Consider the source, or consider the argument?

[Magic Poriferan]

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.

 

[burymecloser]

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?

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

 

[garbage]

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)

 

[Orangey]

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.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

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.

 

[Orangey]

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.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

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.

 

[CzeCze]

People who never consider the source open themselves up for manipulation.

 

[Orangey]

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.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

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.

 

[Orangey]

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.

I think we're misunderstanding each other on a fundamental level, here. I'm operating on the assumption that an argument is never separate from an arguer; the motivations and assumptions of the arguer go into creating the argument, and the argument reconstructs the arguer to the audience. So as the audience, when we encounter an argument, we are automatically thrust into an argumentative situation in which we are in a kind of dialogue with the arguer, and the arguer has already put forth ethotic arguments that must be evaluated ethotically. What are ethotic arguments? Everything from statements of credentials and good character, direct and indirect, to the style of the writing and the type of authority it tries to portray. It's like a sly argument that ends up being what we'd normally suspect to be an appeal from authority if it were made explicit, and it requires consideration of the arguer's character to determine if it is in fact a kind of argumentative fallacy.

Restricting one's self to the evaluation of logos thus requires that you pretend that the others are not there and that the argument is somehow separable from the arguer. Moreover, you are required to pretend that you yourself are somehow separable from the argumentative situation and can judge as if from above whether the argument is a good one or bad one, when it's more like you're just another arguer engaged in argument with the arguments you've been presented with (phew, that was a mouthful in my mind's ear.) Thus the calling out of fallacies and critiquing of logic/facts is a type of counterargument, and in order to make the best counterargument one must not neglect to address all kinds of arguments, including ethotic and pathotic ones.

 

[ygolo]

[MENTION=1449]Magic Poriferan[/MENTION], [MENTION=4490]Orangey[/MENTION]

I think the difference in perspectives you are espousing have to do more with an ideal vs. practical situation.

Magic seems to be saying that, given the time and resources (including the ability to accurately judge arguments), only the repeatable, arguer separate, components of the of the points being made should be considered when accepting or rejecting an argument.

Orangey seems to be saying that no such situation exists.

Does that sound right?

 

[Orangey]

[MENTION=1449]Magic Poriferan[/MENTION], [MENTION=4490]Orangey[/MENTION]

I think the difference in perspectives you are espousing have to do more with an ideal vs. practical situation.

Magic seems to be saying that, given the time and resources (including the ability to accurately judge arguments), only the repeatable, arguer separate, components of the of the points being made should be considered when accepting or rejecting an argument.

Orangey seems to be saying that no such situation exists.

Does that sound right?

Yes.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

[MENTION=1449]Magic Poriferan[/MENTION], [MENTION=4490]Orangey[/MENTION]

I think the difference in perspectives you are espousing have to do more with an ideal vs. practical situation.

Magic seems to be saying that, given the time and resources (including the ability to accurately judge arguments), only the repeatable, arguer separate, components of the of the points being made should be considered when accepting or rejecting an argument.

Orangey seems to be saying that no such situation exists.

Does that sound right?

Perhaps. My position can sound impractically academic but I think it is important to remember the distinction between what actually relates to the truth and all of those other elements. It seems to me that every appeal and the entirety of the rhetorical situation can be brought to bear in asserting that an argument is accurate and have not one iota of relevance to how accurate the argument actually is (I would like to say logos counts, but logos only counts some of the time when it isn't fallacious). It is important to understand the difference between the power of an argument to convince and the accuracy of an argument.

This makes me wonder, does [MENTION=4490]Orangey[/MENTION] subscribe to the notion that there is a reality outside of belief? Is there truth outside of belief?

 

[lowtech redneck]

As a practical matter, its impossible to thoroughly scrutinize and independently investigate every arguement; for that reason, routinely discriminating on the basis of credible sources is necessary, and given the range of reasonable disagreement on just about every issue in existence, is unlikely to greatly restrict philosophical or scientiific progress. That said, the arguement is the only thing of inherent importance, and the determinator of what one percieves to be true after filtering out the noise of uncredible sources, so it is more important than the source.

Edit: basically what Magic Poriferan said, though I'm probably much more likely to view 'truth' as a matter of social construction; its just that I think competing visions of truth revolve around the arguement, and I agree that its important to distinguish between what is convincing versus what is accurate, even if only theoretically.

Edit2: Also, I think that multiple and simultaneously interacting variables tends to change what is true in relation to isolated arguements, which restricts one's capacity to percieve truth. In other words, what is true in isolation may be....less so in context, and that context may even be beyond human perception at the time an arguement is given. I hope that makes sense, as its a difficult concept for me to put into words.

 

[Orangey]

Perhaps. My position can sound impractically academic but I think it is important to remember the distinction between what actually relates to the truth and all of those other elements. It seems to me that every appeal and the entirety of the rhetorical situation can be brought to bear in asserting that an argument is accurate and have not one iota of relevance to how accurate the argument actually is (I would like to say logos counts, but logos only counts some of the time when it isn't fallacious). It is important to understand the difference between the power of an argument to convince and the accuracy of an argument.

This makes me wonder, does [MENTION=4490]Orangey[/MENTION] subscribe to the notion that there is a reality outside of belief? Is there truth outside of belief?

To your last question, yes. I just don't think that dialogical methods are very reliable at determining "truth" about the world, nor do I think they have much importance to the enterprise of determining such truth outside of their specific rhetorical situations. In a legal case, for instance, what is considered truth is often nothing more than what was convincing...truth just being a function of audience agreement. Moreover, argument is not always employed in the pursuit of truth about the world, but rather as a means of manipulating an audience, to recommend a certain course of action (which is never a matter of truth - how could one course of action be more true than another? - though blatant untruths in the process of arguing for a certain course of action may decrease a person's ethos...but even then "truth" has been reduced to ethotic argumentation), etc.,.

I guess a simple way of putting it would be to say that, in real, embodied argumentation (not 1+2=3), it is possible for bad arguments to be made in favor of true conclusions, and for good arguments to be made in favor of false conclusions. That's why, in order to regulate this problem of indeterminacy, institutions implement argumentative rules that must be followed in order to try and weed out, as much as possible, the rhetorical-ness of the whole process. They never can accomplish this totally, of course, so the person who is the better rhetorician (had the right kind of ethos, pathos, and logos arguments) often wins, and winning often determines what we consider to be true.

Again, though, I'm not a thoroughgoing relativist. I take more of a Larry Lauden view on such matters.