# Learning and understanding commonly used logical fallacies



## Noca (Jun 24, 2005)

After years of having to debate and discuss religion with countless Christians I've come across in my life, I have found that my greatest problem is the logical fallacies that Christians use in their arguments that leave my brain being stupefied and stunned, trying to digest and understand what it just heard. This usually throws my train of thought completely off balance. Trying to debate through the argument given by the Christian instead of understanding that the very premise of their argument is flawed, and why it is flawed, usually ends up leading no where.

Therefore I think it would be more productive and beneficial to argue and address the logical fallacy taking place rather than solely try to wrap your mind around whatever the Christian has proposed that obviously does not make sense and will never make sense, because the very premise it is based on is flawed.

Well there are plenty of known logical fallacies out there, that are of course not unique to Christian debates, they are certainly used by them, and used quite often. I haven't studied them all myself, but I think that would be extremely useful to learn and understand as many as possible if one is going to be able to make any significant progress in any discussion/debate with a Christian(or any other religion).

This video I came across lists some, but there are plenty of other fallacies that one can come across during a debate out there.






Anyone have any thoughts or opinions regarding this with regards to debating religion? If you are an atheist chances are you have found yourself in a discussion with a Christian or other said religion over their religious beliefs.


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

Well, to be fair when it comes to theology all camps are prone to relying on logical fallacies although the errors of those who defend theology seem to be a lot more numerous and apparent.

Mainly, I think these mistakes come from sheer ignorance of the subject and the relevant fields of philosophy. In the cases where people actually pursue this as an academic study it soon turns into willful ignorance and/or intellectual dishonesty. How self-aware people are of this change, I would imagine, depends on their motivation. If they truly believe that metaphysics relies on an entirely different standards of proof and verification that's one thing, however, if in their ambitions they recognise the flaws with the former assumption yet continue to support their theological position because they are driven by the financial gain, being on the forefront of the debate, recognition etc, well, then it just becomes a game of deceit.

Either way, personally, I think recognising fallacies is not _the _answer to this problem, agreeing on the acceptable standard of proof and method of verification should be the start. Where the difficulty comes in is that there isn't one correct position. All points of view are continuously argued over in philosophy so it's virtually impossible to reach a consensus on this topic at the moment or any time soon, if ever.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Azazello said:


> Either way, personally, I think recognising fallacies is not _the _answer to this problem, agreeing on the acceptable standard of proof and method of verification should be the start. Where the difficulty comes in is that there isn't one correct position. All points of view are continuously argued over in philosophy so it's virtually impossible to reach a consensus on this topic at the moment or any time soon, if ever.


I'd say many of the issues that arise from agreeing on acceptable standards of proof and method of verification are the result of fallacies. Typically various cognitive biases.

Therefore, the more these biases can be recognised as fallacies, the better chance there is of agreeing what acceptable standards of proof and methods of verification are.


----------



## yelda (Jun 12, 2010)

I am from turkey, a muslim country! 
I dont debate with muslims about creation and/or evolution, otherwise they can kill me! 
instead, I pretend to be a muslim!


----------



## Post_Punk_Proclivity (Oct 12, 2008)

ugh1979 said:


> I'd say many of the issues that arise from agreeing on acceptable standards of proof and method of verification are the result of fallacies. Typically various cognitive biases.
> 
> Therefore, the more these biases can be recognised as fallacies, the better chance there is of agreeing what acceptable standards of proof and methods of verification are.


If I have interpreted what you said accurately, I would agree to the extent that acceptable standards of proof and methods of verification do not exist exclusively in and of themselves, rather, that they can be defined by the reasoning entailed in the process of negation of said cognitive biases.

Instead of recognising fallacies as merely continuous results of flawed reasoning, use them as springboards to establish what is valid from that which is invalid.

To answer the OP, and keeping it simple, I stopped arguing with theologians a long time ago, to save from ramming head into wall.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

hesitation marks said:


> If I have interpreted what you said accurately, I would agree to the extent that acceptable standards of proof and methods of verification do not exist exclusively in and of themselves, rather, that they can be defined by the reasoning entailed in the process of negation of said cognitive biases.
> 
> Instead of recognising fallacies as merely continuous results of flawed reasoning, use them as springboards to establish what is valid from that which is invalid.


Yes that's correct.


----------



## Post_Punk_Proclivity (Oct 12, 2008)

yelda said:


> I am from turkey, a muslim country!
> I dont debate with muslims about creation and/or evolution, otherwise they can kill me!
> instead, I pretend to be a muslim!


It saddens me to read this and remember that many people in the world are still forced to adopt religious ideals simply for the sake of their own safety. It also reminds me just how little we are socially evolved in the grander scale of things.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

hesitation marks said:


> It saddens me to read this and remember that many people in the world are still forced to adopt religious ideals simply for the sake of their own safety. It also reminds me just how little we are socially evolved in the grander scale of things.


Indeed there are still large parts of the world where people live in conditions that we in the West last experienced during the dark ages.

It's especially sad to hear of Muslims who live in fear of apostasy laws in places like Turkey, which is arguably the most secular country with a majority Muslim population.

The biggest danger to many Muslims are elements of Islam.


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> I'd say many of the issues that arise from agreeing on acceptable standards of proof and method of verification are the result of fallacies. Typically various cognitive biases.
> 
> Therefore, the more these biases can be recognised as fallacies, the better chance there is of agreeing what acceptable standards of proof and methods of verification are.


Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way because in order to recognise something as fallacy you have to first agree on what would constitute as such and the appropriate standards a statement has to meet in order not to be considered a fallacy or just to be considered meaningful, and although it may be fairly straightforward in some cases others may not be covered by the same criteria.

In the end, one has to remember that not all logical statements are necessarily valid statements.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Azazello said:


> Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way because in order to recognise something as fallacy you have to first agree on what would constitute as such and the appropriate standards a statement has to meet in order not to be considered a fallacy or just to be considered meaningful, and although it may be fairly straightforward in some cases others may not be covered by the same criteria.
> 
> In the end, one has to remember that not all logical statements are necessarily valid statements.


It can and often does work that way. There are many people on this very forum who have admitted to having realised/learned the related fallacies they once made, and now have a higher standard for assessment and reasoning.

People realise errors in their reasoning all the time, and whatever can be done to help people achieve that should be encouraged.


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> It can and often does work that way. There are many people on this very forum who have admitted to having realised/learned the related fallacies they once made, and now have a higher standard for assessment and reasoning.
> 
> People realise errors in their reasoning all the time, and whatever can be done to help people achieve that should be encouraged.


Recognising a particular logical fallacy does not mean an individual has reformed his or her way of general thought with regard to what constitutes as solid argument or won't make the same mistake in the future. Unless the method is agreed upon, logical fallacies will remain.

Where those who argue against the theological statement benefit is in taking a deconstructionist position, which is why when tables are turned and the spotlight is shone on science similar fallacies and disagreements creep up.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Azazello said:


> Recognising a particular logical fallacy does not mean an individual has reformed his or her way of general though with regard to what constitutes as solid argument or won't make the same mistake in the future. Unless the method is agreed upon logical fallacies will remain.
> 
> Where those who argue against the theological statement benefit is in taking a deconstructionist position, which is why when tables are turned and the spotlight is shone on science similar fallacies and disagreements creep up.


My point is that it can help in reforming. Not that it always does.


----------



## BadGirl (Jan 6, 2013)

yelda said:


> I am from turkey, a muslim country!
> I dont debate with muslims about creation and/or evolution, otherwise they can kill me!
> instead, I pretend to be a muslim!


That wouldn't be the Turkey with a secular constitution & no official state religion, would it? Nice one


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> My point is that it can help in reforming. Not that it always does.


I never suggested that it doesn't, only that, unless method for validation is agreed upon, arguing over fallacies may not be as effective. This is particularly important in the face of the Münchhausen trilemma, whereby pretty much every statement can be reduced to a fallacy. There are a number of theories that have claimed to "overcome" this issue, but generally always at an expense of some previously agreed upon requirement and always by revising the method of validation.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Azazello said:


> I never suggested that it doesn't, only that, unless method for validation is agreed upon, arguing over fallacies may not be as effective. This is particularly important in the face of the Münchhausen trilemma, whereby pretty much every statement can be reduced to a fallacy. There are a number of theories that have claimed to "overcome" this issue, but generally always at an expense of some previously agreed upon requirement and always by revising the method of validation.


Well we devised the likes of the scientific method in order to achieve a high level of validation. It's a generally agreed method to best prevent the bias based and other fallacies.


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> Well we devised the likes of the scientific method in order to achieve a high level of validation. It's a generally agreed method to best prevent the bias based and other fallacies.


Scientific method is far from generally agreed amongst philosophers. There are huge debates ongoing on the subject of validation etc and a number of schools of thought that disagree on sometimes the most fundamental of principles. It's a somewhat depressing subject when one craves clarity and answers. If you feel like dipping your toes into it, I recommend Peter Godfrey-Smith's Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Azazello said:


> Scientific method is far from generally agreed amongst philosophers. There are huge debates ongoing on the subject of validation etc and a number of schools of thought that disagree on sometimes the most fundamental of principles. It's a somewhat depressing subject when one craves clarity and answers. If you feel like dipping your toes into it, I recommend Peter Godfrey-Smith's Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science.


Well there are of course certain fields which always struggle to devise a means of validation for.

That sounds like an interesting book, I'll maybe check it out.


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> Well there are of course certain fields which always struggle to devise a means of validation for.
> 
> That sounds like an interesting book, I'll maybe check it out.


That's pretty much what it comes down to - trying to assign different standards of proof, method to different scientific fields, such that Biology, for example is viewed different from Chemistry, and classical physics method is separate to say theoretical physics etc.

P.S. You should definitely read it, you'll never look at these sort of arguments the same way. It's fairly small book, compared to some study books, and is not too hard to grasp, unlike some other books on philosophy.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Azazello said:


> That's pretty much what it comes down to - trying to assign different standards of proof, method to different scientific fields, such that Biology, for example is viewed different from Chemistry, and classical physics method is separate to say theoretical physics etc.


All those fields are subject to similar methods of scientific analysis to achieve validation. I was referring more to topics such as philosophy which are far more elusive.


----------



## Cyclonic (Oct 25, 2012)

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

I've used this site in the past to look up information on debates. I've found it fairly useful in finding the flaws of a certain religion-based argument (latest being the "Christians did bad things in the past, but Mao, Stalin, and Hitler were atheists", which even after I posted direct Mein Kempf quotes, they still believed Hitler was an atheist or had "atheistic tendencies", whatever that means)

There are some pretty specific arguments on the site and, in many cases,they include the fallacies commonly used for those debates.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Category:Logical_fallacies


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Madax said:


> http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page
> 
> I've used this site in the past to look up information on debates. I've found it fairly useful in finding the flaws of a certain religion-based argument (latest being the "Christians did bad things in the past, but Mao, Stalin, and Hitler were atheists", which even after I posted direct Mein Kempf quotes, they still believed Hitler was an atheist or had "atheistic tendencies", whatever that means)
> 
> ...


Nice! I wasn't aware of that. It looks like a very useful resource.


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> All those fields are subject to similar methods of scientific analysis to achieve validation. I was referring more to topics such as philosophy which are far more elusive.


Far from it.

I'm at work now so can't go into more detail but will try to give a better picture if not tonight then in the next few days.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Azazello said:


> Far from it.
> 
> I'm at work now so can't go into more detail but will try to give a better picture if not tonight then in the next few days.


I don't see how they don't all utilise the scientific method.


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> I don't see how they don't all utilise the scientific method.


To put it very roughly it is because scientific method is not a property of science but that of philosophy of science. It is basically philosophers' attempt to assign a normative methodology to what science _should _be like, rather than what science is actually like. In reality, scientific progress marches on regardless of philosophers' prescriptive views of how science should work.

There are many difficulties in having a prescriptive view of science, not least agreeing on what constitutes as science, and there are many ongoing debates on this subject.

If one describes scientific method as "_a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge_,*" further questions arise, such as:

- What is knowledge?
- What methods are best in gaining such knowledge?
- Can these methods ever accurately describe the real world? 
- Can this knowledge ever be verified?

And so on...

The more philosophers have clashed over these and many other questions, the more redundant the prescriptive nature of the classical scientific method has become, especially with the rise of cosmology, theoretical physics and social sciences, where many of the theories remain hypothetical and unverifiable in the purely empirical sense, which classical scientific method demands.

This is not to say that idea of scientific method should be discarded altogether. Far from it. What is happening at the moment is that instead of proposing how science should work, philosophers are focusing more and more on what the actual scientists do; what works in their fields; why falsification can work in some cases whilst not be appropriate as part of scientific method in others; what types of validation techniques are acceptable and why; why empirical testing is not always representative of reality; what tests are reliable and why; how can the results be trusted; what acts as motivation in science and what social organisation is most effective and successful in science and so on. They are also recognising that different scientific fields demand different degrees of empirical rigour and have proposed a number of evidence theories with the view of accommodating all of these fields.

I guess what I am trying to say, all be it too clumsily, is that our regular Joe's view of scientific method is far too simplistic. The more you dig into this area of philosophy the muddier its concept becomes and more problems creep up. Different philosophical schools hold different positions with regard to scientific method and there isn't an overall consensus on it. Despite this, it is clear that science is incredibly effective in explaining the real world. Whether it is the only discipline capable of doing this, again, remains a subject of much debate amongst philosophers (but who cares, science is plodding on regardless).

