Understanding is not agreeing...

This one might be ignoratio elenchi (ignorance of how to construct logical refutations aka elenchi ). That's exciting because, I mean, how often do you get to use such a fancy Latin phrase or cite that fallacy in everyday life? Ad hominems and petitio principiis are so much more common.

It's also a witty (and quite snooty) comeback when someone is accusing you of not understanding things, implying you aren't intelligent enough to get their point. You shoot back: " ignoratio elenchi!" Of course, they will likely have no idea what that means, so it's a double hit.  They will be ignorant of the meaning of the phrase, which asserts they are ignorant of the methods of proper, logical argumentation .

I think the fancy Latin may be appropriate here because this one is a basic failure of a first premise. As a syllogism, it would look like this:

1. If you understood my position, you would agree with me.

2. You do not agree with me.

3. Therefore, you do not understand my position.

The first premise is clearly false. Understanding and agreement are two different things. However, I think there could be a distinction made between fact and opinion here. Thus:

1. If you understood my OPINION, you would agree with me.

That's always false. However:

1. If you understood the FACTS, you would reach the same conclusion.

That could be valid, especially in cases where hard science is involved.

This might be where it gets tricky because, as we have discussed before on this platform, everyone believes they are entitled to their own facts these days. That is, we are never talking about hard science in debates. It's more akin to a courtroom where one side presents its facts and the other side presents its alternative facts. What you are experiencing is the equivalent of an attorney making a case to a juror and then, when the juror votes against him/her, claiming that juror didn't really understand the arguments presented.

Dumb juror? No, the case presented was just unpersuasive! 

Thanks

Next time someone says I don’t agree because I don’t understand I will should back “ignoratio elenchi, Expecto patronum, and Wingardium Leviosa.”

I will comment on your question but not by answering it right of way because you have given me pause on things I must consider before I formulate my answer to your question.

That’s wrong, but you raise an Interesting thought. The order matters.

If someone doesn’t understand, then they won’t agree. Valid.

If someone won’t agree, then they don’t understand. Invalid (with the possible exception of the hard sciences).

 

That’s wrong, but you raise an Interesting thought. The order matters.

If someone doesn’t understand, then they won’t agree. Valid.

If someone won’t agree, then they don’t understand. Invalid (with the possible exception of the hard sciences).

No, only the reverse is the case.  Plenty of people believe and support things only because they do not understand what they actually are.  So there is seldom any validity to your valid statement at all.  We can never conclude a person that accepts something understands what they are accepting; I find the world is full of intellectual experts who expound a whole raft of ideas they understand not a bit; they are merely parroting the words of others. 

But given the wider details of a person's belief system, we can legitimately conclude that their opposition to certain things is only explainable due to a lack of understanding of their nature.  Often this is because distinction without a difference was successfully pulled on them, they don't realize the things they are opposing are the exact same thing as the things they already support.

Plenty of people believe and support things only because they do not understand what they actually are. 

This is off topic because you are talking about something different. At least, it seems you are saying people believe/support things because they don't understand the truth about those things. Our topic was argumentation or debate. That is, when people say some form of: "You don't agree with my argument because you don't understand it." And you reply: "No, I get it. I just think your argument is wrong." Then they say: "If you truly understood my argument, you would have to agree." And then you're like: "Step off, you pretentious jerk."

 given the wider details of a person's belief system, we can legitimately conclude that their opposition to certain things is only explainable due to a lack of understanding of their nature

Or their opposition is correct and those who think they have superior understanding actually do not.

Or the arguments on both sides are equally valid and supportable, so the choice is made based on other criteria.

Or, in reality, people simply decide on emotion and justify with claims about "superior understanding" and such.

So, no, you cannot legitimately conclude that at all.

 
This is off topic because you are talking about something different. At least, it seems you are saying people believe/support things because they don't understand the truth about those things. Our topic was argumentation or debate. That is, when people say some form of: "You don't agree with my argument  because you don't understand it." And you reply: "No, I get it. I just think your argument is wrong." Then they say: "If you truly understood my argument, you would have to agree." And then you're like: "Step off, you pretentious jerk." 

Strong arguments tend to be annoying.  It is also easy to reply to such a claim, you can simply say "your argument is this".  You are surely not arguing that it is not common for people to fail to understand each-other's arguments and spend hours arguing with strawmen.

 
Or their opposition is correct and those who think they have superior understanding actually do not.

Or the arguments on both sides are equally valid and supportable, so the choice is made based on other criteria.

Or, in reality, people simply decide on emotion and justify with claims about "superior understanding" and such.

So, no, you cannot legitimately conclude that at all.

If the turkeys voted for Christmas, it is rather more likely that they simply did not understand what Christmas meant for turkeys than they did and they were willing to die for it. 

It might not always be correct, but it certainly is not a fallacy to argue that it is. 

You are surely not arguing that it is not common for people to fail to understand each-other's arguments and spend hours arguing with strawmen.

No, it is common for people to insist that you fail to (properly) understand their argument when in fact you do understand it, you just disagree.

As for spending hours arguing with strawmen -- that is indeed common. Strawmen are the most common arguments I encounter in debates. People can't even see they are using them. It's why debate experts recommend we use the "steel man" tactic to argue more effectively.

It might not always be correct, but it certainly is not a fallacy to argue that it is. 

It's the word "might" that matters here. In the case raised, the claim is absolute. It states: 'You don't agree because you do not understand.' That's fallacious reasoning. Several other possibilities exist, including the most likely possibility in such debates: The person understands perfectly well but just doesn't agree. He or she is unpersuaded. The matter is ultimately one of opinion, not of facts.

If alternatively stated: 'You don't agree because you might not understand me' -- the statement wouldn't be fallacious. It would be a valid possibility that could be explored. In that case, the person could bring to bear your recommendation and repeat back the salient points, demonstrating their understanding.

Remember, though, that the claim is that this argument is used to shame, bully or otherwise manipulate the person or the audience into believing the opponent disagrees because he or she is stupid. That means this could be one of several other logical fallacies. The argumentum ad fidentia comes to mind. Or perhaps ipse dixit (an ad verecundiam where you are the authority).

Now that you understand my argument, you most certainly agree with it, right? :-)

 
No, it is common for people to insist that you fail to (properly) understand their argument when in fact you do understand it, you just disagree.

As for spending hours arguing with strawmen -- that is indeed common. Strawmen are the most common arguments I encounter in debates. People can't even see they are using them. It's why debate experts recommend we use the "steel man" tactic to argue more effectively.

Stawman are however not typically used intentionally, they are a clear example of people not understanding and therefore not agreeing.

 
It's the word "might" that matters here. In the case raised, the claim is absolute. It states: 'You don't agree because you do not understand.' That's fallacious reasoning. Several other possibilities exist, including the most likely possibility in such debates: The person understands perfectly well but just doesn't agree. He or she is unpersuaded. The matter is ultimately one of opinion, not of facts.

If alternatively stated: 'You don't agree because you might not understand me' -- the statement wouldn't be fallacious. It would be a valid possibility that could be explored. In that case, the person could bring to bear your recommendation and repeat back the salient points, demonstrating their understanding.

Remember, though, that the claim is that this argument is used to shame, bully or otherwise manipulate the person or the audience into believing the opponent disagrees because he or she is stupid. That means this could be one of several other logical fallacies. The argumentum ad fidentia comes to mind. Or perhaps ipse dixit (an ad verecundiam where you are the authority).

Now that you understand my argument, you most certainly agree with it, right? :-)

We don't assume that people's simple statements are absolute in ordinary conversation.  A very common reason for people supporting things or opposing things, especially when it's of the 'turkeys voted for Christmas' variety is simply ignorance of what they supporting or opposing. 

Disagreeing but also fully understanding is a pretty scary thing.  Most of the time you can make progress precisely because people don't really understand things and you can explain the things they don't understand to them and in the process insert your own viewpoint to persuade them. 

Disagreeing but also fully understanding is a pretty scary thing.

Is it? Remember, no one has perfect knowledge here. 

If we truly understood what God understood, but still disagreed with Him, that would be scary.

If we truly understand what an imperfect man understands, but disagree with him, that’s not scary at all. He could be drawing erroneous conclusions. He could have incomplete information. Etc.

Think about any issue we are wont to debate. Let’s take abortion. I fully understand that before a baby is born, it is a part of its mother’s body and dependent on her for survival. Yet I strongly disagree with the argument that it should be her decision whether to terminate it. I’m sure many pro-choice people fully understand that an unborn baby is a human being that is distinct from its mother in many ways. Yet they would still strongly disagree with the idea that anyone should be able to stop a mother from terminating it.

Is understanding really the issue here? Are we bitterly divided on this issue because we don’t understand each other?

Would it be valid for me to argue that if pro-choice people truly understood pro-life arguments, they would become pro-life? The reverse?

[To Jordan Pine]

Would it be valid for me to argue that if pro-choice people truly understood pro-life arguments, they would become pro-life? The reverse? 

This is an excellent question. For one, it could reveal one's irrational sense of overconfidence. I think you recently wrote, "we don't know what we don't know," which means even if we are convinced we know everything about an argument, it is doubtful that we do given our history of being wrong about things. But the illusion is strong.

The question also can reveal that certain positions are not simply about facts. Take the abortion issue. Even if everyone agreed on the facts, the "should" or "oughts" derive partly from facts, but also from values. One person might value the autonomy of the mother more than the life of the fetus, and vice versa. Our values are only partly influenced environmentally, but biologically as well.

So, no, I am not of the view that if everyone fully understood an issue there would be no disagreement.

Again, excellent question!

No, we understand pro-choicers very well.  They want to kill unborn people and they cannot morally do it, so they come up with rationalizations which will allow them to do that which is clearly forbidden by basic moral principles that they accept in any other context.  Pro-choicers exist because they are wrong, their arguments and rationales are completely expendable therefore and they will change them freely. 

They start with the evil they wish to commit and then come up with reasons by which the evil they wish to commit is not an evil.  Abortion exists to begin with, for the same reason as other crimes do because the criminals believe they stand to benefit.  They would (and do) have abortions regardless of whether it is legal or not to have them.  It is however in the interest of the criminals to not be criminals and so they make a murder into an execution basically by any and all means necessary.

In summary, pro-choice is not at core an argument.  It is instead an interest that comes with rationalizations to overcome the obvious immorality of said interest.  They are hydra-headed because none of their arguments matter, multiple often contradictory rationales can be found to justify abortion, which is the only thing the interest seeks to accomplish. 

pro-choice is not at core an argument.  It is instead an interest that comes with rationalizations to overcome the obvious immorality of said interest.  

While I obviously agree with some of what you said from an ideological standpoint, I'd like to keep this focused on logic and reason. It is true that the pro-choice position is not, at core, an argument. I'll be more charitable on the second part and rephrase what you wrote: It is an interest (set of beliefs coalescing into an agenda or movement) that comes with rationalizations to overcome any logical inconsistencies, etc.

However, the same could be said of our pro-life position. It is not really, at root, an argument. It is a set of beliefs that come with rationalizations to overcome any logical inconsistencies that arise. This should not be hard to admit -- or surprising.

Humans decide on emotion and post-rationalize (i.e. justify our positions with reasons after the fact). I believe the purpose of logic is to interrogate those reasons to see if our emotions have led us astray. But we have to begin this process with humility and the realization that everyone, ourselves included, is not starting from a place of reason. Quite the opposite.

Interestingly, I have thought deeply about abortion and have interrogated my reasons for believing as I do. Using that process (something akin to the "steel man" approach), I was actually able to come up with some rational arguments in favor of abortion. None of the usual arguments, mind you, but some novel arguments that could be persuasive to pro-lifers. I even decided that there is a compromise solution that could work well in America if, somehow, we were able to build enough trust between the opposing factions to allow it. 

Anyway, I strongly encourage you to conduct such a process. Interrogate your beliefs using logic and reason. Think hard until you can make the strongest possible version of the other side's argument, one you would find difficult to refute. It probably won't change your mind, but it will make your arguments in favor of your position much more rational.

