So, what kind of world does the ontology of a 'heap' inhabit? Purely, "worldly" or phenomenological; because the law of excluded middle wont let both be satisfied at the same time, no? I might be wrong; but, a heap comes off as a epistemological problem, as specified by philosophers and their criteria for other terms such as 'holes' or heaps upon heaps. — Shawn

I don't think I understand what you mean by "worldly" or "phenomenological" in this situation. "Heap" is a label we put on a phenomenon we observe in the world. The word is artificial, human-made. Is that what you mean by phenomenological?

It's not that the use of "heap" is arbitrary; Capricious, whimsical, random. — Banno

I said the distinction between what is considered a heap and what isn't is arbitrary. Maybe I used the wrong word. The line we draw between heap and not-heap is one we've drawn. It's a choice we've made based on the kinds of things we want to say. It doesn't necessarily correspond to some natural boundary. And, as we've both noted, we make that choice with all the words we use.

I would even argue that cognitively a "heap" is what can be called a phenomenological expression if its so inexact. — Shawn

It's always seemed to me that the real issue with the so-called "Sorites paradox" isn't that the idea of a heap is vague so it's hard to know what is and what isn't. As others have noted, we don't generally have any trouble using the word "heap" without confusing people. I see the real issue being the arbitrariness of the distinctions we make for everything we talk about. A heap is just an easily understood example.

The world is the world. There are no paradoxes in the world. We starting confusing ourselves when we lose track of the difference between the world and the words we use to describe it. That's what we're talking about when we talk about paradoxes.

I have Einstein's Special and General Relativity, I've been meaning to re-read it and your post reinforces that.... — Pantagruel

You should read the original paper too. It's well written and clear and is available on the web. The first couple of pages are simple and straightforward, then it gets more difficult, but it's not that long.

To what extent can you read one person's summary of a book, and claim to be acquainted with the actual ideas of the author? — Pantagruel

while it can be useful to find such summaries it is worth looking at actual texts, including electronic and paper books. I believe that it is worth looking at all possible options. — Jack Cummins

For non-fiction, very often when I look at original sources I find unexpected and surprising information. Examples:

• Special relativity - "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" - Einstein does not show or prove that the speed of light is a constant in all reference frames, he assumes it.
  
  
• Evolution - "On the Origin of Species" - Darwin identifies the primary mechanism of evolutionary change as natural selection, but he also considers inheritance of acquired characteristics, Lamarckism, as a possible mechanism.
  
  
• Uncertainty principle - "Quantum theoretical re-interpretation of kinematic and mechanical relations" - Heisenberg's derivation of the equation for the limit on measurements of position and momentum is based on assumptions that are no longer considered correct.

In the case of human expression it seems leaving out why would miss most of the contextual information surrounding an event like a protest isn't explained by the manner of gathering but the reasons for it. It could be impossible to generalize successfully at this level. — Cheshire

Good point. I was thinking more of subatomic particles, billiard balls, and galaxies. Is "the sky is blue because blue light scatters more than other wavelengths," how or why?

completely explain the outcome — Cheshire

It comes down to what "completely explain the outcome" means. Does it mean "how," or does it mean "why." I think how is all we can know.

You and I seem to agree on most of this. We're just batting around the details. I'm satisfied where things stand.

Is it possible to create universal criteria that answers the question why?. — Cheshire

I guess it can only end with "I don't know" unless we know absolutely everything? — Down The Rabbit Hole

I like "Because I said so," although the best answer is probably "There are no answers to the question "Why." We don't or can't know that. The only question we can answer is "How."

Yes, in my amateur experience you can separate the mind by the stages of brain evolution. So, the reptilian mind that concentrates on safety and resources, the mammalian mind that has more emotional and empathetic functions and then the human mind that acts as an office manager and creates the illusion of a single mind during real time experiences. So, two minds and an executive function that can act in the moment. It translates the needs of the others into a human level of complex planning and attention. But lacks a separate history in the event of separation. — Cheshire

I think this understanding is outdated. I've been reading, very slowly, "How Emotions Are Made" by Barret. According to her studies, the entire mind takes part in all aspects of mental life. @Possibility is more familiar with her work than I am. Maybe she can add something.

Have you read them? — baker

No. I don't believe your ad hominem argument criticizing the contents of my posts was valid.

Let's quit this back and forth. I'll give you the last word.

But that's not what I'm saying. Ironically you are making me use this argument as an example of how it is used. You are essentially straw-manning my argument. I'm not saying that someone is just saying a fallacy and using that as a way to dismiss other's arguments, I'm saying, like right now, that pointing out fallacies and biases and then explaining why they are applicable is the way to use them. — Christoffer

To make sure we're talking about the same thing, when you say I'm "straw-manning" your argument, you mean I'm attributing an argument to you that you never made. Correct? If so, it was on account of a misunderstanding, not an attempt to win the argument. I have no problem with explaining the problems with another person's argument. As I've said from the beginning, it is labelling an argument as a logical fallacy I object to. Doing that allows people to criticize another person's argument without thinking through the reasons. It also makes it easier for the other person to dismiss the criticism.

That just raised a question for me - is labelling a person's argument a logical fallacy an example of an argument from authority? I'm not sure.

it doesn't work to just say which bias or fallacy they are guilty of. You have to explain why. — Christoffer

Yes, this is my point. What fallacy is it when we agree on something but keep arguing anyway? Whatever you call it, it's one my wife and I get caught in all the time.

The point is not to "win" an argument by pointing out fallacies and biases, it is to improve the quality of arguments so that there actually is a forward momentum of thought for both parties. — Christoffer

Agreed.

An argument needs to be solid, it needs to have good thought out premises. We don't need to use the classic deduction/induction format, but it needs to have a logical throughline. But for argument's sake I can make one here. — Christoffer

Agreed.

You mean to say a bad person can't come up with a good argument? — TheMadFool

That probably isn't as much an issue with metaphysics, philosophy of science, philosophy of art, etc.; but when it comes to ethics, morality, and political philosophy, I'm not so sure.

Only insofar as deciding whether-or-not to accept the advice. — gloaming

I agree. It is generally when action, such as medical treatment, is required that it becomes most important to determine the truth.

Condemn was probably too strong a word. But I have experienced people who will scold or frown on bug squashing. For example, I have a good friend who comes over to my house on a lot of afternoons. If we're on my back patio and I start stepping on a line of hungry ants making their way from the grass, he'll tell me to "just leave them alone." Sometimes I horse around and start stamping them even faster and he will say "Come on, man" or "I'm just going to leave then." I'm pretty sure he sees it as immoral but we're good enough friends that he overlooks it. — IanBlain

The pleasure you seem to take in killing bugs and your willingness to unnecessarily anger your friends does not reflect well on you.

Come on, Foghorn Leghorn? I cant be the first only one that noticed. — DingoJones

Ah say, son...A leghorn is a type of chicken. It is my understanding they came originally from Legorno in Italy. Thus leghorn.

First of all, please use paragraph breaks. It makes posts a lot easier to read and more people will read them. A wall of text is daunting.

Every one of us has ancestors who lived in Africa. They started to move out into the rest of the world 100,000ish years ago. They got to Australia about 50 thousand years ago. Between 10 and 15 thousand years ago they moved through Alaska into Canada, the US, and on down to Central and South America. About 2,000 years ago, people who started out in China got in boats and populated Oceania.

People in Hungary speak a language related to Finnish which originally came from northern Russia via northern Scandinavian. Those languages, plus almost all languages in Europe grew out of language originally from India. People in Madagascar speak a language closely related to Malaysians. People in Turkey speak a language closely related to Kazakhstanis.

I'm reading a really good set of books now, "The Mongoliad" by Neal Stephenson and several others. If you have ever read any of Stephenson's work, you know that he likes to teach us stuff. In these books, he is teaching us about the Mongol invasion of Europe in the 13th century. The book centers on 1241, the height of the invasion. The Mongols took over China, Korea, Siberia, and Europe as far east as Poland. Their plan was to go to the Western Sea, the Atlantic. They probably would have made it except their Khan's kept dying. Whenever that happened, all the leaders had to head back to Mongolia to elect a new one.

