Logic and Evidence: What is the Interplay and What are Fallacies in Philosophical Arguments?

Jack Cummins

I am writing this area because it is an area which I have thought about for a while because it seems that in philosophy some appeal to evidence and some to logic. Previously, especially in science and psychology I was familiar with evidence based research, which is extremely important, but even then is subject to critical analysis, involving interpretation and examination of concepts and the aspects of evidence In a detailed in scrupulous way.

I am raising this topic after reading, 'Mastering Logical Fallacies' by Michael Withey(2016). He examines the idea of logic saying,
'Logic is a powerful tool; its power, however, has its limits. So it frequently loses out against emotion, not because emotion is more reliable than reasoning, but because emotion is more forceful'.

I wonder about this, in both the construction of logic and the interpretation of evidence, especially as both logic and evidence based research are meant to come from a perspective of rationality and neutrality. In his discussion of logical fallacies, Withey points to many assumptions which are logical fallacies in philosophy arguments, including ad hominem arguments, appeal to emotion, faith, fear, tradition and nature, as well as hasty generalisations, moralistic fallacy and magical thinking, as well as straw man thinking.

So, I am raising this topic as a way of exploring philosophy arguments as a way of clarity of thinking. This is also in relation to the empirical, in conjunction with the analysis of rational examination. What issues arise in trying to weigh up evidence and the various rational arguments in the various aspects of philosophy, ranging from the existence of God, qualia,science and social questions, including those about the future of humanity?

Tom Storm

'Logic is a powerful tool; its power, however, has its limits. So it frequently loses out against emotion, not because emotion is more reliable than reasoning, but because emotion is more forceful'. — Jack Cummins

Indeed - I also suspect that many people are drawn to logic because it is emotionally satisfying to them. :wink:

It might be interesting to get a postmodern view of logic and evidentialism.

Jack Cummins

↪Tom Storm

The emotional satisfaction/comforts of logic may be appealing. I am not sure how this would stand in terms of reason and postmodern deconstruction may, alongside logical positivism, may have left a void of uncertainty. I am not sure exactly what a postmodern construction of logic would be.

However, it may involve the deconstruction of the core of assumptions about the rational. Subjective meaning may be important, as well as understanding the basis of logic and how it is constructed, especially in relation to the notion of rhetoric as the art of argument in the process of persuasion.

180 Proof

I am raising this topic as a way of exploring philosophy arguments as a way of clarity of thinking. — Jack Cummins

These old posts below (I know you don't care much for links to other posts but ...) suggest how I begin to clarify my thinking (à la Peirce, Dewey, Russell, Witty, Haack et al):

How do we tell good philosophy from bad philosophy? More philosophy?
— Tom Storm

Not "more". We just refrain from

Pseudo-questions (i.e. context-free), fallacious arguments, obfuscating rhetoric and rationalizing (apologetics for) pseudo-science ...
— 180 Proof

... taking / seeking these paths of least cognitive effort (i.e. sophistry). — 180 Proof

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/594607

and, more broadly, struggle against stupidity (in and out of philosophy) ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/325726

Shawn

↪180 Proof

Those are some heavy thoughts. Thanks

Tom Storm

Not "more". We just refrain from

Pseudo-questions (i.e. context-free), fallacious arguments, obfuscating rhetoric and rationalizing (apologetics for) pseudo-science ... — 180 Proof

But that would end most of the discussion here... :joke: :cool:

Can you say a bit more about the 'context free' component of pseudo questions? I'm assuming you mean non-questions, which are incoherent? What are some of the best example of these?

180 Proof

↪Tom Storm

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/594607 — 180 Proof

Tom Storm

↪180 Proof

:up: I keep asking the same fucking questions. Jeez.

180 Proof

↪Tom Storm

:smirk:

Jack Cummins

↪Tom Storm

Forming questions is an important part of philosophy. I often remember a point which you made once which was that asking the wrong questions is like premature ejaculation. To a large extent I agree but, at the same time it may be that reframing common philosophy questions allows for thinking from new angles as a way of lateral thinking.

Of course, when questions are asked it does vary as to how far they can be answered, especially in relation to evidence. For example, the issue of life after death cannot be answered completely with 'evidence' for or against. Similarly, the question as to whether the idea of belief for or against the idea of God being 'logical' is difficult to answer fully. Both logic and evidence are not complete in themselves, allowing for subjective interpretations in understanding. The issue of difficulty answering questions is what puts some people off philosophy, although taking that view is a rather restricted one. Also, questions in themselves can also be statements in themselves, as in the art of rhetoric.

Tom Storm

↪Jack Cummins

Nice. I find it curious how often I come back to the same questions and concerns no matter how well they are answered. I see others doing it here too. Some of us seem to be stuck in our own rut of eternal recurrence.

