So, doxing is becoming a more and more common event for people who partake in debates on various topics online. A dox in this regard is when you dig up personal information on a person who does not want to have that information published and either publish it (usually on social media) or threaten to publish it unless a the person does what you want them to do. This became very common during the #Gamergate controversy and since then has become a much loved weapon of the regressive left to silence opponents and critics of their authoritarian beliefs. Continue reading
The circle never stops, it just keeps going around in circle. The circular argument is easier to understand when its named “assuming the conclusion” it is very common among ideologues, and the “sound-snippet” crowd.
It’s effective because it often sounds good because of the way it has been worded, and because the conclusion becomes self-reinforcing.
A very easy example is:
Premise: The Bible is the absolute word of god and infallible.
Conclusion: The Bible is infallible because it is the word of god.
In this case, the conclusion is just the premise in a slightly different order.
The Thermian argument so themed by its creator Dan Olsen, is an invention to shut down people who use in context defenses to in his words “shut down critics of fictional works”. The argument is that criticism of a fictional world, is in embryo the criticism of the decisions made by the creators of that world. (You can find his video here)
I’m inclined to accept the logic of the argument as it seems to be fairly valid, here is how I would structure it:
Major premise: All fiction is made by a creator.
Minor premise: The creator has full control over a work of fiction he or she produces.
Conclusion: All fiction is the result of the creators control.
The argument that Mr. Olsen is making is to make the creator of fiction inseparable from that fiction. So, for instance “I’m not criticizing the amount of foul language in “Gran Torino” I’m criticizing the director, writer, actors, key grip, and anyone else involved for allowing that amount of foul language in the movie.”
This eliminates the need to defend a criticism of a work from arguments about that work. Such as “This makes sense in context of the work”. However, it kind of doesn’t because the argument works both ways.
If criticism of a fictional work is the criticism of the decisions made by the creator of that work. Then criticisms of the criticism is criticism of the person who made the original criticism. Furthermore, the “thermian argument” is in reality a defense of the decisions made by the creator, anchored in the original work.
The reductio ad absurdum of Mr. Dan Olsen’s argument in this video is:
- Criticism of the world is in fact criticism of God (if you believe in god)
- Criticism of a culture is in fact criticism of the people within that culture.
- Criticism of religion is in fact criticism of the people who support and maintain the religion.
Just to show how fallacious and ridiculous Mr. Olsen’s argument is, take a look at this painting by Jackson Pollock:
I could say a lot of things about it, however, I’m going to play out an argument:
Person 1: My 7 year old could have painted that, it’s just paint splattered on a canvas, it looks like the floor after I painted my house last time and spilled paint all over the place.
Person 2: Well, actually the style is called abstract impressionism, it sprung out from surrealism and makes perfect sense when put in context of the development of painting focused on subconscious or automatic painting, based in creating art that is viewer dependent.
Person 1: You are just making a Thermian argument.
Of course, a rebuttal to the argument I’ve spent the last 400 or so words on is possible, in that a person could argue that I unfairly generalized and employed the argument outside of its intended sphere. That it’s only meant to deal with artistic expression in context of art, taken to mean writing, film or video-games. I suppose that is a fair criticism, however it misses the point, that art is an artist sharing their imitation with us, in good ways and in bad ways. Context matters, without Blofeld, you have no James Bond, without Mr. Hyde you don’t really have a decent novel, without the “first night” rule in “Braveheart”, you lose the characters motivation and without what I think was a very upsetting scene in “Law Abiding Citizen” you have no plot.
Finally the argumentum ad hominem, the personal attack. The manipulative tool, the distraction, and the red herring. It means to the man, and it is when someone attacks the person who made an argument, rather than the argument. This can take many, and frequently inventive forms, it can be subtle, or it can be obvious, it can be forceful and understated, it can be overt and covert.
Here is an example:
Person A: I don’t think feminism should be defined as being about “gender equality” due to the many ideological tenets that promote misandry, such as Andrea Dworkin and Valerie Solanas. Furthermore, the use of the term “rape culture”, and treating all men as potential rapists.
Person B: That’s because you’re a misogynistic, sexist, evil person.
The British fallacy as it is called sometimes, is the argument that the middle-ground between two debaters is most likely the accurate one.
I say there is no God, you say there is a God, so lets say there could possibly be a god. This is a fallacy in most cases, due to the fact that it argues a middle-ground without regard for the positions. The absurdity becomes clear when you put it in a mathematical perspective:
Person 1: 2 + 2 = 4
Person 2: 2 + 2 = 6
Conclusion: 2 + 2 = 5
I don’t have much to say on this fallacy, but it does tend to pop up where you have 1 party who has taken an extreme position vs a moderate opponent, who then tries to use the fallacy to “trick” their opponent over to their side.
