Is this a good counterargument or does it validate the premises?

[Mr Skeptic]

Is it really a fair point? If you read lemur's post (now first in this thread) it assigns a motive to swansont, which seems opposite of what his motive really seems to be. But that could just be another grammatical mistake (the post already has one). If you interpret that as having meant that questioning the numbers rather than decrying the premise that the numbers could be used in that way validated that premise (silence implies agreement), it seems like a fair point, except... this argument validates the "silence implies agreement" idea, which itself is a logical fallacy. Best to simply take things at face value and not try to read between the lines when there might be nothing there.

[swansont]

If you aren't looking to be challenged, and if you can't take criticism, then why bother posting? I find it very disturbing that a moderator here can't get past his ego enough to give someone a fair point. It's just not that big of a deal. And it doesn't invalidate or counter any of your points and arguments. Just an observation that entertaining that numbers argument was validating the numbers argument.

 

It's the kind of thing that you usually point out to the rest of us. I'm genuinely surprised.

 

Being challenged and criticized for something I said is one thing, but for something I didn't say? That's is quite different. Sorry to go Godwin here, but … I haven't denounced Hitler lately. Does that make me a Nazi? How can I be asked to defend a position I never took?

 

I pointed out that someone contradicted their own statistical claim, in order to point out how untenable the position was; I was not validating it. I never said I agreed with the position (nor did I say I disagreed, for that matter. The conversation never got that far). I can't help it if someone else misconstrues what I say, other than to give clarification when asked. And yet, that request never came. Instead, I was told that I was arguing in order to reach a particular goal, which was news to me.

 

 

 

I'm also disturbed by the "ignore" comment from a moderator. Such an odd step for an otherwise reasonable logician.

 

 

You're right. I posted that in haste, which was an overreaction to this affair and for that I apologize; I did not add you to my ignore list. But really, I'm tired of having to point out that I didn't say any of these things; it's all inference based on assumptions. And those assumptions are wrong.

[lemur]

If you are going to use that logic, you have to assume that anyone here that did not expressly disagree with jryan must therefore agree with him, which is a version of the appeal to ignorance fallacy. Pangloss was quite correct in pointing out that trying to read between the lines is a dangerous thing. Silence is silence, not assent.

 

Again, I don't care about whether you personally remain silent or assent. My concern is with the implication of measuring rates of violence for classes of religion or otherwise.

[padren]

The premise of the argument you were engaged in with jryan was challenged. Silence was not assent and doesn't apply. Your position and motives were not assumed, nor referenced. Only the entertainment of an invalid metric was being challenged, and for good reason.

 

Again, I don't care about whether you personally remain silent or assent. My concern is with the implication of measuring rates of violence for classes of religion or otherwise.

 

With regards to both of these comments, I just want to point out that it is common to use the logic of an argument to demonstrate an argument's weakness and that should not be considered implicit agreement with the premise. Consider a (slightly) less touchy issue - such as someone suggesting that 98% of people on death row are guilty, therefore capital punishment is justifiable. Someone can challenge the validity of the 98% number (especially if the proponent has changed that number between posts) without implying agreement with the premise that a critical percentage of guilty prisoners justifies capitol punishment.

 

 

Above and beyond any position on any topic is the issue of the validity of any data cited, and it's in the common interest of all parties to challenge, test and refine it - regardless of position.

 

 

Secondarily, I think it's quite fine to comment something like "I just want to point out that regardless of whether the ratio [n] has a value of [x] or [y], I think the premise that [n] at any value can be used to legitimately label a broad sociological group is inherently flawed."

 

At that point, you are challenging the premise, not the value being disputed without making (somewhat understandable but still inaccurate) assertions about the posters' views.

Edited September 16, 2010 by padren

[swansont]

With regards to both of these comments, I just want to point out that it is common to use the logic of an argument to demonstrate an argument's weakness and that should not be considered implicit agreement with the premise. Consider a (slightly) less touchy issue - such as someone suggesting that 98% of people on death row are guilty, therefore capital punishment is justifiable. Someone can challenge the validity of the 98% number (especially if the proponent has changed that number between posts) without implying agreement with the premise that a critical percentage of guilty prisoners justifies capitol punishment.

 

 

Above and beyond any position on any topic is the issue of the validity of any data cited, and it's in the common interest of all parties to challenge, test and refine it - regardless of position.

 

 

Secondarily, I think it's quite fine to comment something like "I just want to point out that regardless of whether the ratio [n] has a value of [x] or [y], I think the premise that [n] at any value can be used to legitimately label a broad sociological group is inherently flawed."

 

At that point, you are challenging the premise, not the value being disputed without making (somewhat understandable but still inaccurate) assertions about the posters' views.

 

Thank you. I was having trouble coming up with a reasonable-sounding counterexample.

[lemur]

With regards to both of these comments, I just want to point out that it is common to use the logic of an argument to demonstrate an argument's weakness and that should not be considered implicit agreement with the premise. Consider a (slightly) less touchy issue - such as someone suggesting that 98% of people on death row are guilty, therefore capital punishment is justifiable. Someone can challenge the validity of the 98% number (especially if the proponent has changed that number between posts) without implying agreement with the premise that a critical percentage of guilty prisoners justifies capitol punishment.