The issue of difficulty answering questions is what puts some people off philosophy, although taking that view is a rather restricted one. — Jack Cummins

That's true. Many think of philosophy as a time wasting with unanswerable questions. Philosophy seems to promise different things for different people. I lack confidence that humans can do much more than get to understand better their own prejudices and suppositions. The dreaded search to find a representation of a mind-independent external reality seems fraught.

Jack Cummins

↪Tom Storm

In thinking about suppositions and prejudices, it is where philosophy and psychology come together in self-knowledge and critical thinking. In some ways, CBT is an angle which is a foundation for philosophy and it is comparable with the Stoic thinkers. For all the complex knowledge and models science some of the essential questions of philosophy are recurrent in human civilisations. I don't relate to people seeing philosophy as a waste of time and energy but it is also possible to go round and round in circles, and I am sure that I do this at times...

Tom Storm

↪Jack Cummins

A fair assessment. I think it's important to consider too that everyone is different and draws energy from different activities. Some people may not have an aptitude for philosophy (I would probably class myself here). I think to do it well requires some capabilities and probably some solid reading so as not to reinvent the wheel. I think @Banno has made the point a few times that philosophy is hard. It's not just having untheorized opinions or monomaniacal personal theories.

Jack Cummins

↪Tom Storm

I guess that there is also a difference between the idea of philosophy as a basic set of ideas and assumptions for daily life and philosophy as an academic pursuit. They are not separate entirely though because the academic philosophy is not just as a form of mental gymnastics which looks and sounds good but is about fine-tuning of thinking. Independently of studying philosophy as such, it is likely that some have more of a questioning disposition than others. Also, some have more need to read and think about philosophy if common sense and various ideas encountered seem inadequate or contradictory.

Tom Storm

Also, some have more need to read and think about philosophy if common sense and various ideas encountered seem inadequate or contradictory. — Jack Cummins

Yes, and experiencing trauma and profound unhappiness may also propel one towards philosophy in the age old question to try to establish a 'why'.

180 Proof

"Questioning is the piety of thought."
~Martin Heidegger

Forming questions is an important part of philosophy. — Jack Cummins

I think, instead, it is the most important part. Just as science is, overall, reasoning to better, more probitive (parsimonious) explanations, philosophy is reasoning to better, more probative (unbegged) questions. An answer, especially a speculative one, is just a question's way of generating (i.e. usually re-formulating it into) a new, or different, question. Thus, 'the gadfly's' examined life. :fire:

Paine

↪Jack Cummins

If I understand your report of what Withey is saying, he is comparing different kinds of persuasion rather than presenting a self-evident truth revealed by our experience. Taken by themselves, the emotions are not an argument unless they are made one. I have to write a story to pit them against another narrative.

Jack Cummins

↪Tom Storm

As much as trauma and suffering can have a detrimental effect on wellbeing, it does serve the purpose of making people go further in thinking and exploration. Of course, it doesn't necessarily mean that all who explore philosophy are suffering. But, at the same time, suffering does propel deeper thinking and may prevent some from complacency and lazy logic.

Jack Cummins

↪180 Proof

I wonder how much conventional thinking is about the wish for answers and certainty. The way in which questions keep arising shows how knowledge is static and evolving. The generation of questions may be part of the creative process in itself and the premature formulation of 'answers' in a clear, definitive way is what leads to dogma and rigidity.

Jack Cummins

↪Paine

Generally, I was impressed by Whitey's presentation of various logical fallacies. However, the only thing which did make me query it was the summary on the back cover which spoke of 'winning arguments'. This attitude does suggest attempts at persuasion as opposed to the genuine search for truth'. I am not suggesting 'Trutth' with a capital T as absolutism but as weighed understanding. The alternative of philosophy as a means of persuasion is based on one's own needs or possibly of some group interest or ideology. Philosophy as persuasion may be shallow as it is with another end in mind rather than an open approach to where the philosophy quest may lead.

180 Proof

↪Jack Cummins

:up:

Philosophy as persuasion may be shallow as it is with another end in mind rather than an open approach to where the philosophy quest may lead. — Jack Cummins

Socratics (e.g. Plato et al) called these persuaders "sophists". Today, I suppose, we call them "lawyers, politicians, preachers, propagandists, public relations agents, advertisers, influencers, brokers, pundits, gurus, psycho-analysts / therapists, fortune tellers, conspiracy theorists ..."

Agent Smith

↪180 Proof

Would I be correct if I said praxis is the stumbling block? Many people, I for one, are unable to practice rationality despite knowing everything there is to know about critical thinking. It's not as easy as it sounds is what I mean.

In college, I encountered the acronym KABP (it was a template in socio-medical studies).
K - Knowledge
A - Attitude
B - Belief
P - Practice

I know smoking kills; My attitude is generally a don't-give-a-damn one; My belief is quitting should mean I get to see my grandchildren; My practice, chain smoker.

180 Proof

Would I be correct if I said praxis is the stumbling block ... — Agent Smith

Aristotle uses the term akrasia instead. I think foolery is more apt.

