believe I mean indoctrination but that is wrong. I mean opening the mind. I have the same objection to education that Einstein did which as you pointed out is teaching by rote. Education is defined now as the ability to pass tests. This is the ultimate in spirit killing. Education should include creating an atmosphere which allows a student to remember, to open to reality. Plato describes it. People on this site have become so indoctrinated in one way or another that a discussion on this would be impossible. I know it is normal but at the same time it proves how education has lost its primary purpose which is awakening to the direction of the GOOD through the process of remembrance.


"If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom, but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows." ― Plato, Phaedrus

[ken]

I never argued about anything else that henrick said. I only wrote directly in relation to those three sentences that henrick wrote and I never disguised anything. I said, "To Me, henrik does not appear very smart at all with these type of statements. henrik only appears as an elitist who thinks that having some sort of intellect puts one person above another." which, to Me, is not an attack of the character of the person but only what appeared to Me from those three thoughts. ...

Fair enough, so you think there is nothing wrong with being an elitist or the thoughts he puts forward because of this?

If there is nothing wrong or not with being an elitist all depends on what we agree and accept as being the definition for 'elitist', and then if there is nothing wrong or not with the thoughts that are put forward because of elitism will also depend on the agreed and accepted definition of 'elitist'.

It was pointed out that "Henrik Schoeneberg gets smart about fallacious reasoning", so, i thought it appropriate to say henrick does not appear smart, to me, when using fallacious reasoning whilst expressing, especially this point. However, with hindsight and considering the topic name is "Bad Arguments That Make You Smarter", then it could be now argued that noticing and labeling various different types of bad arguments like henrick's bad, fallacious argument here could make us all smarter.

Which bad fallacious argument did he put forward?

The bad fallacious argument is the argument henrick put forward, which I quoted:
1. Another handy attribute of fallacies is that in talking about them we can use terminology that has the authority of logic!
2. It may carry more weight if I tell you that you’re using an ad hominem argument against me, than if I simply say that I think it’s a bad way of arguing to attack my character instead of my argument.
3. So when we call someone out for using an ad hominem argument, they might think, “If what she is pointing out to me has a technical name – ad hominem – perhaps she really is onto something?”

Exposing the informal fallacies that I found in henrick's bad argument here is all that I have done:
Making 'assumptions' to form an argument has produced a bad argument. 'Making an assumption of truth', in of itself, is faulty reasoning, and, the assumption 'that one person could be better than another' IS an informal fallacy, which I call 'elitist fallacy'.

By coincidence the article was, in fact, also about looking for and noticing informal fallacies in bad arguments.

I NEVER argued that that henrick's point is not worth it just because it came from what appeared to be an elitist's viewpoint, to Me. ...

BUt since you don;t think was an ad hominem what was the point in mentioning it?

Since I do not think WHAT, exactly, was an ad hominem?

Mentioning WHAT, exactly?

What I did argue was the point trying to be expressed in those three sentences may well, and in all circumstances would, work in a discussion with a more and very intellectual person educated on the subject of philosophy, but it would not necessarily work, and may in fact counter work, on with someone of My caliber, i.e., very simple and not 'educated' at all. 'Educated', from the present day meaning of educated that is. ...

But his point was not to tell others the name of what they are doing but to recognise that they may be uneducated like you and are doing it and to then choose how to counter it.

Did you even read the article, and especially the three points I brought to attention?

henrick's point WAS, in fact, TO TELL OTHERS the name of what they are doing.

This IS WHAT henrick pointed out specifically in it's own words.

Another handy attribute of fallacies is that in talking about them we can use terminology that has the authority of logic! It may carry more weight if I tell you that you’re using an ad hominem argument against me, than if I simply say that I think it’s a bad way of arguing to attack my character instead of my argument. So when we call someone out for using an ad hominem argument, they might think, “If what she is pointing out to me has a technical name – ad hominem – perhaps she really is onto something?”

Can you see that it is henrick who actually states that we tell the interlocutor what they are doing.

Sentence 1. IS about TALKING about fallacies.
Sentence 2. IS about TELLING you that you are using an ad hominem argument against me.
Sentence 3. Is about when we CALL SOMEONE OUT for using an ad hominem argument, they might think....

I never once thought that and I never suggest that anywhere.

You just did again above?

No I NEVER did. Why are you reading and seeing something in what I wrote that is not even there, while another person reads and sees something completely different in the exact same thing I wrote, but which is also not even there?

WHY are two people seeing different things, which are not even there?

The answer is obvious, when the question is answered correctly.

Instead of reading what I wrote wrongly, and then jumping to the wrong conclusion, just like I also did in this very same post, WHY not just re-read, which is what I did to find My own wrong doing? Finding and seeing fallacious reasoning in our own thinking and not just others is actually another point henrick was making in the article. Also, you could ask clarifying questions to Me before jumping to a conclusion and accusing Me of something that is not even true.

The ridiculousness of what you are saying IS henrick is the one who IS saying that you tell your interlocutor what they are doing. I NEVER said that, even though you believe I said that.

But what I was just pointing out was in the fallacy, itself, in the thinking within those three sentences. Fallacies after all is what we are being asked to look out for. Making any assumption in any way is, I see, faulty reasoning and a "wrong move" to make when making any arguments. But to make the assumption that if i speak in a certain way or use terminology, or language, in a certain way that then has the authority of logic, and, then thinking that infers that just because what i was pointing out had a technical name - ad hominem - then the interlocutor would perhaps believe i was really onto something, is even further faulty reasoning and another "wrong move" to make here. If a person thinks that another person is perhaps 'really onto something' just because they have used a technical name is a fallacy, itself. ...

But that's not what he said and you agreed?

What exactly did henrick say and I allegedly agreed with?

This type of thinking I view as elitist thinking, which may work for those people who like to think that a person is some how more or better than another just because they know some technical names or that superiority comes from having learned more, or more technical names. But, to Me, this is type of thinking is just another fallacious reasoning, in of itself, i.e., elitist thinking, which I now call elitist fallacy.

You appear to have a chip on your shoulder, the terms come from Philosophy and are there to identify informal fallacies when reasoning about something.

What terms come from philosophy?

I really think you have read something, into what I actually did write, which is NOT in there.

I read the terms in the article. I know they come from philosophy. I know they are there to identify informal fallacies when reasoning about something. What point are you trying to make here and, by the way, what "chip" do you see?

Henrick wrote, "A particular step forward has been the identification and labelling of various different types of bad argument, collectively known as informal fallacies. These now go by widely-recognized and sometimes colourful names." All I am doing is just pointing out a bad argument, which came from the faulty reasoning of what assuming, itself, is.

Why is knowing what makes a bad argument a bad argument?

This question does not even make sense for two reasons:
1. I NEVER implied anything like that.
2. JUST knowing any thing can NOT be a "bad argument".

The only thing that can be a bad argument IS a bad argument. Knowing something is not any type of argument.

The ONLY thing that I have done here is to identify, label, and point out that making 'assumptions' to form an argument could produce a bad argument, and a bad argument is what was formed, by faulty reasoning, in henrick's article. Assuming 'that one person could be better than another' IS an informal fallacy, which I call 'elitist fallacy'.

[Arising_uk]

If there is nothing wrong or not with being an elitist all depends on what we agree and accept as being the definition for 'elitist', and then if there is nothing wrong or not with the thoughts that are put forward because of elitism will also depend on the agreed and accepted definition of 'elitist'.

And yours would be?

The bad fallacious argument is the argument henrick put forward, which I quoted:
1. Another handy attribute of fallacies is that in talking about them we can use terminology that has the authority of logic!
2. It may carry more weight if I tell you that you’re using an ad hominem argument against me, than if I simply say that I think it’s a bad way of arguing to attack my character instead of my argument.
3. So when we call someone out for using an ad hominem argument, they might think, “If what she is pointing out to me has a technical name – ad hominem – perhaps she really is onto something?”