The Mongol's were skilled fighters. Relentless and brutal. They killed millions of people - men, women, children indiscriminately. If there was any resistance at all, they just killed everyone. People thought it was the end of the world. They, along with the Huns back in the 6th Century (if I remember correctly) mixed up the ethnic makeup of the entire "civilized" world unless you count Mesoamerica. The Turkish language came from Central Asia - Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, all those other stans.

Then, of course, the Europeans brought black people from Africa to the new world.

This has been going on since the beginning of civilization. I live outside of Boston. When I go into town, I see Indians, Pakistanis, Bangla Deshis, Koreans, Brazilians, Chinese, Japanese, Burmese, Cameroonians, Congolese, and on and on. I love it. There are so many good, inexpensive ethnic restaurants. Women from other cultures are beautiful. Listening to all the voices on the subway is like travelling around the world. Many of the people are happy to talk about where they came from and how they got here.

Better get used to it.

So many paragraphs just to say "I don't like race mixing, and you shouldn't either". — StreetlightX

I understand your uneasiness, but I'm not sure your hackle-raising is justified. We'll see how this shakes out, if you'll let it.

So why is one tolerated but not the other? — IanBlain

I don't know anyone who condemns others for killing bugs. I'm sure there are some. I don't kill them unless they're causing me trouble. I had a friend who said he was willing to spray for cockroaches in his apartment, but he didn't step on them. He said it didn't serve any useful purpose and it didn't make him feel better about having bugs.

I'm not a vegetarian. I eat meat. I recognize that my life, and those of most people I know, are based on killing animals, including fish. I hunted ducks, geese, and dove with my family when I was a kid, although I haven't in a long time. We ate what we shot. I never had the patience for fishing. When you hunt or fish, you take direct responsibility for the meat you eat. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I don't have much respect for people who kill large animals for trophies. I don't have any particular desire to see animals die. Whatever your thoughts on catch and release, it seems a relatively benign sport. Whether or not it's reasonable, I have more empathy for other mammals than I do for fish. Even if a lot of the fish die, a lot don't. They will go on to repopulate the fishery.

An ad hominem argument is not necessarily unreasonable. It would be reasonable for me to question the knowledge of someone I didn't know who made a medical diagnosis for me.

Having a clear focus on fallacies and biases as solutions to avoid "bullshitting mosh pits that leads nowhere", is in my opinion a positive thing for increasing the quality. I see no reason to fear them other than for those with a notion about their own ability to create a reasonable argument. — Christoffer

I guess it comes down to that - I do not believe a focus on fallacies will improve the quality of discussions. If you think someone has their facts wrong or has provided inadequate justification, say so and explain why. If you think someone has made an incorrect inference or deduction, say so and explain why. Just shouting out "logical fallacy" doesn't convince anyone. Too many boys have cried "wolf" before. Everybody knows there's a good chance you're using the term incorrectly because so many others have. Just explain in regular language what your problem with the argument is.

Jeesus, some people here are just trying to help you, as per your OP request. Not to criticize you. — baker

Seriously, I thought you were joking - criticizing my ideas about ad hominem arguments by making ad hominem arguments against me. It would have been a great joke.

“Credential” literally means “what generates trust”. The best credential in any field of expertise is not the formal, but rather the informal one: testimony by ppl who were helped. Someone with supposed knowledge that is specialized, not part of general knowledge, can argue to the ppl either honestly or dishonestly to whatever end, good or ill, he wishes; for he knows that they do not have experience of the narrow specialty he can claim to be expert in. — Leghorn

On the other hand, the woods are full of people who will give testimony that they have been helped by aromatherapy, crystals, homeopathy, faith healing, weight watchers, and on and on. The fact that we can't always trust credentials doesn't mean they don't have ay value.

My wife is a nurse. I can't imagine how anyone survives the health care system without a nurse in the family.

a group of people sits at a restaurant discussing "determination and free will"...It's just a casual discussion about the concept. — Christoffer

a bullshitting mosh pit that leads nowhere. — Christoffer

Depending on the particular discussion, it is not uncommon for these to be good descriptions of what goes on here on the forum. It's an informal situation and rules can be looser.

Demanding philosophical scrutiny and pointing out fallacies is meant to increase the quality of the other speaker. If their argument is of low quality, pointing out fallacies means pointing out the flaws in the argument until the argument is without those flaws. — Christoffer

I don't think waving the logical fallacy yellow card is a very effective way to improve the quality of discussions. First off, people don't know what they mean. When they think they know what one means, they're often wrong. They use them in incorrect situations. Solution - describe the problem with the argument rather than just labelling it.

Philosopher 1 - You've never taken a philosophy course. That undermines your credibility. Why should I listen to your argument?

Philosopher 2 - My education is not relevant to the argument I have made. Please respond to what I've written.

Philosopher 1 - I don't know how to say this nicely, but you sound a bit ... naive.

I think it would do you good to read some books on critical thinking.

Here's a nice one: — baker

WOW!! You're really good at this.

It seems your issue is specifically with appeal to authority (implicitly on your part!), because this same theme keeps coming up in your posts. — baker

Yes. I think ad hominem arguments overlap with appeals to authority. My attitude is that an appeal to authority is appropriate sometimes.

I don't know how to say this nicely, but you sound a bit ... naive. A bit like a kid in a candy store who can't decide what to choose. — baker

I don't know what you mean. Hey, wait a minute!!! Isn't calling me "naive" an ad hominem argument!!! You did this on purpose didn't you?

It's rather that you don't raise enough questions about yourself and about why you're reading ro discussing something. — baker

I don't know what this means either.

Part of thinking critically is determining your own intentions and your own reasons for reading something or engaging in discussion about it. But given what you say above, you seem like someone who has a chaotic, unsystematic approach to reading and discussing. No amount of other people proving their credentials, or you proving their lack of those can make up for your own lack of clarity about what you want to get out of a conversation. — baker

I'm trying to figure out whether this is an ad hominem argument too. I think it is. Boy. This is fun.

What about this?

"The growth on you leg is benign. Just rub some of this on it ."

"Are you a doctor?"

"Nope. I'm a janitor, and barely passed Grade 10 decades ago."

"You're an idiot. You're uneducated, yet you have the effrontery to make claims about things you can't understand and for which you possess no formal credentials."

"All true. I'm dull, anti-intellectual, and I'm both old and ugly. Now, back to my assertion...."

@SophistiCat & @Janus What about this?

SophistiCat: I believe in the Golden Rule - do to others as you would have them do to you.

Janus: That's bullshit. You beat your kids, treat your employees like crap, and cheat your customers.

Is that a legitimate argument?

If you bite, then you must put aside questions about qualifications and assess the argument on its own merit. But you don't have to bite - you could decide that giving a serious consideration to the argument isn't worth your time. Refusing to play doesn't break the rules of the game, since there is no rule that you must play. — SophistiCat

I don't think biting or quitting are my only choices, although I do avoid argument now that I would have jumped into a year or two ago.

As I've said, because the forum is informal and lots of stuff gets discussed here, many of the questions hinge on questions of fact. When that happens, a persons qualifications, experience, or education may be relevant. Example - people keep claiming that Einstein was wrong about the speed of light because the big bang happened 14 billion years ago but the universe is 45 light years across. I've read explanations of why this is, and I sort of understand them, but it still bothers me. If, in response to one of these claims, I say "I don't really understand all of this, but I don't think you do either, so, I'll stick with Einstein." That is an ad hominem argument which I think is appropriate.

This is an inappropriate example. Of course a person's expertise is an important factor in any decision as to whether to listen to their purportedly expert advice. But the ad hominem fallacy is usually committed in contexts where there is no definable of certifiable expertise, or at least not the kind of expertise which guarantees or at least produces tendencies towards consensus of opinion. Philosophy is such an enterprise. An example of the ad hominem fallacy would be saying that if Heidegger was a Nazi, then he could not have said anything philosophically important or interesting. — Janus

I'm trying to check out the limits of what "ad hominem" means. The example I used is the type that is generally mentioned in discussions of the "fallacy" to show it is not always a fallacy. So it is not an inappropriate example.