Agent Smith

↪180 Proof

:up:

Metaphysician Undercover

I wonder about this, in both the construction of logic and the interpretation of evidence, especially as both logic and evidence based research are meant to come from a perspective of rationality and neutrality. In his discussion of logical fallacies, Withey points to many assumptions which are logical fallacies in philosophy arguments, including ad hominem arguments, appeal to emotion, faith, fear, tradition and nature, as well as hasty generalisations, moralistic fallacy and magical thinking, as well as straw man thinking. — Jack Cummins

I would be interested to investigate what constitutes a fallacy. Fallacy is defined as reasoning which is invalid, and Wikipedia for example, gives a list of specific forms of fallacy. Each named form is a type of reasoning which has been designated as invalid, therefore an unacceptable part of the reasoning process. We could say that these are mistaken actions in the reasoning process.

Now the question is, what justifies each specific named type of fallacy as being called a mistake (invalid). Since reasoning is a human action one might think that "mistake" would be justified through reference to some moral principles (Plato implies this with his conception of "the good"), but this does not seem to be the case. It appears like the characteristic of "fallacy" is meant to be supported with evidence. That is, if a certain course of reasoning can be shown to give unfavourable results, it is designated as mistaken, and receives a name as a fallacy. But even if this is true there is still a matter of stipulating what constitutes a favourable result, and what constitutes an unfavourable result.

There are many named types of fallacies, but before creating divisions of types I think it would be preferable to determine exactly what constitutes a mistake. We'd also need to separate inductive reasoning from deductive reasoning, because they are so different that mistakes of the one would not be the same as mistakes of the other.

Jack Cummins

↪Agent Smith

Your point is that it is difficult to follow the rational facts which appear. I struggle with this too, although I am not a smoker! Generally, I find it hard to follow the practical steps which would seem to be the 'best'. It is the reason why advice doesn't usually work, especially in health promotion. Evidence of what helps and the logical steps necessary on that basis doesn't seem to make that much difference.

It could be seen as a problem of lack of self discipline, or alternatively it may be that human action and choices are made in the immediate contexts of the situations in which we find ourselves. This often makes evidence and logic as redundant and abstract. Nevertheless, it may be that what is seen in retrospect is different from in the immediate, so time is significant. Also, the many variables may come into play. A person may give up smoking and still not get to see his grandchildren.

Metaphysician Undercover

I know smoking kills; My attitude is generally a don't-give-a-damn one; My belief is quitting should mean I get to see my grandchildren; My practice, chain smoker. — Agent Smith

Let's see, this looks simple. Smoking kills, dying is not wanted, therefore do not smoke. It's very similar to: eating poison kills, and dying is not wanted, therefore do not eat poison. The latter rule is easy to obey, the former is not. Why? The issue is "habit". This is why Socrates and Plato argued that virtue is not a form of knowledge, contrary to the sophists who insisted that they were teaching virtue. The reality of "habit" makes us inclined to do things which we know are wrong. Therefore virtue consist of something more than just knowledge.

We can apply this principle to the process of reasoning. Even when it's been demonstrated to us, that a certain type of reasoning is fallacious, we will continue to do it, because reasoning is an habitual activity, and habits are not broken simply by recognizing them as undesirable.

Agent Smith

↪Metaphysician Undercover

Spot on sir/madam as the case may be. One spanner in the works is habit (pick up bad ones and you've basically sealed your fate). However, difficulty level may be a factor too - reasoning is abstract, not everyone's cuppa tea if you know what I mean. Another possible component is emotion, they always get the better of me, but I'm not complaining of course even though thinking & pain/anger/depression don't mix all that well.

Agent Smith

I am not a smoker! — Jack Cummins

Stay safe Jack! :up:

Talking is a cakewalk compared to doing! The expression "put yer money where yer mouth is" is on point. Walk the talk? :smile:

Self-discipline, never had it, probably never will! Remember we talked about destiny? I was, it appears, born to die. :death:

The hit rate of advice is dismal I agree, but it ain't zero and at some point one realizes that one hasta keep shooting until you hit something right in the apricot, but of course this is a different kinda slug - it saves, not kills.

Jack Cummins

↪Agent Smith

Perhaps you should try vaping, with some CBD included as an alternative to conventional cigarette smoking. Nevertheless, there is probably not enough evidence at this stage to know whether it is safer than 'ordinary' tobacco cigarettes, or whether CBD and vaping are a mythic fad.

Jack Cummins

↪Metaphysician Undercover

You are quite right to query the idea of a fallacy, with the idea going back to Plato. There is the idea of 'truth' as opposed to falsehood, and thinking about this on the basis of logic alone may lead to a presumption of duality. The introduction of the empirical and evidence may lead to questioning of this binary distinction because evidence can usually be found to support arguments for and against in most aspects of thinking about life and existence.

Logic and Evidence: What is the Interplay and What are Fallacies in Philosophical Arguments?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions