User Tag List

View Poll Results: Is the source or the argument more important to discerning the truth?

Voters
36. You may not vote on this poll
  • The source is paramount.

    1 2.78%
  • The source is a bit more important than the argument.

    2 5.56%
  • The source and the argument are equally important.

    10 27.78%
  • The argument is more important than the source.

    14 38.89%
  • The argument is paramount.

    9 25.00%
First 78910 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 96

  1. #81
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    The source of an argument has no influence on its veracity. If a talking pile of baked hams says 2 + 2 = 4, indeed it remains true that 2 + 2 = 4. You might want to figure out why you are suffering from severe hallucinations, but once you've gotten that squared away, you'll find the equation still holds up.

    Considering the source important is the ad hominem fallacy. The only reason consideration of source is justified is because an individual does not have an infinite amount of time to fully analyze every argument. Paying attention to the source is therefore a matter credibility for the sake of efficiency and expediency. Such corner cutting unfortunately comes at the expense of accuracy and ought to be avoided where feasible.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  2. #82
    Senior Member burymecloser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    i have to say i am positively surprised by the number of NFs answering here in adhering to the argument over the source. i always thought that the stereotypical line of thought (which i'v encountered too many times) of "if you would respect me you would agree" was basically a result of projecting a bias towards the source over the argument (thus assuming if i truly loved/respected/cared for them i should be more biased towards their logic). to me that always seems like an intellectual insecurity, as in, a lack in trust in yourself and your own capacity to examine an argument rationally, thus falling back on your trust in your capacity to examine other people's reliability.
    That sounds like Fi specifically -- taking dis/agreement personally -- more than F or NF.

    My own stereotype is that Ti would be most interested in the argument (what makes sense to me) and Te comparatively likely to be swayed by the source. Isn't the broad idea that Fi/Te-users tend to feel ethical issues (F) should be understood personally and logical issues (T) understood and agreed upon collectively, with Fe/Ti-users believing that logical issues (T) should be understood personally and ethical issues (F) understood and agreed upon collectively?

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    The source of an argument has no influence on its veracity. If a talking pile of baked hams says 2 + 2 = 4, indeed it remains true that 2 + 2 = 4. You might want to figure out why you are suffering from severe hallucinations, but once you've gotten that squared away, you'll find the equation still holds up.

    Considering the source important is the ad hominem fallacy. The only reason consideration of source is justified is because an individual does not have an infinite amount of time to fully analyze every argument. Paying attention to the source is therefore a matter credibility for the sake of efficiency and expediency. Such corner cutting unfortunately comes at the expense of accuracy and ought to be avoided where feasible.
    +1

  3. #83
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    I consider the source to the extent that a problem is unimportant or difficult. Really. In those cases, I want or need a heuristic or shortcut.

    Besides, this:
    The Misconception: You believe your opinions and decisions are based on experience and facts, while those who disagree with you are falling for the lies and propaganda of sources you don’t trust.

    The Truth: Everyone believes the people they disagree with are gullible, and everyone thinks they are far less susceptible to persuasion than they truly are.
    In general, we tend to use pure logic much less than we think that we do. We all use heuristics, all the time, and we'd go insane from mental paralysis if we didn't.


    Then again, much of my research hinges upon claims such as this:
    One of the more explanatory studies was a group of doctors that analyzed the biopsies of 193 Hodgkin’s disease patients. They asked the doctors to predict the survival time of each patient. Their correlation with actual survival times were effectively 0, meaning the doctors' forecasts had no predictive power. However, if you construct a linear model using the variables the doctors labeled as important on the biopsy, then you can accurately predict survival time. The point is that experts can intuitively determine the relationship of variables to outcome but do a poor job of synthesizing multiple variables to forecast an outcome.
    (that experts can do pretty shitty assessments that involve combining a multitude of variables)

  4. #84
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    The source of an argument has no influence on its veracity. If a talking pile of baked hams says 2 + 2 = 4, indeed it remains true that 2 + 2 = 4. You might want to figure out why you are suffering from severe hallucinations, but once you've gotten that squared away, you'll find the equation still holds up.

