• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Consider the source, or consider the argument?

Is the source or the argument more important to discerning the truth?


  • Total voters
    32

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
When deciding if some set of statements will convince you of the truth of something, which is more important to you?

a) The source of those statements?
b) The content of those statements, and the "logic" behind the argument they make?

Why?
 

FireShield98

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
455
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp
A stupid person can come up with a brilliant idea. A brilliant person can come up with a stupid idea. It's best to judge for yourself with your own mind whether the argument makes sense or not, regardless of where it comes from.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
When deciding if some set of statements will convince you of the truth of something, which is more important to you?

a) The source of those statements?
b) The content of those statements, and the "logic" behind the argument they make?

Why?

This is a germaine question - for I fell in love with Martin Heidegger and his, "Zein und Zeit", but then I found he was a nazi and I was discombombulated. How could I follow his ideas yet reject his politics? Surely his politics taint his ideas? I still don't know the answer to this.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
In a perfect world, the source shouldn't be pertinent.

In our world, it can be pertinent, because there exists bias and self interest and when we consider the argument we don't always have the time or the ability to fact check everything and go through the entire process of deduction to recreate every single point and determine that it is sound.

Nothing should be ruled out entirely because of source, but keep in mind that with some sources you really really need to check it out and think even more critically than usual.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
When deciding if some set of statements will convince you of the truth of something, which is more important to you?

a) The source of those statements?
b) The content of those statements, and the "logic" behind the argument they make?

Why?

The content of some statements refer to the source of the statements. If so, their logic is circular and both a) and b) apply. All true statements are circular as the contents of the statements refer to Reality.
 

dala

New member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
214
MBTI Type
intp
It seems like bad practice to deliberately introduce my own bias into the equation in order to stave off the hypothetical bias of someone else.
 

SilverGhostStar

New member
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
15
MBTI Type
INFP
I would say that both are equal to me. It depends on the situation on whether one outweighs the other. Since each argument is different, each must bear its own weight. To me, truth is subjective. It can change over time and each person may only have bits and pieces of the whole. So, while what they say is true to them, it may not be the whole truth. Does that taint what they say? Not necessarily. They're going on what they have. The intent in what they say also has some weight. :D Why? Because, if their intent is to manipulate the situation for their own personal gain (while knowing full well this is the intent), then it makes what they say suspicious. I don't know if my train became derailed or not. >.> So, I'm hoping that the above mentioned made some sense at least. lol
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
Outside the realm of mathematics and logic, the source does matter because arguments usually make factual claims in order to support hypotheses. To decide whether the hypothesis is true, the source claiming factual truth should be considered in order to gauge its probability of being truthful.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Almost always content for me. If I can't trace it back far enough ideologically to satisfy myself of the "truth of something," then I just reserve final judgment on whatever it is.


For some authors/thinkers/Friends who've impressed me with their knowledge, I give them more benefits of the doubt, like Jung, but I understand that all humans can have some crazy notions, and do, mixed in with their ingenious ones.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
It seems like bad practice to deliberately introduce my own bias into the equation in order to stave off the hypothetical bias of someone else.

You have to. Otherwise you can never even approach an argument on a subject that you don't have professional knowledge of. And if you do have such knowledge, then there's no need to approach someone else's argument when you know plenty enough to make your own conclusions and have them be correct.

On that note there have been hoaxes which slipped past peer review in scientific communities just because the language used looked professional and the reviewers took the writers word for too many things because they didn't have the time or knowledge to verify all of it.
 

Philosorapteuse

right on the left wing
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
217
MBTI Type
INTP
The argument comes first. If it isn't logically valid, or the assumptions it's based on are unsound, then it's already dead in the water regardless of who proposed it.

If it proves valid and/or sound, then I look at its provenance. Bias in the reporting of the facts, and silent underlying assumptions, can both poison an argument that looks OK on the surface. But I don't generally bother with digging down if the argument's already dead.
 

Philosorapteuse

right on the left wing
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
217
MBTI Type
INTP
You have to. Otherwise you can never even approach an argument on a subject that you don't have professional knowledge of. And if you do have such knowledge, then there's no need to approach someone else's argument when you know plenty enough to make your own conclusions and have them be correct.

