A philosophical debate

[4Tran]

I've been thinking about a debate I've had for some time, and I would appreciate some comments on it.

A few months ago, I debated someone on the matter of a fictional character's philosophy. I claimed that the philosophy was founded upon a series of logical fallacies, therefore it was an irrational idea that could be safely dismissed. My opponent insisted that this was insufficient cause to totally dismiss the philosophy since it still had things in common with other real-world philosophies. I contested this, and the debate was on.

1. Logic. I claimed that if a philosophy wasn't based on logic, it was essentially useless. My opponent claimed that philosophy was on a higher level than logic, therefore it shouldn't be constrained by it (implying that many historical philosophies did not use logic); then he accused me of embracing empiricism and rejecting everything else.

2. Proving a Negative. My opponent said something along the lines of how we can't reject a philosophy because there were lots of things that were unprovable (he used the existence of God as an example). I immediately tossed Sagan's fire-breathing dragon at him, but then he countered by saying that it is possible to prove a negative by using logical negation. I don't have any formal education in logic and philosophy, so did he have a point, or was I correct in dismissing his argument as irrelevant?

3. Newton's Laws are Illogical. My opponent's final major argument was that Newton's Laws of Motion were as illogical as the fictional philosophy. By the time, I finished laughing, I called him on it (I knew it was irrelevant, but I wanted to see where he could take his argument). His reasoning was as follows: 1. Newton (and all of science by extension) used incomplete induction as his methodology; 2. Incomplete induction is fallacious - a hasty generalization; 3. Since Newton's methodology is fallacious, then his conclusions must be as well. I found this argument to be complete nonsense, but I wasn't sure how to properly counter it - I think I was thrown off by his use of terminology.

Anyways, I thought that he was being dishonest in his arguments, but I wasn't completely able to pin down how. Or was I the one who was unreasonable to simple dismiss his arguments as philosophical pap?

By the way, this debate finished a few months ago, and the thread was lost in a forum crash or else I would have posted some direct quotes.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

3. Newton's Laws are Illogical. My opponent's final major argument was that Newton's Laws of Motion were as illogical as the fictional philosophy. By the time, I finished laughing, I called him on it (I knew it was irrelevant, but I wanted to see where he could take his argument). His reasoning was as follows: 1. Newton (and all of science by extension) used incomplete induction as his methodology; 2. Incomplete induction is fallacious - a hasty generalization; 3. Since Newton's methodology is fallacious, then his conclusions must be as well. I found this argument to be complete nonsense, but I wasn't sure how to properly counter it - I think I was thrown off by his use of terminology.

Short answer? He's full of shit. If he wants to deny Newton's laws, let him leap off a cliff at a trot and try to do what Wiley Coyote does with signs before he hits the pavement. If cartoons are correct, and Newton isn't, he should be able to stop short of the ground and go "the laws of gravity really don't work."

1. Logic. I claimed that if a philosophy wasn't based on logic, it was essentially useless. My opponent claimed that philosophy was on a higher level than logic, therefore it shouldn't be constrained by it (implying that many historical philosophies did not use logic); then he accused me of embracing empiricism and rejecting everything else.

That's also retarded. Philosophy uses logic. Ones that do not make no sense. In fact, he's trying to argue against you using logic to argue, so he makes no sense. He's just babbling incoherently. He's probably not even serious and just pulling your leg. Saying Philosophy is higher than logic, therefore logic doesn't matter is stupid. Using that logic, you could defend literally anything, including what someone said here: "Llama's are fuzzy, therefore milk tastes funny."

2. Proving a Negative. My opponent said something along the lines of how we can't reject a philosophy because there were lots of things that were unprovable (he used the existence of God as an example). I immediately tossed Sagan's fire-breathing dragon at him, but then he countered by saying that it is possible to prove a negative by using logical negation. I don't have any formal education in logic and philosophy, so did he have a point, or was I correct in dismissing his argument as irrelevant?

This one is easy if you take it into consideration with my above response. Comming from one who decries logic, he's using logic ironically to try to trick you. Assuming his logic argument is right and logic is inferior to philosophy in his world, coupled with his assumption that you shouldn't reject something even if it's unprovable, you can litterally once again defend ANYTHING and he can say nothing. Go ahead and go back to him with the following philosophy of "You're-Always-Wrongism." Your philosophy centers around you always being right, and others always being wrong. He is thus wrong even before he speaks, and his philosophy is stupid. If he tries to say that's not true, ask him why. If he tries to argue why, say "that's philosophy. Logic is inferior to it." Quote him on that and watch him backpeddle. He also cannot prove your philosophy is not true, therefore, even though it is unprovable, you ought to believe it.