On the other hand, you're right. The main thing I want is to understand what "ad hominem" means on the forum. There are questions of facts raised here. On the forum, because it's informal and not very rigorous, arguments don't generally stand by themselves. The credibility and basis of knowledge of members is sometimes an issue.

When arguing with someone who is less capable than oneself, nothing is to be gained by making much of it. It does not increase the strength of an argument to do so. Socrates is a good example to follow. He casted ridicule without reference to his interrogators' deficiencies. That is how it is done. — Valentinus

I think a distinction must be made here between theoretical and practical thinking: if I want to know about education, I read Rousseau; if instead I want someone to raise my child, I hire a good and loving nanny. — Leghorn

My answer to the two of you is the same - I think there are times when personal or professional facts about a person are relevant to the legitimacy of their argument or opinion. The example often given is court proceedings. Typically, technical witnesses are not allowed to testify unless they can show they are appropriately qualified.

The fallacy of the artificial example. Some things just don't happen in the real world. Keep it real. — baker

Dr. Baker: Mr. Clark, you have an inflamed spleen. I recommend you take this medication once a day till it resolves itself.

Mr. Clark: I'd like to see your med school diploma please.

If, however, one were to assume that a person's academic credentials or lack thereof is a reason to dismiss their claim at the onset, then one is venturing into the territory of the fallacious ad hominem. — baker

Dr. Baker: Mr. Clark, you have a bent framerjamet. I recommend you eat one dog turd a day till it resolves itself.

Mr. Clark: I'd like to see your med school diploma please.

The ad hominem is using the insult as a reason to not accept the argument being made as a valid argument. — Harry Hindu

An ad hominem argument does not have to be an insult. Here's one of my favorite ad hominem arguments. "But you're a cashier." Fairly long ( minute 30 seconds), so you might want to skip it.

But framing an argument as invalid because someone is less competent than oneself can only be gratuitous to any point established to support the view. — Valentinus

That's the main question I'm trying to get at - when is it reasonable to raise questions about something personal about someone as an argument. If someone were to say "Einstein was wrong about the speed of light," I think it would be reasonable for me to ask how the person is qualified to make that statement.

I thought ego, superego, and id are referring to one's consciousness and subconsciousness. All of them are parts of ones self. If they were independent minds, one do not have A mind in the beginning. — ltlee1

I was responding to this:

What ways have we tried to divide the mind? — TiredThinker

Freud's psychoanalytic approach is one such way. I wasn't expressing an opinion on his ideas one way or the other.

If any such activities trigger neural network in the language center, it would appear as stream of consciousness per William James. If not, one behaves as if he or she is an automaton. — ltlee1

This is not my understanding of how it works. This probably is not the place to get into another discussion of consciousness. Those discussions generally don't go anywhere productive.

Well, this is just a philosophy discussion forum, not the Holy Inquisition. — baker

As you well know, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Insults constitute ad hominems i.e. dishing out insults when an argument is underway is ad hominem. — TheMadFool

The term "ad hominem" refers to arguments. An insult is not an argument.

What ways have we tried to divide the mind? And can they operate separately from one another? — TiredThinker

It is a human characteristic that we like to divide things. That's analysis. It's what we do. We just can't help ourselves.

Probably the most famous way of dividing the mind comes from Freud - id, ego, superego. His approach is looked down on these days,

Personally, I divide my mind into two parts. 1) Those things I am aware of and 2) those things I am not aware of. I am constantly aware of the results of things that happen in my mind without my attention. Most of the work of our minds is handled without our awareness.

Thus, to attack someone (I think you used the word "insult") in an argument is to completely miss the point - you're fallaciously insinuating that character bears on the how good an argument is but that's false. — TheMadFool

The term "ad hominem" applies to arguments. An insult is not an argument and is not an ad hominem attack.