Exposing the informal fallacies that I found in henrick's bad argument here is all that I have done:
Making 'assumptions' to form an argument has produced a bad argument. 'Making an assumption of truth', in of itself, is faulty reasoning, and, the assumption 'that one person could be better than another' IS an informal fallacy, which I call 'elitist fallacy'.

My apologies, having re-read the article I take your points.
p.s.
Not that I agree there is an 'elitist fallacy' as it may well just be the case that the uneducated may well think that if there's a term for it then maybe there is something in it. It may be elitist arrogance to presume this tho' but we still haven't defined what this 'elitist' is?

[Arising_uk]

You didn’t understand what I mean by teaching spirituality. You believe I mean indoctrination but that is wrong. I mean opening the mind. I have the same objection to education that Einstein did which as you pointed out is teaching by rote. Education is defined now as the ability to pass tests. This is the ultimate in spirit killing. Education should include creating an atmosphere which allows a student to remember, to open to reality. Plato describes it. People on this site have become so indoctrinated in one way or another that a discussion on this would be impossible. I know it is normal but at the same time it proves how education has lost its primary purpose which is awakening to the direction of the GOOD through the process of remembrance.


"If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom, but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows." ― Plato, Phaedrus

You mean we shouldn't teach kids to read?

[Nick_A]

arising wrote:

You mean we shouldn't teach kids to read?

You cannot be serious. Did Einstein suggest kids shouldn't read. No, he is suggesting what Plato did: the value of opening the mind rather than closing it as done now in these institutions of child abuse.

Legend has it that Einstein was a poor student who flunked out of school, but this was not the case. He excelled at math and science, though he often got only mediocre grades in other classes. When Albert was 15, his family moved to Milan, Italy. Albert had only one year left in high school, so he stayed behind. But by this time, he had already developed a profound distrust of authority and a hatred of conformity. He loathed Germany's rigid education system, which was based upon rote learning."It's a true miracle," he commented years later, "that modern education hasn't yet completely smothered the curiosity necessary for scientific study”

[creativesoul]

Okay, you couldn't be bothered, and neither could I. End of. Enjoy. I stand by what I said.

It's not about me being bothered. You can stand by what you said all you want. Standing beside a claim that you either cannot or will not justify is unacceptable. I'm asking you to justify your claim by virtue of drawing a meaningful distinction between what counts as brainwashing and what counts as any other kind of language acquisition that is not brainwashing. You've failed to do that. Expecting another to draw the meaningful distinction for you that is required in order to justify your claim is invalid argumentation(at best). When one makes a strong positive claim(such as you have), s/he voluntarily enters into an obligation to justify that claim when a valid objection is levied against it. If one cannot justify their own claim, then they do no know what they're talking about. Saying that teaching spirituality to children at a very young age is tantamount to brainwashing and/or child abuse carries the heavy burden of justification along with it. As I've already stated, it rests upon a very suspect notion of what counts as brainwashing.

For those who may be interested...

All doubt is thought/belief based. During initial language acquisition, a child cannot possibly doubt what s/he is being taught(regardless of the ideology/worldview being adopted), for there is no capacity for doing so. Where there is no thought/belief system(worldview) there is no ability to doubt, and thus, there can be no ability to think critically. All initial language acquisition includes the adoption of one's original worldview. That holds good regardless of the ideology. We are taught, via language acquisition, what things are called, how to act in certain situations, what sorts of things are to be aspired towards, what sorts of things are to be avoided, what's acceptable/unacceptable, etc. That is the very basis upon which we later make sense of the world and/or ourselves. That is the very basis upon which we critically examine the world around us.

Now, brainwashing is a notion that has strong negative implication. Unless one is willing to say that all initial worldviews amount to brainwashing and/or child abuse, then s/he is obligated in more ways than one to draw and maintain a clear and meaningful distinction between initial language acquisition and brainwashing.