Interestingly, some philosophers have attempted to eliminate metaphysics altogether by discrediting its propositions as nonsensical and not something that philosophy should concern itself with at all, focusing solely on science/propositions concerning empirical matters. Their arguments focused on linguistics and provide a different perspective on how these sort of arguments can be debated. If you are interested, you can look up logical positivism of the Viennese school and Alfred J. Ayer's _Language, Truth and Logic_.

* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

Speaking of evidence theories. The current working theory is Bayesianism, which basically attempts to address the problem of confirmation in science and interpret the evidence in terms of probability theory and in particular Bayes’s theorem.

The reason I mention it here is because there are regular disagreements on these forums on the nature of gnosis (knowledge) and belief, and whether or not they are distinct from one another. Failure to agree on this issue results in many a logical fallacy.

The mainstream position amongst atheists is that belief and knowledge are two different concepts, and in the context of atheism v agnosticism v theism it seems a pretty reasonable standpoint. 

However, in this particular field of philosophy there appears to be no such distinction. Instead probabilities that determine the confidence in the evidence are expressed as degrees of belief. I am not sure whether it is a linguistic failure on part of the interpreters of the theorem, or their definitions are more subject-specific, or I'm just being a dense blonde but I thought it’s an interesting perspective, which unfortunately only reaffirmed my dislike of labels.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Azazello said:


> To put it very roughly it is because scientific method is not a property of science but that of philosophy of science. It is basically philosophers' attempt to assign a normative methodology to what science _should _be like, rather than what science is actually like. In reality, scientific progress marches on regardless of philosophers' prescriptive views of how science should work.
> 
> There are many difficulties in having a prescriptive view of science, not least agreeing on what constitutes as science, and there are many ongoing debates on this subject.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. We seem to be speaking at odds here, with you highlighting the differences and me mentioning the similarities. Neither is wrong, as I agree that there are deeper philosophical questions that can be asked of the 'knowledge' that the typical practical scientific techniques and methods generate.


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> Fair enough. We seem to be speaking at odds here, with you highlighting the differences and me mentioning the similarities. Neither is wrong, as I agree that there are deeper philosophical questions that can be asked of the 'knowledge' that the typical practical scientific techniques and methods generate.


Saying something isn't wrong does not mean it is accurate. The classical definition of scientific method works in the same way that horoscopes do. It highlights the most positive and common expectations of science in such a vague fashion that it becomes hard not to find some element of it to relate to.

In reality however, there is no such thing in science as a scientific method. It is an ideal of philosophers whose classical view of it simply does not represent the reality of science accurately. Scientists are not schooled in scientific method with the view of it guiding their work, neither are they bound by its narrow view of science, if they were then a lot of science would be dismissed on the grounds of it being untestable, or not falsifiable, or not having foundational hypothesis.

The scientific method is an equivalent of a bunch of pub regulars' view on how football teams should be managed/coached. They may have good and practical ideas but they are still far removed from the reality of professional football.

Who knows, perhaps the current shift in perspective amongst the philosophers of science might one day yield a more accurate representation of how science works but until then I feel it would be somewhat deceptive to claim that science's strength lies in the scientific method.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Azazello said:


> Saying something isn't wrong does not mean it is accurate. The classical definition of scientific method works in the same way that horoscopes do. It highlights the most positive and common expectations of science in such a vague fashion that it becomes hard not to find some element of it to relate to.


I don't see how, as it typically provides concise hypotheses that can be empirically tested by a third party to aid their validation.

If astrology provided hypotheses that could be validated by credible means they it would be deemed science. It can't so it's not.



> In reality however, there is no such thing in science as a scientific method. It is an ideal of philosophers whose classical view of it simply does not represent the reality of science accurately. Scientists are not schooled in scientific method with the view of it guiding their work, neither are they bound by its narrow view of science, if they were then a lot of science would be dismissed on the grounds of it being untestable, or not falsifiable, or not having foundational hypothesis.


I don't see how much science falls outwith the below as worthy means of validation.



> *scientific method*
> The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.


What do you think students are taught with regards to how to publish/validate their research? It's a pretty standard model for the vast majority of published papers.



> The scientific method is an equivalent of a bunch of pub regulars' view on how football teams should be managed/coached. They may have good and practical ideas but they are still far removed from the reality of professional football.


To the contrary the amateurs are usually missing the practical and experimental knowledge of the professional who actually manage the teams. They are akin to armchair scientists as opposed to professional scientists, who have the experience and means to gain the practical experience and perform real experiments.



> Who knows, perhaps the current shift in perspective amongst the philosophers of science might one day yield a more accurate representation of how science works but until then I feel it would be somewhat deceptive to claim that science's strength lies in the scientific method.


By what means do you think we should validate our observations and conclusions of the world if the scientific method isn't acceptable?


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> I don't see how, as it typically provides concise hypotheses that can be empirically tested by a third party to aid their validation.


More often than not it doesn't. Many of scientific discoveries are flukes, something scientists stumble upon whilst working on something entirely different. That doesn't make these discoveries any less ground-breaking or valid but it does make them somewhat harder to fit into the mold of classical scientific method.



ugh1979 said:


> If astrology provided hypotheses that could be validated by credible means they it would be deemed science. It can't so it's not.


You seem to be missing the point. I am not talking about what classes as science but what classes as an _accurate _description of science and the classical view of scientific method is inaccurate.



ugh1979 said:


> I don't see how much science falls outwith the below as worthy means of validation.


That's where the problem of validation comes in. What many people don't realise is that when it comes to scientific method there are almost polar opposite views amongst the philosophers on the subject of validation. From it not being possible at all, as in the case of Popper who suggested that scientists should not attempt to prove theories but falsify them; to the covering law theory of explanation of Hempel and Oppenheim, which focuses on the subject of this thread - logical argument; to the current theory of confirmation of evidence - Bayesianism, which attempts to look at the validation from the point of view of probability theory. These differences generally arise from inability to agree on what classes as validation, particularly when applied to different scientific fields, and whether or not it is an accurate representation of reality. So the suggestion that scientific method somehow provides a clear view of how validation works in science is simply misleading.



ugh1979 said:


> What do you think students are taught with regards to how to publish/validate their research? It's a pretty standard model for the vast majority of published papers.


With regard to validation see above. As for papers, I'd like to think there is a big difference between a format of a paper and the general scientific practice. A plot of majority fiction books follows a fairly deterministic narrative. Would you go as far as to assume that all these books were written using the same method?



ugh1979 said:


> To the contrary the amateurs are usually missing the practical and experimental knowledge of the professional who actually manage the teams. They are akin to armchair scientists as opposed to professional scientists, who have the experience and means to gain the practical experience and perform real experiments.


Don't see how that is contrary to what I said. You described my point exactly. Now just simply replace "amateurs" with "philosophers".



ugh1979 said:


> By what means do you think we should validate our observations and conclusions of the world if the scientific method isn't acceptable?


I never said scientific method is not acceptable, just that it is an inaccurate representation of how science really works. This is why this subject is so hot amongst the philosophers of science who are continuously trying to improve on it. And as I mentioned above validation methods and confirmation theory are a topic of much heated debate. Nearly 260 years of such debate and yet still philosophers are nowhere near to general consensus on scientific method and in particular the problem of confirmation. Who am I to presume to have the answers...

But as I said elsewhere, whatever issues there are surrounding scientific method, science will continue its progress regardless. After all, not being able to give something its proper description doesn't mean it is incapable of producing good results.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Azazello said:


> More often than not it doesn't. Many of scientific discoveries are flukes, something scientists stumble upon whilst working on something entirely different. That doesn't make these discoveries any less ground-breaking or valid but it does make them somewhat harder to fit into the mold of classical scientific method.


I wouldn't say more often that not at all. Yes there are chance discoveries, even some that are occasionally outwith the scientists field, but in general findings are in the area of intended study.

If chance discoveries are made when on a different intended path to scientific knowledge then so be it. They are part of what makes science exciting. The unknown unknowns are of course just as worthy as the known unknowns.



> You seem to be missing the point. I am not talking about what classes as science but what classes as an _accurate _description of science and the classical view of scientific method is inaccurate.


Why is it inaccurate?



> That's where the problem of validation comes in. What many people don't realise is that when it comes to scientific method there are almost polar opposite views amongst the philosophers on the subject of validation. From it not being possible at all, as in the case of Popper who suggested that scientists should not attempt to prove theories but falsify them; to the covering law theory of explanation of Hempel and Oppenheim, which focuses on the subject of this thread - logical argument; to the current theory of confirmation of evidence - Bayesianism, which attempts to look at the validation from the point of view of probability theory. These differences generally arise from inability to agree on what classes as validation, particularly when applied to different scientific fields, and whether or not it is an accurate representation of reality. So the suggestion that scientific method somehow provides a clear view of how validation works in science is simply misleading.


I appreciate there are some interesting philosophical positions on what merits validated science, but there is at least a general consensus in the scientific community that if your hypothesis holds up to scrutiny then it has merit, and can be considered a better approximation of the truth that a hypothesis that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The more probable a hypothesis can be shown to be the more likely it can be considered part of a larger scientific theory and thus more chance of being an accurate representation of reality.



> With regard to validation see above. As for papers, I'd like to think there is a big difference between a format of a paper and the general scientific practice. A plot of majority fiction books follows a fairly deterministic narrative. Would you go as far as to assume that all these books were written using the same method?


Really? Why? The paper documents the science. Why would or should they be vastly different?



> Don't see how that is contrary to what I said. You described my point exactly. Now just simply replace "amateurs" with "philosophers".


I don't see how, as professional scientists use the scientific method in their professional practice.



> I never said scientific method is not acceptable, just that it is an inaccurate representation of how science really works. This is why this subject is so hot amongst the philosophers of science who are continuously trying to improve on it. And as I mentioned above validation methods and confirmation theory are a topic of much heated debate. Nearly 260 years of such debate and yet still philosophers are nowhere near to general consensus on scientific method and in particular the problem of confirmation. Who am I to presume to have the answers...
> 
> But as I said elsewhere, whatever issues there are surrounding scientific method, science will continue its progress regardless. After all, not being able to give something its proper description doesn't mean it is incapable of producing good results.


Fair enough. Science marches on giving us worthy and useful approximations of the truth as you say. Philosophers of science have little impact on that. Scientists need not care much for their philosophy, which as you say is a pretty contentious but stagnant area of thought. Science doesn't aim to prove anything, as there is very little that can be proven outwith mathematics and fundamental logic. The best approximation of truths science provides is of course dynamic, and long may the constant program of improvement on how best to get closer to the truth endure.


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> Why is it inaccurate?
> 
> I don't see how, as professional scientists use the scientific method in their professional practice.


I think I can understand now why we fail to find common ground on this subject. It seems to me that you view scientific method as prerequisite to science, something that inherently belongs to scientific community.

It is not and it does not.

As I keep saying, scientific method is a philosophical concept NOT scientific. It was coined by philosophers in an attempt to understand how and why science works and to ascribe to it normative functions. Granted it has evolved from the ideas proposed by Hume and that this change has affected some of scientific decision making, such as publication format, reward system etc, but it has never been nor will it ever be the driving force behind scientific discovery. It is just an outsiders' romanticized attempts to understand science.

It feels like you are concerned about having your weapon against irrationality wrestled out of your hands. I am not trying to do that. Scientific method has its merits and on its surface it can be used in philosophical debates against such groundless ideas as creationism but that is only if you are satisfied with superficial victories.

I am not qualified to give a breakdown of the last 260 years of philosophy of science, nor do I have a sufficient attention span to even bother. What I would suggest is that, unless you are content with superficiality and are happy for the generalisations to be full of holes, you read up on the subject and see for yourself the extent of problems that are present in the classical concept of scientific method.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Azazello said:


> I think I can understand now why we fail to find common ground on this subject. It seems to me that you view scientific method as prerequisite to science, something that inherently belongs to scientific community.
> 
> It is not and it does not.
> 
> ...


While it may have its origins in philosophy of science, it's practical uses are in science and it is certainly used by scientists practicing science. In fact if you apply scientific method, then you are by definition a scientist.

It's not a driving force _behind_ science. Desire for knowledge is. The scientific method is just a tool used in achieving that goal. I admit it may not be perfect, but until there is a better way then it's a good tool to use in our pursuit of scientific knowledge.

If you aren't prepared to present the alleged holes in it for discussion then I guess this discussion has come to an end, as we have both agreed that it is acceptable and useful.

Maybe the issue here is that the scientific method as per the basic definition is only a basic generalisation, and the science in practice is far more complex? I of course admit that to be true. That said, that complex practical process when generalised still typically matches that of the scientific method.


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> While it may have its origins in philosophy of science, it's practical uses are in science and it is certainly used by scientists practicing science. In fact if you apply scientific method, then you are by definition a scientist.
> 
> It's not a driving force _behind_ science. Desire for knowledge is. The scientific method is just a tool used in achieving that goal. I admit it may not be perfect, but until there is a better way then it's a good tool to use in our pursuit of scientific knowledge.


Being used by science and being capable of describing scientific behaviour are two different things. And this is something that we fundamentally disagree upon, you look at it as a tool, I view it as an attempt to describe such tool, which is what scientific method is and has always been in the eyes of the philosophers.

Because of our different perspectives you have dismissed the examples of problems with scientific method I have given so far, simply because you felt they were philosophical problems and separate to scientific enquiry. I find it odd considering you admit that desire for knowledge is what drives science. After all, with complete knowledge being objectively unattainable it is entirely logical to raise concerns over the subjective values of scientific method used, as you say, to gain such knowledge.

Let's, for the benefit of brevity, describe scientific method as a number of elements in the search for knowledge. These elements, which "must be based on empirical and measurable evidence" are, as per Wiki:

•	Characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
•	Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject) 
•	Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory)
•	Experiments (tests of all of the above)

In order for me to claim there is a problem with this definition of scientific method I have to be able to demonstrate at least one area of concern, right? Well, on top of the already raised questions, here are some other problems.

Let's start with one particular view held amongst the philosophers that observations, whether from initial characterisation or experiment, are unreliable source of knowledge about the world and are often guided by theoretical bias. That this is the case I doubt even you would deny. The question is what improves reliability of the observations and how can we increase our confidence in testing these observations.

Two of the biggest examples of such bias would be the geocentric theory of universe, where the observations were often hammered into the pre-existing theory and made to comply with it, and the Blank Slate theory of mind, which paved the way for the behaviourist psychology that guided and still guides anything from prenatal music recommendations to prison reforms, despite having been shown to be incorrect.

Then there is the problem of empiricism that claims experience as the only source of knowledge. So what happens to the theories that have not been successfully tested? Should they all be dismissed as unfounded even despite their high explanatory and predictive value? Should macro-evolution be confined to the realm of pseudo-science?

When speaking of pursuing scientific knowledge, what about observation-guided theories that lead to accurate predictions despite the fact that they may have been formed on erroneous misconceptions? Example of this would be Sadi Carnot successfully postulating second law of thermodynamics even though he mistakenly believed heat to be fluid. How does one determine scientific value of such theories?

For a long time falsifiability was a required principle in the scientific method. This has now been more or less dismissed, which further illustrates the problem with scientific method, which was attempted to be resolved by the exclusions of this step.

Add to these the validation problem, which is where, if you remember, our discussion began, and other questions I raised and you should have at least a glimpse of the problems surrounding the scientific method. Of course, you may still dismiss these as purely philosophical objections but, whether or not you do so, it does not change the fact that these objections remain, and many of these are still unresolved.



ugh1979 said:


> If you aren't prepared to present the alleged holes in it for discussion then I guess this discussion has come to an end, as we have both agreed that it is acceptable and useful.


My reluctance to get into the details stems from my fear of social obligations. I get really anxious if I feel that I _have to_ continue to respond, which often leads me to abandon discussions mid flow. The more focus and detail is demanded of me the more it drains me mentally and sends me on a downward spiral. I know it is not an excuse but given the nature of this site, I'd like to think you can appreciate that my not fully engaging may have other connotations other than just me talking out of my a-hole.

BTW, I wouldn't go as far as to suggest that we agree on the acceptability of the scientific method. At the end of the day, it was my suggestion that there isn't a consensus on the subject that led to this whole conversation. It is, however, indeed useful, including all the insights gained from trying to resolve the issues around it.



ugh1979 said:


> Maybe the issue here is that the scientific method as per the basic definition is only a basic generalisation, and the science in practice is far more complex? I of course admit that to be true. That said, that complex practical process when generalised still typically matches that of the scientific method.


That is pretty much what I've been trying to explain. I may still disagree with the last part, given the different scientific fields, their varied standards of verification and methods for achieving this, but overall I'm more than willing to concede the "only a basic generalisation" as our common ground.

As I said before, whatever flaws scientific method may have, however many unanswered problems there are surrounding it, it will remain the description, all be it inaccurate, of an only useful and effective process for answering questions about our universe. But one shouldn't use it as a fool-proof solution when faced with the logical fallacies of, say, creationist or climate change deniers. These weaknesses and inconsistencies should be acknowledged for it gives the scientific argument its strength and integrity, which those arguing against science often lack.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Azazello said:


> Being used by science and being capable of describing scientific behaviour are two different things. And this is something that we fundamentally disagree upon, you look at it as a tool, I view it as an attempt to describe such tool, which is what scientific method is and has always been in the eyes of the philosophers.
> 
> Because of our different perspectives you have dismissed the examples of problems with scientific method I have given so far, simply because you felt they were philosophical problems and separate to scientific enquiry. I find it odd considering you admit that desire for knowledge is what drives science. After all, with complete knowledge being objectively unattainable it is entirely logical to raise concerns over the subjective values of scientific method used, as you say, to gain such knowledge.
> 
> ...


Yup, I agree with pretty much all of that. We've come at it from two different directions, with you focusing on the technicalities and issues that can arise from it, whereas I was talking very generally. I think we've understood each others points now.


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> Yup, I agree with pretty much all of that. We've come at it from two different directions, with you focusing on the technicalities and issues that can arise from it, whereas I was talking very generally. I think we've understood each others points now.


Thanks for that! I wasn't sure I had another one of those in me... 

By the way, on the subject of logical fallacies, have you looked into Münchhausen trilemma? It's a fascinating mind trip, especially if you apply it to the arguments against creationism.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Azazello said:


> Thanks for that! I wasn't sure I had another one of those in me...
> 
> By the way, on the subject of logical fallacies, have you looked into Münchhausen trilemma? It's a fascinating mind trip, especially if you apply it to the arguments against creationism.


I'm not familiar with it no. I'll have a look.


----------



## TaylorXXIII (Jul 20, 2014)

Although many of the religious are indoctrinated so as to be immune to logic, I do find this method of debate useful. If the person I am debating is at all reasonable, they will likely at least consider the argument before dismissing it. My job is not to deconvert but rather to sow the seeds of doubt. 
I am fairly well-versed in Biblical mythology but I recognize that J will never win on that level. To try and argue about the finer points of a believer's mythology will bring about no more success than trying to understand how Kryptonite works.


----------



## Noca (Jun 24, 2005)

TaylorXXIII said:


> Although many of the religious are indoctrinated so as to be immune to logic, I do find this method of debate useful. If the person I am debating is at all reasonable, they will likely at least consider the argument before dismissing it. My job is not to deconvert but rather to sow the seeds of doubt.
> I am fairly well-versed in Biblical mythology but I recognize that J will never win on that level. To try and argue about the finer points of a believer's mythology will bring about no more success than trying to understand how Kryptonite works.


Definitely I find it pointless to try and have them abandon their beliefs but rather have them explain to me what they actually believe and examine what it is that they believe in detail during specific situations and scenarios and why it is that they believe it.

I use lots of role reversal analogies to penetrate their thick headedness. The goal is to have them answer their own questions. I have found that very very few Christians have ever looked critically at what it is that they believe.


----------



## Pseudo Lone Wolf (Jun 14, 2013)

I have been looking into logical fallacies and propaganda lately but coming from the opposite side of the argument. I am tired of the biased arguments of the leftists that I constantly came across. In a perfect world where everyone is 100% logical there would be no politics and only positive sciences like maths and physics. Religion has to be out of question. I believe everyone is guilty of personal biases. I have read an article that said people make lists of logical fallacies that favor their world view. There are so many self contradicting people that it is funny. It is always about this "I am better" attitude instead of science or truth. Here are the links I have bookmarked about logical fallacies:

http://undermoregrace.blogspot.com.tr/2009/03/spotting-logical-fallacies-and.html

http://www.propertarianism.com/tools-and-techniques-for-political-debate/list-of-cognitive-biases/

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm


----------



## sirbey (May 23, 2013)

i think its completely silly to argue with religion. its religion. you know its all based in faith/belief anyway. how can they put that into scientific standards? you know they cant, so why are you trying to argue the facts, to convert them to atheism? to explain why their belief is illogical? if they were thinking in terms of logic would they have not already questioned those things and came to a conclusion already?


----------



## sirbey (May 23, 2013)

man that ali g bit was hilarious though


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

sirbey said:


> i think its completely silly to argue with religion. its religion. you know its all based in faith/belief anyway. how can they put that into scientific standards? you know they cant, so why are you trying to argue the facts, to convert them to atheism? to explain why their belief is illogical? if they were thinking in terms of logic would they have not already questioned those things and came to a conclusion already?


Just because some people are poor thinkers and may be totally staunch in their world view, regardless of counter arguments, doesn't mean they all are. Many are swayable with a steady stream of good counter arguments. (Remember the audience rather than the opposing respondee is the more important body of intended influence.

Anything which makes extraordinary claims should be actively argued against in the absence of credible justification. It would be silly not to, especially for something like religion which affects the lives of billions, often to their detriment/suppression.


----------