[Phantom Llama]

Could you describe this philosophy?

1. Logic. I claimed that if a philosophy wasn't based on logic, it was essentially useless. My opponent claimed that philosophy was on a higher level than logic, therefore it shouldn't be constrained by it (implying that many historical philosophies did not use logic); then he accused me of embracing empiricism and rejecting everything else.

You aren't. Empiricism is (I think) the belief that all knowledge can be gained from observation of the world, as contrasted with rationalism which holds that the senses are unreliable and knowledge must be derived from pure reason.

In any case his appeal to earlier philosophies is invalid, as it is probable that many of them could also be reasonably dismissed. Just because people believed them doesn't make them true.

2. Proving a Negative. My opponent said something along the lines of how we can't reject a philosophy because there were lots of things that were unprovable (he used the existence of God as an example). I immediately tossed Sagan's fire-breathing dragon at him, but then he countered by saying that it is possible to prove a negative by using logical negation. I don't have any formal education in logic and philosophy, so did he have a point, or was I correct in dismissing his argument as irrelevant?

3. Newton's Laws are Illogical. My opponent's final major argument was that Newton's Laws of Motion were as illogical as the fictional philosophy. By the time, I finished laughing, I called him on it (I knew it was irrelevant, but I wanted to see where he could take his argument). His reasoning was as follows: 1. Newton (and all of science by extension) used incomplete induction as his methodology; 2. Incomplete induction is fallacious - a hasty generalization; 3. Since Newton's methodology is fallacious, then his conclusions must be as well. I found this argument to be complete nonsense, but I wasn't sure how to properly counter it - I think I was thrown off by his use of terminology.

These two are linked. He is trying to equivocate the character's philosophy and the conclusions of science, both of which are unprovable, and use this to claim that the two are equivalent. This is false. Science, while unprovable, is backed up to the extent that it is extremely probable and disingenuous to reject without good reason. The philosophy in question (I assume) is not.

[Surlethe]

I've been thinking about a debate I've had for some time, and I would appreciate some comments on it.

A few months ago, I debated someone on the matter of a fictional character's philosophy. I claimed that the philosophy was founded upon a series of logical fallacies, therefore it was an irrational idea that could be safely dismissed. My opponent insisted that this was insufficient cause to totally dismiss the philosophy since it still had things in common with other real-world philosophies. I contested this, and the debate was on.

1. Logic. I claimed that if a philosophy wasn't based on logic, it was essentially useless. My opponent claimed that philosophy was on a higher level than logic, therefore it shouldn't be constrained by it (implying that many historical philosophies did not use logic); then he accused me of embracing empiricism and rejecting everything else.

2. Proving a Negative. My opponent said something along the lines of how we can't reject a philosophy because there were lots of things that were unprovable (he used the existence of God as an example). I immediately tossed Sagan's fire-breathing dragon at him, but then he countered by saying that it is possible to prove a negative by using logical negation. I don't have any formal education in logic and philosophy, so did he have a point, or was I correct in dismissing his argument as irrelevant?

What sort of philosophy are you arguing? In the end, the major difference between different philosophies is applicability; if one philosophy, when applied, gives better results than another, then it is possible to dismiss the first philosophy as inferior. Consider: a humanist, and a deistic humanist. Both are humanist, and so will apply their philosophies equally and achieve the same results; however, the former rationally arrives at his philosophy, and the latter irrationally. Clearly the latter's is inferior in derivation; thus, do you dismiss it as inferior in general?

3. Newton's Laws are Illogical. My opponent's final major argument was that Newton's Laws of Motion were as illogical as the fictional philosophy. By the time, I finished laughing, I called him on it (I knew it was irrelevant, but I wanted to see where he could take his argument). His reasoning was as follows: 1. Newton (and all of science by extension) used incomplete induction as his methodology; 2. Incomplete induction is fallacious - a hasty generalization; 3. Since Newton's methodology is fallacious, then his conclusions must be as well. I found this argument to be complete nonsense, but I wasn't sure how to properly counter it - I think I was thrown off by his use of terminology.

