<snip>
> SARAH
> I agree that the web addresses you list are well worth reading and absorbing,
> but to say that this is the only way to debate is a bit much. If I wish to
> make a statement and not use the rules you love so well, does that mean I
> should keep my trap shut? I think not. This is supposed to be a friendly
> biblical errancy debating forum, not a professional debate club(at least
> that's what I thought when I subscribed).
> I don't mean to be rude, but I get a bit tired of all of the rules.
Grammar proper use you find hard it to do when conversation a have you
wish to?
You learn the grammar of your native language as you grow, and as an
adult, even without ever taking a single formal grammar course, have no
difficulty forming grammatically proper (for your time and place) sentences.
If, however, you attempt to learn a foreign language, generally you must
learn the grammar of that language in a more formal manner. For this reason, it
is quite common for a foreigner, who has had to learn English as a second
language to actually know more of the formal grammar of English than the vast
majority of native speakers (who often pretty much ignored most grammar
instruction they received in school).
Yet if you don't follow the rules, your sentences would be almost
unintelligible, as witness the sentence I opened with. "Do you find it hard to
use proper grammar when you wish to have a conversation?"
In this case, it contains an actual sentence. Now suppose there was an
entire page, or more, full of that tortured syntax--sans any capitalization or
punctuation--it would be almost impossible to read, particularly if the syntax
of each sentence were completely random. Further, it would be horribly difficult
sometimes to ascertain if anything at all was actually being said.
Since, however, you and most others automatically and without having to
think about it, follow standard rules of grammar, our sentences are mutually
intelligible, at least most of the time.
Another system with copious rules--that you had to learn the hard way,
yet which you understand that you must follow is mathematics, even simple
arithmetic. You had to be taught to keep the columns of numbers straight in
addition, multiplication, and division problems. The rules for adding and
subtracting etc. Here too, you probably understand and can easily see the
importance of following what might have seemed (and sometimes perhaps still
seem) to be rather arbitrary rules.
If you don't follow the rules, you can't be certain of getting the right
answer, and indeed almost certainly will not, except by fluke.
The "rules" of logic important to most discussions are very simple, and
people often correctly reason without ever having had a single logic course. But
where the problems become more complex, or less familiar, or we can suspect a
bias on anyones part--including our own, then just as with even a simple
arithmetic problem if it,s important that the answer be right, then it pays to
be familiar with some of the more formal rules, even if only the simplest.
For example, if you needed to know how much money you would need for
some item for daily use for a year, 365 days, and it's cost was $3.79 per
day--would you solving that in your head, or would you at least use pencil and
paper?
Many of the mistakes people on the list make, Dave Court in particular,
are very simple fallacies of reasoning. Even if their conclusions happen to be
correct, they cannot validly flow from a fallacious argument.
Everything I bring up on the list, or have so far, is to be found in the
first 3 chapters of the logic text I use, and most of it is available on the
logic FAQ.
There is only one right way to add 2 + 2 in base ten arithmetic and get
the right answer. There are very many ways to manipulate numbers validly to get
an answer of 4, but only one right way to ADD 2 and 2 and get that answer. This
may seem too obvious to need stating, but the reasoning fallacies listed on the
FAQ are just as simple.
In closing, here's an exercise to help illustrate just HOW important
being able to recognize the fallacies in the FAQ.
First, save the FAQ as an html file from your browser, and also print
out a hard copy.
Now, highlight or cut and paste to a word processor the following
fallacies and their descriptions:
the argument from ignorance
accident and converse accident
ad hominem
genetic fallacy
fallacy of composition
fallacy of division
argument ad populem
Now, keep that list handy for the next few days and start looking for
those fallacies on the OP/ED page of your newspaper in the editorials, opinion
colums and in the letters.
I predict two things will happen. First, you will get good at spotting
those very common fallacies, and second, you will be appalled at just how little
reasoned discourse actually occurs on said page, even by people you respect!!!
Once you get your eyes opened to just how little reasoning often takes
place, I think you'll understand the importance of understanding those
fallacies.
You will also see, obviously, why Dave Court's reasoning is so, to be
charitable, silly.
Ciao.
-- Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret., law student* * * He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. Thomas Paine