Logic

[philipmarus]

The other day I was involved in discussion where my Protestant friend enaged in what is commonly referred as the straw man argument on a certain Church teaching.In response, I pointed out that this was logical fallacy. My friend then responded that the whole system of logic and its list of fallacies were a “man-made” and arbitrary invention of men that consequently he not bound to follow its precepts.
.I was dumbfounded that someone would argue this.

 

[Fidelis]

The other day I was involved in discussion where my Protestant friend enaged in what is commonly referred as the straw man argument on a certain Church teaching.In response, I pointed out that this was logical fallacy. My friend then responded that the whole system of logic and its list of fallacies were a “man-made” and arbitrary invention of men that consequently he not bound to follow its precepts.
.I was dumbfounded that someone would argue this.

You were right to be. It is the ultimate in refusing all evidence for a position contrary to your own. Not only do I not accept your scriptural interpretation, but I refuse to listen to simple reason. So I must be right, and you are wrong. So there. :whacky:

 

[Atreyu]

Did you read the Pope’s recent speech at Regensburg (the controversial one)? Your friend is not acting with logos.

 

[VociMike]

I suppose you could reply, when he says “scripture says X”,

“No it doesn’t.”

“But of course it does! Look at it!”

“So what? Language is just a man-made and arbitrary invention. I don’t agree that X (being any old thing he quotes from scripture) means what you say it means.”

In other words, take his own approach, and give it back to him in spades. This will of course exasperate him no end. And then he might not be so flippant about rejecting the common ground that makes discourse possible.

 

[tdgesq]

I agree. If the laws of logic do not apply, then nothing in the world makes sense. If logic is entirely an arbitrary convention, then that includes the law of noncontradiction. That means that when he says, “the whole system of logic and its list of fallacies were a ‘man-made’ and arbitrary invention of men,” it can also be true at the same time and in the same sense that the whole system of logic is not man made and not an arbitrary invention of men. There is no way around this. If the law of noncontradiction does not apply, then a proposition can be and not be at the same time. Point out to him that by abandoning logic, he refutes his own position.

 

[RobNY]

I agree. If the laws of logic do not apply, then nothing in the world makes sense…oint out to him that by abandoning logic, he refutes his own position.

Clearly, but it won’t be so clear to him. We need to bring him to understanding. Certainly, the nature of the fundamental laws of logic are such that, if one grasps them, they cannot reasonably be denied-- but maybe we should then present them in such a way that he can grasp them.

But the first thing that ought to be noted is, the strawman fallacy is not a formal fallacy (a fallacy in reasoning) but rather a material fallacy-- a material fallacy is not actually a fallacy, that is, a mistake in reasoning, but rather mistakes in content, or matter or meaning.

Basically, to commit the strawman argument is not to make a mistake in reasoning, or in logical form, but the mistake is in attributing a stance to your opponent which he does not hold.

Hence, it has nothing to do with the logical laws which are supposedly made up. (At least not directly.)

The other day I was involved in discussion where my Protestant friend enaged in what is commonly referred as the straw man argument on a certain Church teaching.In response, I pointed out that this was logical fallacy. My friend then responded that the whole system of logic and its list of fallacies were a “man-made” and arbitrary invention of men that consequently he not bound to follow its precepts.
.I was dumbfounded that someone would argue this.

Ironically, he uses the syllogism to refute the basis of the syllogism, namely, the laws underlying it.

“The whole systemm of logic and its list of fallacies were a “man made” and arbitrary invention of men,” hence, “consequently, he is not bound to follow its precepts.”

This is what is called an enthymeme, because one of the premises is actually concealed. It’s not a dirty trick or anything-- we all do it all the time. Basically, I’ll construct the syllogism in logical form for you.

1. No [that which is arbitrary and man-made] is [that which is bound to be followed].
2. All [logic and its list of fallacies] are [that which is arbitrary and man-made].
3. Therefore, No [logic and its list of fallacies] is [that which is bound to be followed].

The form is…

1. No is [P].
   [*]All is [P].
   [*]Therefore, No is [P].
   

Now, how do we judge that this is a valid syllogism? There are several rules for judging a valid syllogism.

1. Does it have three and only three terms?

Check. Your friend, while disregarding the rules of the syllogism still accomplished this first step rather masterfully.

1. Does it have three and only three propositions?

Check-- although one is implied, that is not a problem.

1. Is the middle term distributed at least once?

Distribution refers to how much of the subject or predicate is being referred to. If something is distributed it is a claim about all of it-- a universal claim. If it is undistributed it is a claim about some of it. “All” and “No” make a subject distributed, “Some” makes it undistributed. “Is” makes a predicate undistributed, “is not” makes a predicate distributed. Note, however, that an E proposition,. “No is [P]” actually is negative as regards the predicate. It is a rewording of the vague “All is not [P]” which is vague due to the English language

Let’s check:

Noting distribution (with my silly substitutions because I’m lazy and didn’t want to write it out again…):

1. No [twi A and MM] (distributed) is [BtbF] (distributed).
2. All [L&LoF] (distributed) is [twi A and MM] (undistributed).
3. Therefore, No [L&LoF] (distributed) is [BtbF] (distributed).

Ok, the middle term, “that which is arbitrary and man-made” is distributed once. Check.

1. No term undistributed in the premise may be distributed in the conclusion.

Referring back upwards-- they are distributed both times.

1. Can’t have two negative premises.

Check.

1. If one premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative.

Check.

In short, all 6 rules check out. Your friend constructed a valid syllogism.

So ask your friend, if he constructed a valid syllogism, then why are the laws which make his syllogism invalid? If the laws that make his syllogism are invalid then why is his argument that he doesn’t have to abide by the laws of logic valid?

If you find this too daunting to try to explain to him, then just drop the terminology, ‘straw man.’ Instead, speak plainly: nice job refuting that point buddy, but we dont’ believe it. You haven’t refuted us, you’ve refuted a point we don’t believe.

If he won’t even listen plainly to that, then, what can I say, he’s beyond your help.

 

[philipmarus]

Did you read the Pope’s recent speech at Regensburg (the controversial one)? Your friend is not acting with logos.

I managed to get a hold the speech tonight. Thanks for the suggestion. Very interesting reading from our Holy Father.