He wants you to assume that because Newton's conclusions are fallacious, they are dead wrong. We already know Newton's conclusions are fallacious: they break down when things get really small, really fast, or really big. However, they're accurate approximations of what reality is like, though they're not absolutely accurate.

[4Tran]

Thanks for the input so far.

Could you describe this philosophy?

He is trying to equivocate the character's philosophy and the conclusions of science, both of which are unprovable, and use this to claim that the two are equivalent. This is false. Science, while unprovable, is backed up to the extent that it is extremely probable and disingenuous to reject without good reason. The philosophy in question (I assume) is not.

It most certainly is not:

The character's philosophy in a nutshell (all the characters are human):
Premise
People have done cruel things to one another - it is human nature to do so.
Humanity is imperfect.
Inference
Since humans are cruel by nature and humanity is imperfect, we will always harm one another.
This harm will lead to countless wars.
Eventually, humanity will destroy itself through these wars.
Conclusion
Since humanity will destroy itself sooner or later, we should destroy humanity immediately.

I thought that this is one of those absolutely brainless philosophies that pop up once in a while as a villain's motivation. I never thought that anyone would seriously try to defend it.

Short answer? He's full of shit. If he wants to deny Newton's laws, let him leap off a cliff at a trot and try to do what Wiley Coyote does with signs before he hits the pavement. If cartoons are correct, and Newton isn't, he should be able to stop short of the ground and go "the laws of gravity really don't work."

My opponent claimed that both Newton's First Law (we concentrated on just inertia) and the philosophy in question were fallacious in a similar way; that they both used incomplete induction which is tantamount to a hasty generalization. Since we can't reject Newton's ideas then we should reject that philosophy either.

I inadvertently came accross the solution as I was digging through this forum's archives. Kuroneko wrote in 2004:

Then came Sir Karl Popper, who eliminated the need for the use of inductive arguments in science in the first place--through falsification. Under his doctrine, science doesn't really need induction. Instead of the inductive "observation->(probably)hypothesis", science only really needs "observation->hypothesis (not known to be false)", combined with a rigorous testing and revision should the hypothesis become known to be false. It is here that the scientific requirement of falsifiability became generally accepted. (Sir Karl was grinding and anti-Freudian ax when he formulated this account.)

Since Newton's First Law is science, it doesn't use induction at all. Unfortunately, I was too ignorant regarding incomplete induction to figure this argument out.

Still, my opponent raised an interesting point: is an incomplete induction tantamount to a hasty generalization, or is there a point after which the generalization is no longer hasty?

That's also retarded. Philosophy uses logic. Ones that do not make no sense. In fact, he's trying to argue against you using logic to argue, so he makes no sense. He's just babbling incoherently. He's probably not even serious and just pulling your leg. Saying Philosophy is higher than logic, therefore logic doesn't matter is stupid. Using that logic, you could defend literally anything, including what someone said here: "Llama's are fuzzy, therefore milk tastes funny."

When I tried to pin him down on what he was talking about, he basically said that some philosophies predated logic or didn't use logic in their reasoning. Therefore, poor logic shouldn't be used as a criterion for rejecting a philosophy.

I don't think that he rejected the idea of logic because he kept on babbling about "mathematically proving" a philosophy, and how it's basically impossible to do. That if a philosophy was logically proven, then it would be the one true philosophy.

This one is easy if you take it into consideration with my above response. Comming from one who decries logic, he's using logic ironically to try to trick you. Assuming his logic argument is right and logic is inferior to philosophy in his world, coupled with his assumption that you shouldn't reject something even if it's unprovable, you can litterally once again defend ANYTHING and he can say nothing. Go ahead and go back to him with the following philosophy of "You're-Always-Wrongism." Your philosophy centers around you always being right, and others always being wrong. He is thus wrong even before he speaks, and his philosophy is stupid. If he tries to say that's not true, ask him why. If he tries to argue why, say "that's philosophy. Logic is inferior to it." Quote him on that and watch him backpeddle. He also cannot prove your philosophy is not true, therefore, even though it is unprovable, you ought to believe it.

That's more or less what I tried to pin him upon - I made up some silly philosophy (I think it had to do with killing babies at childbirth because people will eventually die anyways) on the spot, and forced him to address it. He admitted that even though he didn't agree with it, and he couldn't see the logic behind it, he still couldn't reject it out of hand. He even went on to say that even though Solipsism and Stoicism didn't make any sense to him, he couldn't reject those philosophies either.

My question here is whether logical negation is an effective counter to the claim that it's impossible to prove a negative. My instincts say that it isn't, but I don't know enough about the subject to disprove it without a lengthy analysis.

He wants you to assume that because Newton's conclusions are fallacious, they are dead wrong. We already know Newton's conclusions are fallacious: they break down when things get really small, really fast, or really big. However, they're accurate approximations of what reality is like, though they're not absolutely accurate.

That wasn't quite the thrust of his argument; his goal was to merely show that Newton's conclusion were fallacious, thereby validating a equally fallacious philosophy. If he had shown that it was wrong, it would have actually weakened his argument. I would say that Newton's conclusions are not fallacious at all; they rise logically from their premises, and they are an excellent explanation for the observed phenomena. There's no reason for Newton to account for atomic particles or relativity since they weren't part of his "observed phenomena".

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

That wasn't quite the thrust of his argument; his goal was to merely show that Newton's conclusion were fallacious, thereby validating a equally fallacious philosophy. If he had shown that it was wrong, it would have actually weakened his argument. I would say that Newton's conclusions are not fallacious at all; they rise logically from their premises, and they are an excellent explanation for the observed phenomena. There's no reason for Newton to account for atomic particles or relativity since they weren't part of his "observed phenomena".

Well, think of it this way. The fact that one guy, assuming he was fallacious, came to the right conclusions about reality, does not automatically mean that every philosophy using fallacious logic, comes to the right conclusions about reality. You can have an illogical argument that is correct in conclusion just as much as you can have illogical one that is wrong.

[Hawkwings]

It most certainly is not:

The character's philosophy in a nutshell (all the characters are human):
Premise
People have done cruel things to one another - it is human nature to do so.
Humanity is imperfect.
Inference
Since humans are cruel by nature and humanity is imperfect, we will always harm one another.
This harm will lead to countless wars.
Eventually, humanity will destroy itself through these wars.
Conclusion
Since humanity will destroy itself sooner or later, we should destroy humanity immediately.

I thought that this is one of those absolutely brainless philosophies that pop up once in a while as a villain's motivation. I never thought that anyone would seriously try to defend it.

Slippery slope fallacy. Besides, where is the justification for the conclusion? Perhaps humanity will do something very good for the rest of existence before dying off?

[Rye]

Premise
People have done cruel things to one another - it is human nature to do so.

Fair enough.

Humanity is imperfect.

Yeah, but perfection is an invented anthropomorphic term, so it's irrelevent.

Inference
Since humans are cruel by nature and humanity is imperfect, we will always harm one another.

This is likely.

This harm will lead to countless wars.

Probably.

Eventually, humanity will destroy itself through these wars.

Not necessarily, something else [asteroid, disease, etc.] could, and wars to the extinction of the species are fairly unlikely since it's counterintuitive to every player. So long as the wars leave enough people to breed some more, humanity won't go extinct from wars.

Conclusion
Since humanity will destroy itself sooner or later, we should destroy humanity immediately.

Why? What logical link is there, there?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

well, Rye, you bring up a point on the last issue. He's simply going from an IS to an Ought. The fact that people do kill in wars and are cruel doesn't lead to a normative conclusion. No ammount of facts can. His whole argument is an is/ought fallacy.

[4Tran]

well, Rye, you bring up a point on the last issue. He's simply going from an IS to an Ought. The fact that people do kill in wars and are cruel doesn't lead to a normative conclusion. No ammount of facts can. His whole argument is an is/ought fallacy.

Which was basically what I brought up in the debate. The character's only excuse is that he's supposed to be an insane villain. However, I found it really strange that some of the other people said to the effect that "I know the guy's nuts, but he does have a point." It's hard for me to believe that someone would go out of their way to be an apologist for a fictional madman.

On another note, I've always been interested in taking up some philosophy courses. However, if this is the kind of anti-science and anti-intellectual "thinking" that is doled out to students, then I'm rather glad I didn't.

[Kuroneko]

1. Logic. I claimed that if a philosophy wasn't based on logic, it was essentially useless. My opponent claimed that philosophy was on a higher level than logic, therefore it shouldn't be constrained by it (implying that many historical philosophies did not use logic); ...

I would conditionally agree with you both. Logic is not a monolothic thing--there are many different systems of logic. However, it remains that a philosophy should be based on some sort of logic, or else it would be inapplicable to anything at all.

... then he accused me of embracing empiricism and rejecting everything else.

That's just strange. Empiricism does not hold logic on a pedestal, but creates a logic that best fits the world (like everything else for the empiricist, logic is not innate but generated through experience). Ironically, logic is enshrined as innate by the the historically opposing viewpoint--rationalism. This person is poorly schooled in philosophy.

2. Proving a Negative. My opponent said something along the lines of how we can't reject a philosophy because there were lots of things that were unprovable (he used the existence of God as an example). I immediately tossed Sagan's fire-breathing dragon at him, but then he countered by saying that it is possible to prove a negative by using logical negation. I don't have any formal education in logic and philosophy, so did he have a point, or was I correct in dismissing his argument as irrelevant?

Negatives can be proven/disproven if they are logical tautologies/contradictions, yes, but note how this is a clear switch in contexts--neither God nor Sagan's dragon are logically tautalogous or contradictory (or, at least, not for certain formulations of such beings).

3. Newton's Laws are Illogical. My opponent's final major argument was that Newton's Laws of Motion were as illogical as the fictional philosophy.

There were problems with Newton's derivations, but not at all what he thinks they were. By the above reasoning, anything not completely assured has equal epistemic weight. Rubbish.

By the time, I finished laughing, I called him on it (I knew it was irrelevant, but I wanted to see where he could take his argument). His reasoning was as follows:

...

1. Newton (and all of science by extension) used incomplete induction as his methodology;

Wrong on both counts. The aforementioned problem with Newton's methodology was that he thought he was proving things deductively, which, of course, he was not. Note this error on his part does not invalidate his results, since his methodology can be fixed from the modern standpoints rather easily. Further, one finds actual scientists talking about falsifying theories all the time. Why? Because the falsificationist model does not prove theories, only disprove them. There is no problem of induction or anything of that sort. Arguably, science does not use the principle of induction at all--only induction in the more colloquial sense of abstracting patterns from data, not as a method of proof.

2. Incomplete induction is fallacious - a hasty generalization;

True.

3. Since Newton's methodology is fallacious, then his conclusions must be as well.

Anyone who has ever passed Logic 101 should immediately recognize that it is quite possible for an invalid argument to have a true conclusion. The argument "the moon is made is in the solar system, therefore bachelors are unmarried" is fallacious, but it nevertheless has a true conclusion.

I found this argument to be complete nonsense, but I wasn't sure how to properly counter it - I think I was thrown off by his use of terminology.

You're right.

Anyways, I thought that he was being dishonest in his arguments, but I wasn't completely able to pin down how. Or was I the one who was unreasonable to simple dismiss his arguments as philosophical pap?

I'm not sure about outright dishonesty, but this chap knows just enough philosophy to be dangerous but not enough to make sense.

[Rye]

Which was basically what I brought up in the debate. The character's only excuse is that he's supposed to be an insane villain. However, I found it really strange that some of the other people said to the effect that "I know the guy's nuts, but he does have a point." It's hard for me to believe that someone would go out of their way to be an apologist for a fictional madman.

That's the function of most apologetics in religion's history.

On another note, I've always been interested in taking up some philosophy courses. However, if this is the kind of anti-science and anti-intellectual "thinking" that is doled out to students, then I'm rather glad I didn't.

When I did philosophy, though the ethics side was hideously dull, the religion side was pretty good, and it didn't really offer antiscientific thought, in fact, refuting the argument from design with darwin was a required essay on my course.

[Surlethe]

Inference
Since humans are cruel by nature and humanity is imperfect, we will always harm one another.
This harm will lead to countless wars.
Eventually, humanity will destroy itself through these wars.

As an aside, World War II wiped out only about 2% of the world's population (extrapolating from a growth curve and subtracting the number of dead soldiers and civilians in the war), if I remember my calculations correctly.

[Kuroneko]

On another note, I've always been interested in taking up some philosophy courses. However, if this is the kind of anti-science and anti-intellectual "thinking" that is doled out to students, then I'm rather glad I didn't.

This is a misunderstanding. The purpose of philosophy courses is not to teach philosophies, but to teach students how to think philosophically. Too many students fail to realize the simple fact that regurgitation is not the objective of the course. Take the above debate, in which your interlocutor jumped on the problem of induction as a disproof of science. That is a common presentation of introductory philosophy classes, but it as an exercise of attempting to solve a philosophical problem.