OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Playing Chess with Pigeons

Entry 1387, on 2012-05-14 at 19:27:50 (Rating 4, Skepticism)

I recently bought a new Mac t-shirt which features the words "I think, therefore iMac". It's a classic in formal geek attire, of course, along with my others with quotes such as "Hello, I'm a Mac" and "Think Different".

On a seemingly unconnected subject, when I'm debating with people (as I often do) I usually notice that my opponents have an obvious lack of skill in the area of the basics of correct debating style and often indulge in obvious errors of logic.

How are these two factoids linked? They both involve philosophy! Well, sort of.

One of my favourite annoying habits when asked about the Apple t-shirt is to explain the meaning of the phrase by going back to French philosopher Rene Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" or "cogito ergo sum". So that's the philosophy link for the first item.

Many people fail to debate effectively because they don't understand logical fallacies, another important part of philosophy. Unfortunately they are often so ignorant of these fallacies that they don't even realise they've lost the debate.

There's a classic quote regarding debating with creationists which I think is relevant. It's: "Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory. - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer".

I don't claim to be an expert on philosophy (far from it) but I have a vague interest in the subject, especially the fallacies because they so often arise in the skeptical examination of different topics. So I thought in this blog entry I might mention one of my favourite logical fallacies - of course it's one my opponents use, not me!

A fallacy which often appears when debating religion is special pleading. Here's an explanation and example I got from a poster on the subject of logical fallacies...

Special Pleading: Moving the goalposts or making up exceptions when a claim is shown to be false. Humans are funny creatures and have a foolish aversion to being wrong. Rather than appreciate the benefits of being able to change one's mind through better understanding, many will invent ways to cling to old beliefs.

Example: Edward Johns claimed to be psychic, but when his "abilities" were tested under proper scientific conditions, they magically disappeared. Edward explained this saying that one had to have faith in his abilities for them to work.

In fact, every time someone with claimed paranormal abilities (ESP, clairvoyance, faith healing, dowsing, etc) is tested in a properly controlled situation they fail, even if they have agreed to the conditions before the test.

When it comes to religion I frequently hear special pleading arguments. When a person is asked to show evidence supporting their beliefs they say that their knowledge of reality is special and is not open to scientific testing. But they would never accept the same special treatment they demand for themselves being applied to any other person or group.

For example they might say that being healed by prayer cannot be tested by science yet if another cult, especially one which isn't part of a mainstream religion, claims that they have special healing powers but offer no proof they will immediately reject that as superstition.

What they cannot see is that to someone with no specific attachment to a religious belief (for example, an atheist) all of the belief systems, including theirs, look about the same: they are all just different examples of superstition.

All I ask of these people is that they put themselves in the position of someone else and look at how their beliefs hold up to unbiased scrutiny. If you are a Mormon, for example, look at how a Catholic must see you when you say you believe in a book which has been proven wrong beyond any reasonable doubt.

If you really believe that your form of faith, or unsupported belief, or superstition (call it whatever you want) is really any different then there's a good chance you are deluded and you probably invoke special pleading with monotonous regularity.

When it comes to the defence of one religious position over others remember one thing: you can't all be right, but you can all be wrong!

Comment 1 (3035) by SBFL on 2012-05-16 at 10:44:48: (view recent only)

For some reason OJB seems to think that "logic" answers all of life's questions. Good luck with that.

Comment 2 (3037) by OJB on 2012-05-16 at 11:11:41:

Philosophers have considered the correct way to debate and to establish the truth for millennia. There are certain things which have been fairly universally accepted as being counter-productive to finding out what's real. Not only that, but most of these are simple common sense as well.

Regarding "special pleading" I discussed here for example. Is it not just common sense that every possible contender for the truth should be treated the same way? if we give one possible answer to a question special privilege how does that lead to an unbiased result?

So yes, i think "logic" is likely to lead to the best approximation of the truth we can reasonably expect. if you have better method I'd be very happy to hear about it!

Comment 3 (3040) by SBFL on 2012-05-16 at 11:19:56:

OJB stated: "Philosophers have considered the correct way to debate and to establish the truth for millennia."

A-ha. And this is what exactly?

Comment 4 (3042) by OJB on 2012-05-16 at 11:35:28:

Well it is to follow the rules such as the one I discussed above. That is: avoid the fallacy of "special pleading" along with all the others such as ad hominem, poisoning the well, post hoc ergo propter hoc, etc (I just love the names).

I plan to do a blog entry briefly discussing each one in the near future so stand by for that!

Comment 5 (3048) by SBFL on 2012-05-16 at 12:06:29:

Well I hope your new post does just that because your comment above fails miserably in that department.

Comment 6 (3052) by OJB on 2012-05-16 at 12:20:25:

I don't quite follow. How does the original post fail?

Comment 7 (3055) by SBFL on 2012-05-16 at 12:25:33:

Politely, I will say you haven't answered my question ;-)

Comment 8 (3058) by OJB on 2012-05-16 at 12:28:57:

Your question was what is the correct way to debate and establish the truth, right?

My answer was (partly and specifically in relation to this post) to avoid logical fallacies such as special pleading. That's not all, of course, but it is the element of truth seeking which this blog post specifically addresses.

Comment 9 (3062) by SBFL on 2012-05-16 at 12:36:50:

Wow, great "non-answer" OJB. You stated: "Philosophers have considered the correct way to debate and to establish the truth for millennia."

Again, what is it?

Comment 10 (3063) by OJB on 2012-05-16 at 12:43:24:

In the context of this blog entry I was thinking of avoiding logical fallacies. I really don't know what more I can tell you except to list them all for you. I do plan to do that in a future blog entry but until then there are plenty of web pages discussing the subject.

Comment 11 (3065) by SBFL on 2012-05-16 at 12:46:48: Okay, we wait in anticipation.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.