Welcome to Planet Obsessive INTP. ;) This is basically what we tend to avoid doing, in the interests of detachment. It makes for cleaner arguments and greater insight. But not for drawing conclusions, agreed. ;)
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
Welcome to Planet Obsessive INTP. ;) This is basically what we tend to avoid doing, in the interests of detachment. It makes for cleaner arguments and greater insight. But not for drawing conclusions, agreed. ;)

Yeah. Problem is that any argument can be sound on its surface with presumed truths.

Such as, if I were to argue that ducks which lay golden eggs would impact the value of gold, I'd probably be right - assuming that there actually are ducks that lay golden eggs.

It's very easy to presume the 'duck' in someone else's argument if you don't have experience, which makes the argument appear to be truthful but in actuality it may not be, because of something in the premise is missed that doesn't actually apply to the real world.
 

Philosorapteuse

right on the left wing
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
217
MBTI Type
INTP
Yeah. Problem is that any argument can be sound on its surface with presumed truths.

Such as, if I were to argue that ducks which lay golden eggs would impact the value of gold, I'd probably be right - assuming that there actually are ducks that lay golden eggs.

It's very easy to presume the 'duck' in someone else's argument if you don't have experience, which makes the argument appear to be truthful but in actuality it may not be, because of something in the premise is missed that doesn't actually apply to the real world.

Well yes, obviously soundness has to be vetted as well as validity. I don't view detachment as detracting from ability to vet soundness, however, rather as not introducing hidden assumptions. If anything this is likely to help, as it reduces the number of silent assumptions in the argument that need to be dug out.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
The term "source" is rather ambiguous. If, by source, the OP means an "authority", then I tend to check the consistency of the argument and weigh it against what I already know. I hear everything out until I make a conclusion; I suppose it helps to have a solid understanding of the simpler things, since errors in logic happen when one takes a thin assumption for granted. However, there are times when I accept comprehensiveness where strict logic would stand simply because comprehensiveness merges opposing assumptions. Contrasting viewpoints give us new understanding if we accept them and shift paradigms. It's possible to maintain a critical, yet open mind toward authority, but for practicality's sake, I tend to accept what an authority has to say if their statements are thorough. One can frequently tell when an idea has already been questioned - this tends to be what separates rhetoric and ideology from bone dry argument and truth value.

If, by source, the OP refers to some sort of evidence that's taken into account by self-evident inductive reasoning processes and formulated into a statement, and further into an argument, then the source is of equal value.
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
I dont understand the question. In my head they are so many voices speaking to me, the claim if they are reliable sources is the last one I possibly could have :D
 

dala

New member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
214
MBTI Type
intp
You have to. Otherwise you can never even approach an argument on a subject that you don't have professional knowledge of. And if you do have such knowledge, then there's no need to approach someone else's argument when you know plenty enough to make your own conclusions and have them be correct.

On that note there have been hoaxes which slipped past peer review in scientific communities just because the language used looked professional and the reviewers took the writers word for too many things because they didn't have the time or knowledge to verify all of it.

I find it better to look at all arguments with a reasonable amount of scrutiny, rather than 'trusting' some sources and being 'skeptical' of others. People make mistakes of reasoning and facts all the time, including myself, and just because I disagree/dislike someone else's politics/think they're nuts doesn't mean they're wrong.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
I find it better to look at all arguments with a reasonable amount of scrutiny, rather than 'trusting' some sources and being 'skeptical' of others. People make mistakes of reasoning and facts all the time, including myself, and just because I disagree/dislike someone else's politics/think they're nuts doesn't mean they're wrong.

What's a reasonable amount of scrutiny? And who said that anyone was wrong?

Are you saying for example that you'd trust a company which has been in trouble many times for fraud and faulty products when they say 'this new product is 100% safe this time! we guarantee it!'

Are you telling me that you aren't even a LITTLE more likely to check someone more thoroughly if they have a track record of lying, manipulating, being malicious, inventing data and taking things out of context as opposed to a source you already trust? If you are telling me that, I don't believe you.
 
Top