[Dalek Prime]

Okay, you couldn't be bothered, and neither could I. End of. Enjoy. I stand by what I said.

It's not about me being bothered. You can stand by what you said all you want. Standing beside a claim that you either cannot or will not justify is unacceptable. I'm asking you to justify your claim by virtue of drawing a meaningful distinction between what counts as brainwashing and what counts as any other kind of language acquisition that is not brainwashing. You've failed to do that. Expecting another to draw the meaningful distinction for you that is required in order to justify your claim is invalid argumentation(at best). When one makes a strong positive claim(such as you have), s/he voluntarily enters into an obligation to justify that claim when a valid objection is levied against it. If one cannot justify their own claim, then they do no know what they're talking about. Saying that teaching spirituality to children at a very young age is tantamount to brainwashing and/or child abuse carries the heavy burden of justification along with it. As I've already stated, it rests upon a very suspect notion of what counts as brainwashing.

For those who may be interested...

All doubt is thought/belief based. During initial language acquisition, a child cannot possibly doubt what s/he is being taught(regardless of the ideology/worldview being adopted), for there is no capacity for doing so. Where there is no thought/belief system(worldview) there is no ability to doubt, and thus, there can be no ability to think critically. All initial language acquisition includes the adoption of one's original worldview. That holds good regardless of the ideology. We are taught, via language acquisition, what things are called, how to act in certain situations, what sorts of things are to be aspired towards, what sorts of things are to be avoided, what's acceptable/unacceptable, etc. That is the very basis upon which we later make sense of the world and/or ourselves. That is the very basis upon which we critically examine the world around us.

Now, brainwashing is a notion that has strong negative implication. Unless one is willing to say that all initial worldviews amount to brainwashing and/or child abuse, then s/he is obligated in more ways than one to draw and maintain a clear and meaningful distinction between initial language acquisition and brainwashing.

You're just making the opposite strong claim without justification. Tomato, tomahto.

[creativesoul]

I suggest you take the time to carefully re-read my last post Dalek.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I did quote you D P but that doesn’t matter. The question remains. You didn’t understand what I mean by teaching spirituality. You believe I mean indoctrination but that is wrong. I mean opening the mind. I have the same objection to education that Einstein did which as you pointed out is teaching by rote. Education is defined now as the ability to pass tests.

Teaching 'spirituality' is closing the mind to accept religious indoctrination.
Teaching can genuinely open the mind, not by imposing a pre-medieval world view, but by making sure that the student takes nothing for granted, like the existence of a 'spirit', and challenges all s/he has thrown at her.
Spirituality has as its basis the assertion of unverifiable and unsubstantiated metaphysical claims, That is no way to teach a child.

[Arising_uk]

You cannot be serious. Did Einstein suggest kids shouldn't read. No, he is suggesting what Plato did: the value of opening the mind rather than closing it as done now in these institutions of child abuse. ...

You don't appear to understand the Plato quote, it's about writing and the harm he(and others) thought such an invention brings, as the ancient Greeks and Romans used their memory greatly compared to us, so in fact they most probably would have preferred rote memory learning as a method of teaching. That they also used memory techniques is a given I think, hence the 'Roman Villa' memory method. This is why he says, ""If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. ..."
p.s.
I don't disagree about the problem of 'teaching to test' nowadays but don't think it about closing minds to 'sprituality' just to creativity.

[Dalek Prime]

I suggest you take the time to carefully re-read my last post Dalek.

I'm not buying it. Hobbes and I are on the same page here. Go argue with him if you like. Inculcating false notions is a part of socialization, and is negative, thus brainwashing, though society doesn't see it that way, because its the defacto world view. Do you really believe everything you were taught was the truth? Education would be completely different if it was. It's a machine to fit people in to the society they are in. Real education comes later, separating all the fictions you were brought up in.