 
While I obviously agree with some of what you said from an ideological standpoint, I'd like to keep this focused on logic and reason. It is true that the pro-choice position is not, at core, an argument. I'll be more charitable on the second part and rephrase what you wrote: It is an interest (set of beliefs coalescing into an agenda or movement) that comes with rationalizations to overcome any logical inconsistencies, etc.

However, the same could be said of our pro-life position. It is not really, at root, an argument. It is a set of beliefs that come with rationalizations to overcome any logical inconsistencies that arise. This should not be hard to admit -- or surprising.

Humans decide on emotion and post-rationalize (i.e. justify our positions with reasons after the fact). I believe the purpose of logic is to interrogate those reasons to see if our emotions have led us astray. But we have to begin this process with humility and the realization that everyone, ourselves included, is not starting from a place of reason. Quite the opposite.

Interestingly, I have thought deeply about abortion and have interrogated my reasons for believing as I do. Using that process (something akin to the "steel man" approach), I was actually able to come up with some rational arguments in favor of abortion. None of the usual arguments, mind you, but some novel arguments that could be persuasive to pro-lifers. I even decided that there is a compromise solution that could work well in America if, somehow, we were able to build enough trust between the opposing factions to allow it. 

Anyway, I strongly encourage you to conduct such a process. Interrogate your beliefs using logic and reason. Think hard until you can make the strongest possible version of the other side's argument, one you would find difficult to refute. It probably won't change your mind, but it will make your arguments in favor of your position much more rational.

The Pro-Life position is totally rational and totally devoid of any real emotional basis.  Pro-Lifers cannot really feel emotion to start with about random fetuses, especially undeveloped fetuses.  We start with their argument and our emotions simply follow from the surety of our position.  The more certain we are that we are right, the angrier we are (ditto the reverse).  We care about the fetuses because our logic tells them that fetuses are people as we are, not because we have any personal relationship with the victims of abortion. 

The two positions are not remotely similar in their foundations.  The Pro-Life situation has at it's basis no actual emotional root and no personal interest either.  It does not hurt Pro-Lifers personally that abortion is legal, they might even gain by it being legal.  Hypocrisy often abounds here, a lot of Pro-Lifers will secretly have abortions because their interests are to abort even though they are against it in theory.

The Pro-Life position has a core argument and as a Pro-Choicer if you destroy that Pro-Lifers core argument you have won and you have converted them.  Arguments are to the Pro-Choicer merely a means to attack the Pro-Life argument, evaluated according their effectiveness in this regard and no amount of refuting Pro-Choice arguments will ever convert the Pro-Choicer because those arguments are not the core of why they are a Pro-Choicer. 

If you look at this way, the Pro-Choice position is a solar system with a set of arguments orbiting around a core interest.  That interest exists in many people who are presently Pro-Life, so the Pro-Choice does not really aim to win the argument, merely to draw the argument.  The reason for their incredible political power, is that while you (the Pro-Lifer) are busy arguing with them *they* are building networks of connected interests around their own core interest.  They didn't win simply because their arguments convinced people, they won because they convinced enough people the matter was unclear, so those people could choose the position that served their interests and the pro-choicers work hard to connect enough other interests together. 

To sum up if you pit a Pro-Life argument against an equally strong Pro-Choice argument, the result will always be the victory of the latter.  As the arguments of Pro-Choicers are essentially chaff, it matters not if you constantly refute them because the point of them existing is simply so there appears to be a debate. 

To sum up if you pit a Pro-Life argument against an equally strong Pro-Choice argument, the result will always be the victory of the latter.

Except of course, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Except of course, in the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Is this some other Supreme Court of the United States Bo?  Last time I checked said Court made abortion legal everywhere in America in the first place. 

Man, I totally misunderstood your comment (I confused "former" with "latter" - a common error of mine when responding while doing 5 other things).

You argued:

The Pro-Life position is totally rational and totally devoid of any real emotional basis

Then you argued:

The more certain we (Pro-Lifers) are that we are right, the angrier we are.

These two positions are logically inconsistent. Anger is an emotion, and a strong one. One cannot be angry about a position that is devoid of emotion.

Even if I steel-man your argument, it seems you are arguing the opposite of what we know to be true about human nature. Emotions don't follow rational thought. Rational thought follows emotions as we engage in post-rationalization in order to justify our emotions.

It does not hurt Pro-Lifers personally that abortion is legal, they might even gain by it being legal.

This is what I was alluding to when I mentioned that carefully considering the other side led me to some arguments in favor of abortion that may be convincing to pro-lifers.

As the arguments of Pro-Choicers are essentially chaff, it matters not if you constantly refute them because the point of them existing is simply so there appears to be a debate. 

That's a cynical and fatalistic view of the matter. I can see a Pro-Choice person arguing the exact opposite. I'm only interested in discussions with people on both sides who don't have such a hopeless view of the matter.

 
These two positions are logically inconsistent. Anger is an emotion, and a strong one. One cannot be angry about a position that is devoid of emotion. 

Even if I steel-man your argument, it seems you are arguing the opposite of what we know to be true about human nature. Emotions don't follow rational thought. Rational thought follows emotions as we engage in post-rationalization in order to justify our emotions.

Emotions definitely follow from thought (the rational part is optional).  A person feels the emotions that pertain to how they perceive the world at the present time.  Emotions are not simply based upon objective reality.  Nobody feels anything about abortion *before* they have a position on abortion, they feel the emotions that coincide to their stance. 

We do engage in post-rationalization but it isn't our emotions we do this for.  We do this for the sake of our interests.  It is very different to convince the turkeys to vote for Christmas; they simply rationally understand their interests do not coincide with it.

 
This is what I was alluding to when I mentioned that carefully considering the other side led me to some arguments in favor of abortion that may be convincing to pro-lifers.

Yes and my point is that this is the point of the exercise.  Pro-Choice arguments tell you nothing of what they actually believe at core, since they are chosen for their effectiveness in attacking Pro-Life arguments rather than having any importance as to why they are Pro-Choicers.

Pro-Choicers position at core is simply "I must be able to have/perform an abortion," .  Then afterwards arguments are devised to further this end, arguments chosen simply to attack the Pro-Life position. 

A lot of positions are like this, not just abortion.

 
That's a cynical and fatalistic view of the matter. I can see a Pro-Choice person arguing the exact opposite. I'm only interested in discussions with people on both sides who don't have such a hopeless view of the matter.

I never said that the two sides were inherently equally matches as far as arguments go.  Obviously the pro-lifer has stronger arguments on average or they would not exist at all. 

Why the pro-choice ever got anywhere is because they managed to come up with arguments strong enough to draw the discussions with the present pro-lifers.  If they draw the discussion, then they ultimately always win because they are a powerful interest that is adept at aligning other interests to their own interest. 

So basically in order for Pro-Life to win it must win decisively.  Pro-Choice wins if a decisive victory is not won by Pro-Life; that is the source strength of the former.  This is because supporting Pro-Life is very much the turkeys voting for Christmas; it very much comes at a cost to your interests. 

Nobody feels anything about abortion *before* they have a position on abortion

I don't think that's true because it implies people think about issues, and then decide their position. Again, this implies thinking (whether logically valid or not) precedes feeling. That's backward. People feel and then think up ways to justify those feelings.

 
I don't think that's true because it implies people think about issues, and then decide their position. Again, this implies thinking (whether logically valid or not) precedes feeling. That's backward. People feel and then think up ways to justify those feelings.

No it isn't backward.  I know the whole Emotion VS Rationality nonsense is what the Vulcans believe in Star Trek but they are beyond wrong.  If people decided their thoughts according to their emotions, on what do they then base their emotions on?  People feel things according to how they perceive the world to be and they have to decide upon the facts of that world to begin with through thinking (rational or otherwise).   People do not have access to some objective reality to begin with about which they have feelings and also competing rational thoughts. 

What we have in a typical alleged Emotion VS Reason scenario is a conflict of similar nature to Pro-ChoiceVSPro-Life.  It is a conflict between rational conclusions derived from facts and the rational conclusions drawn about an actors own interests.  It is very much social dynamics, people rationally conclude that sacrifices have to be made but are at the same time wary of being sacrificed; so they desperately try to clutch at any rationale that allows them to evade the sacrifice either by demonstrating it not needed or by demonstrating somebody else should be sacrificed instead and this provides an opening for unreason. 

The promotion of Vulcanesque rational emotionless is very much class struggle.  The elite have their interests but they also have vast intellectual resources.  The ordinary people have only their interests, so we end with the above conflict of 'thought' vs 'emotion' when the two engage in class struggle.  If self-interest is abrogated on the alter of cold sacrifice, whoever has the greatest intellectual resources can use it to determine who pays the brunt of the sacrifices.  So Vulcan logic is really the ordinary Vulcan offering himself up as a sacrifice on the alter of Elite Vulcan because the latter indoctrinated the former in his own logic which coincides perfectly with his interests. 

I know the whole Emotion VS Rationality nonsense is what the Vulcans believe in Star Trek but they are beyond wrong ... People feel things according to how they perceive the world to be and they have to decide upon the facts of that world to begin with through thinking

I don't know about Vulcans, but I can tell you about two real groups of people who use this understanding of human nature (i.e. emotions precede reason) to succeed in the real world: advertisers and politicians. I am the former, a veteran advertising professional specializing in direct marketing. We rely on people having an immediate purchase response to an advertisement. One of the first principles of our trade is: People buy on emotion and justify with logic . If you don't create emotion with your advertising first, all the rational arguments in the world won't work. You will lose your shirt.

As for politics, I think it should be clear by now that thoughts (reason, logic and so on) don't determine votes. The most persuasive person wins, and persuasion is all about emotion. Facts don't matter much except after the fact (post-rationalization). Everyone finds conforming facts once they have already made up their mind based on how they feel. You know this to be true just from your own observations.

Perhaps your confusion is found in this question you asked:

If people decided their thoughts according to their emotions, on what do they then base their emotions on?

It's an interesting question. It may lead us down a dead end, though, since at some point there must either be a first cause or a logical contradiction where two things cause each other but one doesn't precede the other.

But if the question is, Where do emotions come from?, my answer is: Genetic, hereditary programmed responses to stimulus. Brain chemicals. And, in mature individuals, childhood experiences.

If you want to narrow you argument to the latter source (childhood experiences), and then broaden the definition of "thought" to include rapid, unconscious brain responses, I suppose you could say thoughts precede emotion in that way. But in the commonly understood definition of thought -- I consciously think and then react -- this wouldn't be true. It is true that some acts of thinking can elicit an emotional response, of course. But that is not how most judgments are made. In other words, feeling are much faster than conscious thought and are often below the conscious level. 

Now let's return to the matter of being pro-choice or pro-life. Isn't it clear that this issue is driven by emotion with rational thought secondary (if at all)? I mean, we don't speak first about fetal viability in forming our arguments. We scream either "my body, my choice!" or "abortion is murder!" Similarly, no one I know ever described sitting down and thinking about the complexities of the abortion issue before developing a feeling about which way to go. Rather, at some point we were made to feel a certain way about the issue, and then we justified our position with whatever rational thinking we needed to do, finding the facts to fit our feelings (confirmation bias).

I don't know about Vulcans, but I can tell you about two real groups of people who use this understanding of human nature (i.e. emotions precede reason) to succeed in the real world: advertisers and politicians. I am the former, a veteran advertising professional specializing in direct marketing. We rely on people having an immediate purchase response to an advertisement. One of the first principles of our trade is: People buy on emotion and justify with logic . If you don't create emotion with your advertising first, all the rational arguments in the world won't work. You will lose your shirt.

As for politics, I think it should be clear by now that thoughts (reason, logic and so on) don't determine votes. The most persuasive person wins, and persuasion is all about emotion. Facts don't matter much except after the fact (post-rationalization). Everyone finds conforming facts once they have already made up their mind based on how they feel. You know this to be true just from your own observations.

Perhaps your confusion is found in this question you asked:

I see, you have been indoctrinated in this irrational system of belief throughout your education and career.  Oh dear.

Advertising is fundamentally about creating associations, that is what you call emotion but it isn't emotion per-se.  It relies on often irrational systems of thought, most often some form of magical thinking in order to convince a person that a certain product is desirable for them to purchase.  The emotion in this case the desire to buy the product very much follows from a system of thought, one that the advertisement is designed to exploit. 

The problem here is that you have been taught to counter-pose Emotion and Reason as opposite poles.  Since you are using unreasonable thinking to begin with, you then conclude that you must be using emotion which therefore precedes thought.  Just because thinking precedes emotion, does not mean that that thinking is rational thinking.  That people can be made emotional based upon the output of irrational thoughts and the emotions are what you want, does not mean that emotion precedes thought.

But if the question is, Where do emotions come from?, my answer is: Genetic, hereditary programmed responses to stimulus. Brain chemicals. And, in mature individuals, childhood experiences. 

Stimulus?  Childhood Experiences?  In other words thought, since we do not have access to any objective pre-cognative reality that exist prior to thought.  The world 'as it appears to us' is the world according to our thinking and our emotions are according to that worldview.

Now let's return to the matter of being pro-choice or pro-life. Isn't it clear that this issue is driven by emotion with rational thought secondary (if at all)? I mean, we don't speak first about fetal viability in forming our arguments. We scream either "my body, my choice!" or "abortion is murder!" Similarly, no one I know ever described sitting down and thinking about the complexities of the abortion issue before developing a feeling about which way to go. Rather, at some point we were made to feel a certain way about the issue, and then we justified our position with whatever rational thinking we needed to do, finding the facts to fit our feelings (confirmation bias). 

You're applying a false symmetry here to the situation.  Both systems are at core non-emotional, they are just relying on opposite forms of thinking.  

The brain has to essentially calculate two universes to be perceived and emoted about.  One is the world as it really is and the other is the world as our interests would have it.  We have to determine both worlds but we also have to keep the two separate.  But crucially we can get emotional about *both* worlds, both our interests being trodden on and the facts of reality can make us emotional.

The problem comes when we introduce other people into the picture.  People are naturally sceptical of anyone describing a reality that makes demands that do not serve their interests.  Pro-Life describes such a reality, therefore Pro-Choice rejects it.  Both derive their emotions from different places, Pro-Life from the world that is while Pro-Choice from their interest world. 

Pro-Life accept a reality that does not accord to their interests, Pro-Choice refuse to accept the Pro-Lifer's reality because it clashes with their interests.  That is the fundamental asymmetry which makes Pro-Choice inherently win any even confrontation.  

[To GoblinCookie]

I see, you have been indoctrinated in this irrational system of belief throughout your education and career.  Oh dear.

No. Indoctrination happens in schools. In the real world, you learn, you apply and you succeed or fail -- and I have succeeded and made a lot of money applying these principles.

How about you? Where did you get your opposing ideas? What real-world applications have shown your ideas are correct? I mean personally. Not something you read about or theorized. Something that you personally applied to your life and saw the results.

There is no point continuing to debate with you if you don't have this real-world experience. Every opinion is valid -- in theory.

No. Indoctrination happens in schools. In the real world, you learn, you apply and you succeed or fail -- and I have succeeded and made a lot of money applying these principles.

How about you? Where did you get your opposing ideas? What real-world applications have shown your ideas are correct? I mean personally. Not something you read about or theorized. Something that you personally applied to your life and saw the results.

There is no point continuing to debate with you if you don't have this real-world experience. Every opinion is valid -- in theory.

There is whole school of psychiatry based upon my 'insights' about the relationship of thoughts and emotions.  It's called Cognitive behavioral therapy, so there we have it; people have indeed used my ideas about the relationship of thought and emotion to practical use.  Change the way you think and you change the way you feel; it is a very useful insight. 

Don't go on about your alleged success.  Plenty of other people applied the same principles as you to and reaped no success from it.  I don't care about your money and I don't care about your success; go choke on them both.  Your ability to bilk fools out of their money by playing on their intellectual weaknesses is not something to boast about. 

Nothing about succeeding implies any degree of understanding.  One person can succeed merely by dumb luck and then others can then blindly imitate them to similar success, they all succeeded but none of them understood anything.  Then all sorts of people can come up with explanations as to why it works and all the explanations can be nothing but superstition. 

You did something, it works.  It doesn't mean your ideas about how or why it's working are true. 

[To GoblinCookie]

There is whole school of psychiatry based upon my 'insights' about the relationship of thoughts and emotions.  It's called Cognitive behavioral therapy, so there we have it; people have indeed used my ideas about the relationship of thought and emotion to practical use. 

Wait: You're claiming to be the founder of CBT? GoblinCookie on the Logically Fallacious chat board? Sorry, but I'm a bit skeptical. Can you offer any proof of your claim?

Don't go on about your alleged success.

Why not? Success is evidence a theory is correct. Failure is evidence it is incorrect.

Plenty of other people applied the same principles as you to and reaped no success from it.  

Sure, OK. It's a multivariable world, and I don't claim that one principle is a magic formula. When assessing such things, you have to use probabilistic thinking. Following this principle more often than not leads to success. Violating this principle more often than not leads to failure. This suggests the principle is valid.

I don't care about your money and I don't care about your success; go choke on them both.  Your ability to bilk fools out of their money by playing on their intellectual weaknesses is not something to boast about.

That's a lot of hostility and emotional dysregulation from someone who claims expertise in psychiatry. Physician, heal thyself!

You did something, it works.  It doesn't mean your ideas about how or why it's working are true. 

What if I did it repeatedly, and it worked repeatedly? What if others did it repeatedly, and it worked repeatedly? What if those who did the opposite failed repeatedly and eventually lost their shirts?

You are basically arguing against the scientific method. As Richard Feynman said: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

My theory agrees with experiment. Yours does not -- at least not in my field.

Wait: You're claiming to be the founder of CBT? GoblinCookie on the Logically Fallacious chat board? Sorry, but I'm a bit skeptical. Can you offer any proof of your claim? 

Obviously I did not invent the theory silly!  It was honoring your request for an example of how the general ideas I am expounding are used to good effect by people in the real world.  You asked for practical examples of my ideas being used to effect in the real-world, I never claimed to be the inventor of those ideas nor did I ever claim to be an expert in psychiatry either. 

 
Why not? Success is evidence a theory is correct. Failure is evidence it is incorrect.

At this point I wish I had a facepalm smilie. No!

There is a reason the answer is NO!  The reason is that the world is not entirely probable, a stroke of good fortune can result in a set of bad policies succeeding and a string of bad fortune can result in a set of good policies failing.  So nothing definite can be learned from succeeding and even less can be learned from failure.

Probability cannot be predicted or controlled.  Anything can potentially happen, however improbable in a single instance.

 
Sure, OK. It's a multivariable world, and I don't claim that one principle is a magic formula. When assessing such things, you have to use probabilistic thinking. Following this principle more often than not leads to success. Violating this principle more often than not leads to failure. This suggests the principle is valid. 

Wrong for multiple reasons.

1. You cannot demonstrate if any of the policies actually did anything at all.  All differences in results could be down to pure chance and you are drawing imaginary correlations between chance contingencies.

2. You cannot demonstrate which of the several things actually did anything and to what degree.

3. It is entirely possible to combine bad and good policies together.  If a good practice is combined with a bad practice, it is entirely possible for one to outweigh the other one in effect.

4. It is entirely possible that you presently lack the practical ability to separate certain policies from each-other, so we conclude a good policy is bad because we lack the skill to implement it without also implementing a bad policy. 

5. Success is subjective.  It quite possible there are side-effects to your success that would make you consider your policy not successful.

6. With a sufficiently narrow definition of success, you can quite easily accomplish something in the short-term but then accomplish the exact opposite in the long-term. Time-scope matters here, how long as you observing the outcome for?  In the short-run you can achieve something, then achieve the opposite in the long-term.

 
That's a lot of hostility and emotional dysregulation from someone who claims expertise in psychiatry. Physician, heal thyself! 

Your the one who decided to make it all personal and about you.  All I had to do was even suggest that you might have been indoctrinated by your work and you gave me a whole post of inane boasting about your personal success.  To which I quite reasonably assert in no uncertain terms I could not care less about your success; but maybe I should have flattered your wounded ego instead, my bad. 

 
What if I did it repeatedly, and it worked repeatedly? What if others did it repeatedly, and it worked repeatedly? What if those who did the opposite failed repeatedly and eventually lost their shirts?

You are basically arguing against the scientific method. As Richard Feynman said: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

My theory agrees with experiment. Yours does not -- at least not in my field.

We were not talking about experiments.   Experiments are set up to remove the chance variables that normally exist as much as possible through creating a controlled environment.  In order to be taken as establishing a scientific fact it is order necessary for an experiment to be replicated and controlled.  While reality can certainly replicate something, it cannot replicate it in an experimentally valid way because the variables will never be the same twice.  

Success or failure in the real-world does not prove anything definite.  To try to use use success alone to prove something is correct, is actually called appeal to accomplishment. 

Actually on the topic of experiments, it is quite easy to get out of experimental failures if you are determined enough to be seen to be right (that is you have skin in the game, or as you would prefer to put it, a shirt).  That is because in order to actually prove anything, the methodology of an experiment has to be sound FOR the type of claim being studied.   If you do not like the results of your experiment, you simply attack the methodology to prove the experiment's output would never in fact work to prove anything given the claim being tested. 

Bonus points for pseudoscience if you apply hedging.  When somebody invents an experiment to address the concerns about methodology you earlier expressed, you can redefine your claims that new methods won't work either. 

[To GoblinCookie]

 It was honoring your request for an example of how the general ideas I am expounding are used to good effect by people in the real world ... I never claimed to be the inventor of those ideas [CBT] nor did I ever claim to be an expert in psychiatry either. . 

Then you were avoiding the issue.  I did not ask you for an example of how your general ideas are used by other people. I asked you: "What real-world applications have shown your ideas are correct? I mean personally. Not something you read about or theorized. Something that you personally applied to your life and saw the results."

a stroke of good fortune can result in a set of bad policies succeeding and a string of bad fortune can result in a set of good policies failing.

Yes, already conceded. I wrote: "It's a multivariable world, and I don't claim that one principle is a magic formula. When assessing such things, you have to use probabilistic thinking." You are engaging in the strawman fallacy.

In creating this particular straw man, you also ignored several questions of mine that undermine your point:

• What if I did it repeatedly, and it worked repeatedly?
• What if others did it repeatedly, and it worked repeatedly?
• What if those who did the opposite failed repeatedly and eventually lost their shirts?
   

So nothing definite can be learned from succeeding and even less can be learned from failure.

Of course, if your syllogism is premised on a straw man, your conclusion is going to sound correct. The problem: I never claimed something definite (Oxford: unambiguous) can be learned from succeeding and failing. You added that weasel word to make your conclusion valid. What I claimed was this: "Following this principle more often than not leads to success. Violating this principle more often than not leads to failure." Why don't you attack that argument or else concede the point (since I know what I'm talking about here and you do not) and move on?

Alternatively, take courage and remove the weasel word from your claim. The thrust of your argument seems to be that little can be learned from success or failure. That is an argument I will gladly take on. Only someone with limited real-world experience would make such a claim, which is why I suspect you had trouble with my challenge above.

In any case, I had already addressed that argument with the statement: "You are basically arguing against the scientific method" (followed by a really good Feynman quote). Your response is noteworthy since it involves another example of the strawman fallacy:

In order to be taken as establishing a scientific fact it is order necessary for an experiment to be replicated and controlled.

Of course, I did not argue my principle should be "taken as establishing a scientific fact." I was speaking generally about the scientific method. "We were not talking about experiments," you began, begging the question. We were indeed. At least, I was. Direct marketing involves many experiments, including replications and controls. 

 
Then you were avoiding the issue.  I did not ask you for an example of how your general ideas are used by other people. I asked you: "What real-world applications have shown your ideas are correct? I mean personally. Not something you read about or theorized. Something that you personally applied to your life and saw the results."

What issue am I avoiding?  This isn't about me personally.  This is I suspect a subtle at attempt at an ad hominem.  Trying to make things personal is the opposite of what someone in a debate should be doing. 

It absolutely doesn't matter in this instance whether the ideas are applied by me personally or by someone else, as it is the ideas that are being tested not the person.  You seem to be insistent upon making this as personal as possible, I wonder why?

 
Yes, already conceded. I wrote: "It's a multivariable world, and I don't claim that one principle is a magic formula. When assessing such things, you have to use probabilistic thinking." You are engaging in the strawman fallacy.

In creating this particular straw man, you also ignored several questions of mine that undermine your point:

What if I did it repeatedly, and it worked repeatedly?
What if others did it repeatedly, and it worked repeatedly?
What if those who did the opposite failed repeatedly and eventually lost their shirts?

I did not ignore them at all, but I'll answer them all again if you wish in a different fashion.

1/2/3.  Multiple hypothesizes can make the same claim, so without ruling out other explanations you cannot conclude you are correct simply based upon a prediction being verified.

If you have an unsound hypothesis that is illogical and contradicts everything else we know about the world (your hypothesis about emotions and thoughts), we have to make sure to rule out sounder hypothesis making the same predictions and that you have not done.

 
Of course, if your syllogism is premised on a straw man, your conclusion is going to sound correct. The problem: I never claimed something definite (Oxford: unambiguous) can be learned from succeeding and failing. You added that weasel word to make your conclusion valid. What I claimed was this: "Following this principle more often than not leads to success. Violating this principle more often than not leads to failure." Why don't you attack that argument or else concede the point (since I know what I'm talking about here and you do not) and move on? 

Alternatively, take courage and remove the weasel word from your claim. The thrust of your argument seems to be that little can be learned from success or failure. That is an argument I will gladly take on. Only someone with limited real-world experience would make such a claim, which is why I suspect you had trouble with my challenge above.

In any case, I had already addressed that argument with the statement: "You are basically arguing against the scientific method" (followed by a really good Feynman quote). Your response is noteworthy since it involves another example of the strawman fallacy:

It is not scientifically relevant whether your principle leads to success or not.  Yes people with much success are inclined to forget this principle and ditto in reverse.  You could even say here that being unsuccessful is actually an advantage. 

The more accomplished you are, the more the appeal to accomplishment will appeal to you.  "I succeeded therefore I must be right about why I succeeded," is not a valid scientific argument.

 
Of course, I did not argue my principle should be "taken as establishing a scientific fact." I was speaking generally about the scientific method. "We were not talking about experiments," you began, begging the question. We were indeed. At least, I was. Direct marketing involves many experiments, including replications and controls. 

They may do experiments but are they relevant experiments?  They aren't designed to actually determine human nature, so your claim that you know all about human nature from your work is not correct.  Direct marketing experiments do not reveal human nature because to determine human nature is not their purpose. 

The experiments purpose here is to determine scientifically what is the most effective advertising in the current social context.  Since they aren't testing any specific claims about human nature, you cannot draw such conclusions from them. 

While you can certainly determine with enough experiments what works, you cannot from this determine  why it works. 

[To GoblinCookie]

What issue am I avoiding?  This isn't about me personally ...
It absolutely doesn't matter in this instance whether the ideas are applied by me personally or by someone else

begging the question

The issue you were avoiding is the question you are now begging. I am arguing that it absolutely DOES matter in this instance whether the idea in question has been applied by you personally.

Unless you have personally tested your belief in the real world and seen the results for yourself (subjected it to some form of repeated, real-world experimentation), your claim is much weaker than mine. I have personally tested my belief and made it the foundation of a successful life. You have nothing of equal vigor to offer.

In other words: "I claim X because someone else claims X" is a much weaker argument than "I claim X because I did X (repeatedly)."

Thus, you should concede the point. For instance, you might reply: "It's true that I've never applied this idea in the real world, but I trust that what others have written about it is true."

Then I would point out that people have written about all sorts of contradictory ideas that they claim work. The test of an idea is whether it survives contact with reality, but the only real way to know is to experience the contact with reality for yourself.

 

The issue you were avoiding is the question you are now begging. I am arguing that it absolutely DOES matter in this instance whether the idea in question has been applied by you personally.

Unless you have personally tested your belief in the real world and seen the results for yourself (subjected it to some form of repeated, real-world experimentation), your claim is much weaker than mine. I have personally tested my belief and made it the foundation of a successful life. You have nothing of equal vigor to offer.

In other words: "I claim X because someone else claims X" is a much weaker argument than "I claim X because I did X (repeatedly)."

Thus, you should concede the point. For instance, you might reply: "It's true that I've never applied this idea in the real world, but I trust that what others have written about it is true."

Then I would point out that people have written about all sorts of contradictory ideas that they claim work. The test of an idea is whether it survives contact with reality, but the only real way to know is to experience the contact with reality for yourself.

Look Jordan.  This is a intellectual fallacy website and yet you have wrote five paragraphs of text that pretty much are all examples of the appeal to accomplishment fallacy.  You cannot use "I'm successful therefore I am right" as an argument and that is the sum of most of what you are saying here. 

It is a stronger argument if a large number of people practice something successfully than if you alone practiced something successfully.  So answering a personal question about success with a general reference to the success of a large body of people is not conceding the point, it is making a stronger point than was expected. 

Going through the various CBT cognitive distortions there is one that particularly comes to mind here.

Overgeneralizing

Someone who overgeneralizes makes hasty generalizations from insufficient evidence. Such as seeing a “single negative event” as a “never-ending pattern of defeat," and as such drawing a very broad conclusion from a single incident or a single piece of evidence. Even if something bad happens only once, it is expected to happen over and over again.

Example 1: A young woman is asked out on a first date, but not a second one. She is distraught as she tells her friend, “This always happens to me! I’ll never find love!”

Example 2: A woman is lonely and often spends most of her time at home. Her friends sometimes ask her to dinner and to meet new people. She feels it is useless to even try. No one really could like her. And anyway, all people are the same; petty and selfish.
One suggestion to combat this distortion is to “examine the evidence” by performing an accurate analysis of one's situation. This aids in avoiding exaggerating one's circumstances.

The tendency of people to draw sweeping conclusions about the nature of the world from their own personal experiences is not a good thing, it a psychological problem that leads to all sorts of mental illnesses.  People's strong tendency to try to learn about the world in general from their personal failures and successes is one of their most psychologically destructive vices, not an intellectual virtue to be emulated. 

Only success (and failure) in general matters.  Success and failure in an individual instance is not a strong argument for anything, therefore I must ask you the following questions.

1. What exactly are these advertising methods you claim have brought such success?

2. What large body of other advertisers have used these methods successfully.

3. How do their success irreconcilable with my claims (and those of CBT)?

[To GoblinCookie]

You cannot use "I'm successful therefore I am right" as an argument 

Yes, I can. It is a simple, powerful argument. It is also the core of the scientific method, once gain. If your experiments are successful, you are right. If your experiments are unsuccessful, you are wrong. And if you don't bother to do experiments at all, you have no idea whether you are right or wrong. You're just another person with a hypothesis, and hypotheses are like ani -- everybody has one.

No more begging the question. No more searching the logical fallacies index for something to help you avoid the issue. Respond to my argument with a valid counter-argument, or concede the point.

Here it is again for easy reference:

Unless you have personally tested your belief in the real world and seen the results for yourself (subjected it to some form of repeated, real-world experimentation), your claim is much weaker than mine.

"I claim X because someone else claims X" is a much weaker argument than "I claim X because I did X (repeatedly)."

 
Yes, I can. It is a simple, powerful argument. It is also the core of the scientific method, once gain. If your experiments are successful, you are right. If your experiments are unsuccessful, you are wrong. And if you don't bother to do experiments at all, you have no idea whether you are right or wrong. You're just another person with a hypothesis, and hypotheses are like ani -- everybody has one.

No more begging the question. No more searching the logical fallacies index for something to help you avoid the issue. Respond to my argument with a valid counter-argument, or concede the point.

You totally do not understand Science at all and what you believe is utterly unscientific.  A Scientist does not think that way, it is only a Pseudoscientist that thinks that way.  A Scientist sets out to test a hypothesis and whether he initially believes in it or not is irrelevant here.  A Pseudoscientist starts out believing in something and then tries to prove that what they believe is true in order to make a stronger argument for their cause.

A true Scientist is happy whenever he is clearly proved wrong or right.  A true Scientist is unhappy not when his experiments prove something he does not believe but when his experiments are inconclusive and fail to prove or disprove anything at all.  A Pseudoscientist frequently likes inconclusive outcomes by contrast because they can then claim the opposing viewpoint is not scientifically proven, meaning they are free to continue to believe what they do is scientific.

There is also this thing called Reason which is not the same thing as the Scientific Method (which is also not the same thing as Science).  Plenty of things can be determined to be the case without any experiments being needed.  We do not have to throw ourselves off a cliff first in order to know that we personally will die.  I established that Thoughts precede Emotions rationally from the fact we do not have a pre-cognative worldview, so we have to decide through thinking how the world is in order to decide what emotions to have about it.

Here it is again for easy reference:

 Unless you have personally tested your belief in the real world and seen the results for yourself (subjected it to some form of repeated, real-world experimentation), your claim is much weaker than mine.   

Then both of our claims would be equally weak as neither of us have actually done said experimentation.  You are a salesmen and not a psychologist, therefore you do not study human nature scientifically; you study only how to most effectively sell things to people (it is like saying I understand the inner workings of a machine because I know which buttons to press).  Neither am I am expert in psychology, so my claims about the effectiveness of CBT would be just as weak as you claims about human nature. 

But I do find CBT to be true from personal experience, so now you have your long-awaited straight answer. 

 "I claim X because someone else claims X" is a much weaker argument than "I claim X because I did X (repeatedly)."

You statement is only true only if it only *one* other person.  The experience of a large body of people by contrast is far superior to your personal experience.  The experience of a large body of professionals with the relevant expertise is the most powerful argument from experience there is, far more powerful than an argument from the experience of one person, particularly one who is not an expert in that field. 

[To GoblinCookie]

You statement is only true only if it only *one* other person.  The experience of a large body of people by contrast is far superior to your personal experience.  The experience of a large body of professionals with the relevant expertise is the most powerful argument from experience there is, far more powerful than an argument from the experience of one person, particularly one who is not an expert in that field. 

In attempting to one-up my statement by creating an even stronger one, you are tacitly conceding my point. I'll simplify for clarity:

Me: "I claim X because someone else claims X" is a weaker argument than "I claim X because I did X."

You: "I claim X because I did X" is a weaker argument than "A large body of people claim X because they did X."

To make your argument, you accepted the premise of my argument -- namely, that personal experience is the strongest evidence of truth.

Further, I would like to inform you that:

a) There is a large body of other professionals with the relevant expertise who also attest to the truth of my statement.

b) I am, in fact, an expert in my field.

Therefore, according to your own words and reasoning, my statement is true. QED.

On the contrary Mr Pine.  Sometimes a person makes an argument based upon a premise they don't hold because the audience holds the premise.  Also you forgot I dispute your expertise and that of your fellows in the field in question rather than accepting it.

In any case, this thread has gone on for ages, has gone off-topic and I am finding that continuing it has become a chore.  So let's end it here.

[To GoblinCookie]

Sometimes a person makes an argument based upon a premise they don't hold because the audience holds the premise.

But that wasn't the case here. Nice try, though. 

 I dispute your expertise and that of your fellows in the field in question rather than accepting it.

Your dispute is irrelevant as it has no basis in fact and you are incapable of even beginning to evaluate our expertise.

The point of the debate, in case you forgot, was to establish that doing trumps talking. Now that you have admitted that is correct, we are indeed done here.

Thanks for the exchange.