    Considering the source important is the ad hominem fallacy. The only reason consideration of source is justified is because an individual does not have an infinite amount of time to fully analyze every argument. Paying attention to the source is therefore a matter credibility for the sake of efficiency and expediency. Such corner cutting unfortunately comes at the expense of accuracy and ought to be avoided where feasible.
    Too bad there's no such mathematical calculus for ethical arguments. When the conclusions being argued for involve anything like "you should believe this" or "we should do that," factual and logical accuracy lose quite a bit of their determinacy. They become one more rhetorical device among many.

    Ad Hominem is thus not always fallacious, and there are people who study informal logic or argumentation theory who have long since proposed this.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  5. #85
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Too bad there's no such mathematical calculus for ethical arguments. When the conclusions being argued for involve anything like "you should believe this" or "we should do that," factual and logical accuracy lose quite a bit of their determinacy. They become one more rhetorical device among many.

    Ad Hominem is thus not always fallacious, and there are people who study informal logic or argumentation theory who have long since proposed this.
    There doesn't need to be a mathematical equation for my point to still stand. Exactly what about the speaker tells you whether or not an ethical statement is a correct one? Of course, if you assume there is no such thing as a correct ethical statement, then the speaker also doesn't matter because it's all indifferent.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  6. #86
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    There doesn't need to be a mathematical equation for my point to still stand. Exactly what about the speaker tells you whether or not an ethical statement is a correct one? Of course, if you assume there is no such thing as a correct ethical statement, then the speaker also doesn't matter because it's all indifferent.
    My point is that your point only stands insofar as we're evaluating arguments for soundness alone, and that's provided that we are capable of determining an argument's soundness in the first place, which we may not be. Beyond that, there are many things that arguments try to do that must be evaluated separately from its soundness. For instance, an argument may not actually be arguing to a conclusion in the logical sense at all (though it may try to present itself that way), but may instead be arguing in order to gain assent to a certain perspective or attitude on the sly. If we do not look into the author/speaker's potential motivations for framing an argument in a particular way, or employing extra-logical tactics, then we may well fall prey to accepting ideas, assumptions, and perspectives that would not be captured if we only looked at the logical validity of the argument structure and the factual truth of its premises, though those of course remain important.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  7. #87
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    My point is that your point only stands insofar as we're evaluating arguments for soundness alone, and that's provided that we are capable of determining an argument's soundness in the first place, which we may not be. Beyond that, there are many things that arguments try to do that must be evaluated separately from its soundness. For instance, an argument may not actually be arguing to a conclusion in the logical sense at all (though it may try to present itself that way), but may instead be arguing in order to gain assent to a certain perspective or attitude on the sly. If we do not look into the author/speaker's potential motivations for framing an argument in a particular way, or employing extra-logical tactics, then we may well fall prey to accepting ideas, assumptions, and perspectives that would not be captured if we only looked at the logical validity of the argument structure and the factual truth of its premises, though those of course remain important.
    I can consider whether or not rhetoric is intended to manipulate the audience in some way while simultaneously acknowledging that it has nothing to do with whether or not the argument being made is true, and this topic is about the truth. And really, if you are using logic properly, you certainly shouldn't be tricked into accepting a false or extraneous premise. That in and of itself is still quite within the bounds of logic.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  8. #88
    RETIRED CzeCze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    GONE
    Posts
    9,051

    Default

    People who never consider the source open themselves up for manipulation.
    “If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.” ― Oscar Wilde

    "I'm outtie 5000" ― Romulux

    Johari/Nohari

  9. #89
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I can consider whether or not rhetoric is intended to manipulate the audience in some way while simultaneously acknowledging that it has nothing to do with whether or not the argument being made is true, and this topic is about the truth. And really, if you are using logic properly, you certainly shouldn't be tricked into accepting a false or extraneous premise. That in and of itself is still quite within the bounds of logic.
    But you do have to consider it, which is the point of saying that the source is of equal (or at least partial, depending on how much you want to admit) importance in the evaluation of arguments, which was the question in the OP. (Or at least how I interpreted it.)

    Perhaps we are having confusion over the word "truth." It's really not possible to string together an elaborate deductive argument for ANYTHING other than math or pure logic that will absolutely prove that something is true. And that's only because the types of truths produced by math and logic are excessively narrow and completely formal; neither of which is true about natural language argumentation.

    So determining the "truth" of arguments is sort of a silly way to put it, since truth is already outside of the capabilities of argument. So really what we're evaluating is whether and to what degree we will assent to arguments, since we're not really ever forced to assent by the strength of logic like in the case of 1+2=3. That's what I took the OP to mean, since if it were as simple as being capable of evaluating logic, then this wouldn't be a question at all.

    Even in philosophical or scientific discourse, where the rules of argumentation have been intersubjectively agreed upon (e.g., we will evaluate your arguments dispassionately under the condition that you try your best to argue or present your research dispassionately), there are still aspects of the "source" that must be looked into for proper evaluation (i.e., peer review), such as how well the person has demonstrated that they've kept up with recent research, who their advisor/mentor is and their reputation, the reputation of the institution they are a part of, who funded their research if it wasn't strictly university funding, the state of their research facilities, etc.,.

    It's even more important for lay people encountering arguments on a day to day basis to maintain awareness of these things - to a greater degree, even, since there are fewer and less rigorous institutionalized rules of argument that are agreed upon, if any at all - because taking arguments at face value enough to analyze them may be assuming too much about their credibility already.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  10. #90
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    But you do have to consider it, which is the point of saying that the source is of equal (or at least partial, depending on how much you want to admit) importance in the evaluation of arguments, which was the question in the OP. (Or at least how I interpreted it.)

    Perhaps we are having confusion over the word "truth." It's really not possible to string together an elaborate deductive argument for ANYTHING other than math or pure logic that will absolutely prove that something is true. And that's only because the types of truths produced by math and logic are excessively narrow and completely formal; neither of which is true about natural language argumentation.

    So determining the "truth" of arguments is sort of a silly way to put it, since truth is already outside of the capabilities of argument. So really what we're evaluating is whether and to what degree we will assent to arguments, since we're not really ever forced to assent by the strength of logic like in the case of 1+2=3. That's what I took the OP to mean, since if it were as simple as being capable of evaluating logic, then this wouldn't be a question at all.

    Even in philosophical or scientific discourse, where the rules of argumentation have been intersubjectively agreed upon (e.g., we will evaluate your arguments dispassionately under the condition that you try your best to argue or present your research dispassionately), there are still aspects of the "source" that must be looked into for proper evaluation (i.e., peer review), such as how well the person has demonstrated that they've kept up with recent research, who their advisor/mentor is and their reputation, the reputation of the institution they are a part of, who funded their research if it wasn't strictly university funding, the state of their research facilities, etc.,.

    It's even more important for lay people encountering arguments on a day to day basis to maintain awareness of these things - to a greater degree, even, since there are fewer and less rigorous institutionalized rules of argument that are agreed upon, if any at all - because taking arguments at face value enough to analyze them may be assuming too much about their credibility already.
    Yes, deductive logic is strictly analytic. It only finds things that guaranteed to correct by the premises it lays out before itself. The things we observe in day-to-day life cannot be completely reduced to a deductive conclusion, so we turn to induction. Regarding induction, empiricism, and the scientific method, we don't have proofs, so we don't have The Truth, we just have what heretofore the strongest determined arguments. But how much does even that depend on the source of the argument? Again, all the stuff about looking for credibility and peer reviewing and so forth is just based on sheer logistics. It is necessary and advantageous for logistical reasons. When you're actually bothering to take an argument to task yourself, however, that becomes much less relevant. It's really quite important because those moments where you are confront one line of argument is exactly the time to catch what standards of credibility don't. That's the time to see if the village idiot actually made a profound point or if the esteemed emeritus is just bullshitting this time.

    I'm trying to follow you here, but it keeps looking to me like your premises and your conclusion are going along parallel lines, never touching.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

Similar Threads

  1. [ISTJ] Could the ISTJ be considered a Rational personality?
    By Delta223 in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 03-05-2013, 06:27 PM
  2. The Argument Of Rain
    By Liason in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 06-02-2010, 09:07 PM
  3. Australia is considering the approval of female genital mutilation
    By Lex Talionis in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 05-30-2010, 08:30 PM
  4. 'The Bible is no longer considered part of the conversation'
    By Sniffles in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 172
    Last Post: 04-17-2009, 08:36 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO