Logic Lesson!!

And, incidentally;

Reason Y is never a good reason to believe anything about any historical event.

Isn’t and “argument” it’s an opinion. You don’t support the opinion you assert it and then make an analogy to another historical event and what you beleive to be a ludicrous position.

Is this how you were taught to debate? Assertion followed by farce? [haredawg]

Haredawg gets his very own entry! I think it’s for the benefit of all, otherwise I wouldn’t have typed it.

You’re right that “Reason Y is never a good reason to believe anything about any historical event.” standing alone is not an argument, but thank God (sic) what I actually typed out is an argument:

Person A believes historical event X because of reason Y.

Reason Y is never a good reason to believe anything about any historical event.

Example, hypothetical person B believes historical event Z because of reason Y. And we have very good reasons (accepted by person A even) for having exactly opposite beliefs about historical event Z.

If you want the technical terms for the argument, I can do it in full formal logic if you really want – (I’ve actually had 3 classes in logic: 2 philosophy and 1 in mathematics – all A’s).

So let’s review some logic terms:

Reductio Ad Absurdum- is a process of refutation on grounds that absurd -and patently untenable consequences would ensue from accepting the item at issue.

This takes three principal forms according as that untenable consequence is:

1. a self-contradiction (ad absurdum)

2. a falsehood (ad falsum or even ad impossibile)

3. an implausibility or anomaly (ad ridiculum or ad incommodum)

Is this how you were taught to debate? Assertion followed by farce?

Something like that.

In the argument that you’re upset about, we have the first line:

Person A believes historical event X because of reason Y.

To use reductio ad absurdum, all I would have to do is show a contradiction, but I went the ad falsum route:

hypothetical person B believes historical event Z because of reason Y.

Basing beliefs about historical events on reason Y (how you feel about them) results in “absurd – and patently untenable consequences would ensue from accepting the item at issue.” And I’m done.

Or if you want me to do it again, more broadly:

Assertion: I don’t believe that people die because that makes me feel sad.

Counter-Example: People do die.

Conclusion: Basing your beliefs about external reality based on how you feel about it, leads to beliefs that are patently false.

The fact that the second belief in my original example is absurd – let’s say it was so absurd that no one at all believed it…like the moon is really just an optical illusion perpetrated by unicorns that want to steal underwear…is the point of a reductio…

So the whole thing in all it’s reductio ad absurdum glory:

“1. I believe that Jesus died and rose again 2,000 years ago, because that makes me feel good.

2. I believe that the moon is an optical illusion perpetrated by unicorns that want to steal underwear, because that makes me feel good. (edit)

(this is where we say, “that clearly isn’t true! No one believes that!”)

Right!

If I can conclude something that absurd from the same reasoning process given to justify another belief, then we clearly know that that reasoning process is in error.

This is why every time you say, “but no one believes that second thing” I agree with you. You’re right, that second thing is absurd, congratulations you’ve figured out the formal argument process called: Reductio Ad Absurdum.