Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ssc-vax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david From: david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Use of Logical Terminology Message-ID: <872@ssc-vax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 2-Mar-84 17:51:52 EST Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.872 Posted: Fri Mar 2 17:51:52 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 4-Mar-84 02:27:05 EST Organization: Boeing Aerospace, Seattle Lines: 52 Rich Rosen complains on my use of logical terminology: > Apparently, David Norris either has recently read a book on formal logic or > has conversed with someone fluent in the subject. In either case, he has > emerged from the endeavor with a plethora of phrases designed to amaze and > astound us. What David apparently fails to realize is that use of formal > logic terminology does not in and of itself make an argument hold water. Rich is correct; I've been doing some study in formal logic. Which leads me to state that he has comitted a psychogenetic fallacy; that is, because he has discovered the reason behind my argument, the argument is invalid. Rich is correct in that the use of formal terminology does not make an argument hold water. But what is required is to demonstrate that the logical fallacy has not really been committed; i.e., show that you have not committed a "hasty generalization" by producing the evidence behind the claims that you have made. (Oh no! Someone on the net has endeavored to become more educated! Horrors! Quick, do something before he starts making sense. Poison the well! :-) > But, I guess one should remember that this comes from someone who simply holds > that the Bible and God are because they are, and would probably hold similar > mystical views of logic. :-) "Poisoning the Wells." The problem here is that, if I speak up on anything, I fall into a definition trap. Can you show that I believe that the Bible and God "are because they are?" I don't, for that would be begging the question (more useless terminology!). If so (which I doubt), can you then show that, because I hold such illogical views, that all of my thinking is therefore illogical (I have "mystical views of logic")? I will wait for your evidence to support your claim. The rest of Rich's article explains that the simple use of logical terminology does not make one a logician, and I agree. He accuses me of over-using the term "ad hominem." While this may be true, one has to think of the amount of this type of argument that really goes on in net.religion and ask if my overuse of the word is not totally unfounded. My use of logical terminology was (and is) an attempt to give an accepted definition for an argumental mistake, so that a logical reply may be given. An attack on my use of a phrase does nothing in the way of proving an argument. You'll have to show why my conclusion is unjustified, else it becomes a case of (you guessed it) ad hominem. At any rate, I'll stick to original conclusion: that the attack on Collins, and the subsequent conclusion about evangelical Christians and evangelists is a case of hasty generalization. I'm putting this to the test; I'd like to see the evidence which substantiates this claim and therefore proves my claim of hasty generalization invalid. -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david