You can see this in both American and European politics in different perspectives. Where in the US the “Left – Right” center line has been drawn very much in “moderate-right” and in Europe where the center line has been drawn in the “moderate left” perspective.
This is a topic that is close to my heart and a pain in my ass. The argument of what is subjective and what is objective.
This goes back to my post on Positivism vs Phenomenology and the different approaches to research. From a positivist perspective, if something cannot be quantified and measured it has no meaning.
This goes to what a fact actually is, it is something that can be said to be mind independent. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical fact when the terms are defined without decimals.
That my height is 6 feet is something that can be verified by using a ruler or other form of measurement set up to the use the imperial system of measurement. Whether I’m tall enough, too short or too tall is a subjective judgement. Subjective statements can contain facts, but the nature of something subjective is that it is not mind independent. It represents the perspective of the person communicating to you.
In research, new facts are found through structured study of a topic, new theories are often developed through a mix of study and creative thinking, which is called theoretical research. You can also find new facts through observation, in what is called empirical research.
For instance, if I state that 4.2% of S&P 500 companies have female CEO, that is an objective statement.
If I were to state that 50% of CEOs of the S&P 500 companies need to be women, that is a subjective statement.
Poor Groundskeeper Willie, not only is he forced to live in a shed, he can’t put sugar on his porridge either. The “No true Scotsman” fallacy is a classic and it gets the name from the following “discussion”:
Player 1: No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge
Player 2: My friend Angus is from Scotland and puts sugar on his porridge
Player 1: Well, no TRUE Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge
Usually, this fallacy happens when someone is trying to distance themselves from facts that undermine their argument or position. As I’m sure you remember from my post on basic logic, if premises are proven not to be true, then the conclusions are invalid. This goes to both soundness and validity in that, if premises are proven untrue, then the argument is invalid, and if empirical observation contradicts the argument, then it is also not sound; in short, it is a poor argument.
The fun version:
Player 1: Feminism is about equality of the sexes
Player 2: Valerie Solanas is a feminist and she wants to kill men.
Player 1: Then she’s obviously not a real feminist.
Logic is the scientific method of thought, occasionally also referred to as “The theory of formal truth and validity”. In Europe logic was first developed by Aristotle, and was the dominant system of logic in the Western World until the 19th century. The works of Aristotle introduced terms such as hypothetical syllogisms, temporal modal logic and inductive logic, in addition to terms like propositions, syllogisms and predicables. One can contrast formal and informal logic, where the former is the study of natural language argument, of which the study of fallacies is of high importance. Formal logic on the other hand is the study of inference with pure formal content. Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference and mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas. For this article, I will be focusing mainly on formal logic and information logic.
Where the scientific method exists in order to ensure that the scientist(s) remain as objective as possible, logic exists to structure thoughts, and to ensure they remain as objective as possible. The goal of the system of thought that is logic, is to make reasoning “mind-independent” and clear, through the use of a rule set. A logician is expected to make his terms clear, be they numbers or words. For instance, if one were to use a word that has multiple, different definitions, out of which more than one could be reasonably assumed to apply, one must make it clear which definition one is using. If one uses a common word, yet deviates from the commonly accepted definition of the word, one is expected to define the word prior to its first use.
In order to do this, certain concepts are introduced. In Aristotelian logic the major way to structure arguments are in syllogisms. This uses premises (minor and major), conclusions drawn from the premises and sets of syllogisms, which are sets of premises, where if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. This formalizes an argument in such a manner that it can be fully explored and critiqued.
Syllogisms, Soundness and Validity
As mentioned, syllogisms are ways to structure arguments formally, in such a manner that the truth of the premises guarantee the conclusion. The primary benefit of structuring your core arguments into syllogisms is to structure them in such a manner that they become clear to you and to others. It also has the benefit of offering a clear set of rules for how to structure premises, which in turn reduces the emotional content of an argument, in effect it removes the ethos, and pathos.
An example of a syllogism would be:
Major premise: All men are mortal
Minor premise: Socrates is a man
Conclusion: Therefore Socrates is mortal.
An argument can exist in 2 basic states: valid or invalid. The argument above is an example of a valid argument, because if both premises are true, the conclusion follows. There are a lot of reasons why an argument would be invalid, logical fallacies are the more often cited culprit.
Then there is the question of soundness and validity. An argument can be sound without being valid and valid without being sound. Soundness in a deductive argument brings empirical observation into the mix. This means that it questions whether the premises are true, and if it finds that a premise is not true, then the argument is unsound.
Major premise: All millionaires are against tax hikes.
Minor premise: Warren Buffet is a millionaire.
Conclusion: Therefore, Warren Buffet is against tax hikes.
This is a valid argument. However, empirical observation of what Warren Buffet has actually said, indicates that the minor and major premises are untrue.  Thus, the argument is valid and sound. Often the distinction between validity and soundless are blurred in actual discourse, with the unfortunate side-effect that it enables propaganda. For instance, the “fact check” squad, in political debates, are “soundness checkers“, yet they are rarely validity checkers.
One of the issues that I frequently run into, when debating, arguing and writing, is a question of what is axiomatic or not. An axiom in logic, is a self-evident truth, that is so well established that it is accepted without controversy. This is a sword that cuts both ways unfortunately, in that debates about loaded issues such as religion, genders, race, immigration, taxation and so on, tend to rely on different axioms between debaters. What is a self-evident truth for one party, is not so for the other party. In that case, it is perfectly reasonable to challenge the other part.
The same is true for definitions. Those of us who frequently read research reports and philosophical texts notice how much time is spent on defining simple concepts. This is because definitions can have big impacts on research and arguments.
An example could be “For this argument, “reality” is defined as that which can be observed and measured.” In this case, the definition is there, to limit the scope of the argument and to establish the boundaries of what is addressed by it. It is perfectly OK to define words however you like in your argument, it is also perfectly fine to present the argument, but it can be meaningless.
Major premise: Disagreeing with me on the internet is abuse
Minor premise: [Insert person] disagreed with me on the internet.
Conclusion: Therefore [Insert person] is abusing me.
In this case, the major premise defines disagreement as abuse. The minor premise states that an event happened, the conclusion follows. In this case [Insert person] would be right to challenge the definition of abuse.
Axioms and Maxims
An axiom as mentioned earlier is a statement that is taken as true a priori. The existence of “The Ideological Bubble” largely stems from the acceptable of different, and often mutually exclusive axioms by different groups. An example that is quite in the times, is the axiom that all minorities are oppressed and all majorities are the oppressors. This is accepted by most social justice warriors as an a priori truth, which then helps inform their world view. However, for most non-SJWs, this is not accepted as an a priori truth, but rather an assertion or a proposition. Thus, when the two face off in a debate, their arguments cannot possibly lead to a conclusion as their axioms are mutually exclusive.
A simple example from the “equality” battlefield of feminism, is that feminism is defined as the “The theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes” , in this case, one must ask what the definition of equality is in this case. For instance, one can measure if women and men have the same opportunities in terms of politics, economics and society, through access. If both genders are free to enjoy the same opportunities within these spheres, then it follows that they are equal. However, if equality is in terms of outcome, then such equality cannot ever be measured. This is because, the former measures access, while the latter measures what is done with that access.
If one party is using the axiom of equality of outcome, while the other is using equality of opportunity, this colors the argument to a point where no reconciliation or productive outcome can arise. In the case of the former, equality cannot be achieved unless the sexes are perfectly demographically balanced within every sphere of a society. Whereas in the case of the latter, the sexes are by definition equal if they have access to the same opportunities.
A maxim is a ground rule or subjective principle of action, defined by the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy as
Generally any simple and memorable rule or guide for living; for example, ‘neither a borrower nor a lender be’. Tennyson speaks of ‘a little hoard of maxims preaching down a daughter’s heart (Locksley Hall), and maxims have generally been associated with a ‘folksy’ or ‘copy-book’ approach to morality
For instance the proposed approach of “Listen and Believe” when a woman speaks of her experience, is a maxim, that seeks to avoid what is often called “victim blaming“, which is deemed a morally reprehensible act. The major difference between a maxim and an axiom, is that the latter is often viewed as being objectively true, while the latter is a subjective preference. One of the often experienced challenges comes when maxims are viewed as objective truth, as this leads to moral dogmatism, put in another way, it makes a moral interpretation an objective fact. The moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant and deontological ethics in general, maxims are viewed as subjective principles of action.
Summary and Conclusions
The goal of logic is to structure your thoughts and arguments so that they become as mind-independent as possible. This makes critical evaluation of your argument possible, because it takes both a form ,which is easy to evaluate and while being rigorously defined. In the various branches of philosophy, logic is utilized as a tool to communicate ideas between participants, to arrive at the “most logical” outcome, that which is the most true. Philosophy as a field is focused on finding truth, within the various sub-fields including epistemology, ethics, politics and esthetics. Science in itself used to be a branch of philosophy, entitled natural philosophy.
The challenge that philosophy attempts to overcome is the effect of the subject on thought. Which, is why I find it interesting that some sub-fields, for instance continental philosophy, and ethics are so excessively steeped in the subjective. For instance the dichotomy that Nietzsche attempted to overcome in “Beyond Good and Evil” is the one that moral philosophers have been quarreling about since the invention of the field.
As outline with maxims, they are by nature subjective and when maxims are treated as axioms, then the outcome will ultimately be subjective. When axioms are not generally regarded as true, but only regarded as generally true within one group, this creates issues of communication, but also very different perceptions of the world.