 

You're right that this example seems to imply different things, but I think it is worth analyzing why and how. I've paid attention to identity-labeling and attribution for a long time, and there is definitely a pattern of inferring group responsibility for actions inferred as collective in some cases, albeit not others. Attributing collective guilt to death row inmates doesn't really work because the fact that they are on death row implies that the killing in question is in the past and they are no longer going to have access to victims. If you would be having the same discussion about released convicted felons committing subsequent crimes, the discourse could easily go in the direction of arguing for greater security for all ex-inmates because they are presumed to be a source of crime generally. This is just the basic logic of groupist-control; i.e. better to control a whole segment of the population to prevent some of them making trouble than to treat them as individuals and risk some individuals perpetrating crime. This is of course the opposite logic as the "innocent until proven guilty" individual fair trial approach.

 

Ideally, people would always state explicitly their premises and possible interpretations of the terms of their discussion. Many times, however, they are not aware OR they just don't care. It doesn't really matter why people imply collective-responsibility attribution according to group classifications. My main concern is disrupting that logic from passing unproblematically. If people would state the reasons they are disputing data, the premises wouldn't be left to inference. The issue isn't whether the inference was implied or only inferred, but whether it has the potential to emerge and what the possible consequences may be if it does.

Edited September 16, 2010 by lemur

[padren]

You're right that this example seems to imply different things, but I think it is worth analyzing why and how. I've paid attention to identity-labeling and attribution for a long time, and there is definitely a pattern of inferring group responsibility for actions inferred as collective in some cases, albeit not others.

The fact that people generalize was not being disputed. Nor was whether or not it is reasonable to do so.

 

Attributing collective guilt to death row inmates doesn't really work because the fact that they are on death row implies that the killing in question is in the past and they are no longer going to have access to victims. If you would be having the same discussion about released convicted felons committing subsequent crimes, the discourse could easily go in the direction of arguing for greater security for all ex-inmates because they are presumed to be a source of crime generally.

The point of the comparison was to demonstrate how a singular characteristic (being found guilty of a capital crime) can be applied to everyone who shares that characteristic even when it is not the characteristic that justifies the action being applied. In my example, I used innocent death row inmates vs. guilty death row inmates as the hypothetical disputed ratio - since it's generally acceptable to treat all convicted inmates as guilty inmates due to the sheer number of guilty inmates among the convicted population. This was the only singular point of comparison I was trying to draw.

 

This is just the basic logic of groupist-control; i.e. better to control a whole segment of the population to prevent some of them making trouble than to treat them as individuals and risk some individuals perpetrating crime. This is of course the opposite logic as the "innocent until proven guilty" individual fair trial approach.

I think there is justifiable reasons at times to generalize. If someone chugs from a bottle of vodka and gets in a car - that's a pretty justifiable reason to think they are driving under the influence. Sure - the bottle may turn out to be filled with water and not vodka, but it's a reasonable basis for suspicion, as most people drinking clear liquid from a bottle of vodka are probably drinking vodka, and not water.

 

Please note: I am only outlaying this as a "fringe scenario" to demonstrate that generalizations are not unilaterally impractical or unethical. I do not think it is reasonable to conflate Islam and terrorism.

 

Ideally, people would always state explicitly their premises and possible interpretations of the terms of their discussion. Many times, however, they are not aware OR they just don't care. It doesn't really matter why people imply collective-responsibility attribution according to group classifications. My main concern is disrupting that logic from passing unproblematically. If people would state the reasons they are disputing data, the premises wouldn't be left to inference. The issue isn't whether the inference was implied or only inferred, but whether it has the potential to emerge and what the possible consequences may be if it does.

 

I think it's understandable why you jumped the gun, but all the same you did. You attacked a problem that wasn't there in that conversion.

 

In addition, it's worth noting that on a forum like this it's not worth making assumptions. It is a fact that swansont did not propose that any given ratio of made the generalization acceptable - he only commented that the ratio shifted and wanted to know which ratio the proponent considered both acceptable and accurate.

 

The topic you wanted to explore is a worthwhile one IMO, but it wasn't relevant to that discussion (it could be relevant to the thread in general, just not that exchange within the thread). That's really the only point I wanted to make.

[lemur]

I think it's understandable why you jumped the gun, but all the same you did. You attacked a problem that wasn't there in that conversion.

I neither jumped the gun or did I attack a problem. I just pointed out an implication that could be inferred from the discussion for the sake of preventing that inference from being made.

 

In addition, it's worth noting that on a forum like this it's not worth making assumptions. It is a fact that swansont did not propose that any given ratio of made the generalization acceptable - he only commented that the ratio shifted and wanted to know which ratio the proponent considered both acceptable and accurate.

It doesn't matter to me what his intent was because I wasn't accusing anyone of anything. I was just pointing out that the longer multiple people ran with the assumption that there was a threshold of attribution to the religion as a collective, the more likely it would be to associate ALL religious practitioners with the attribute. I don't know why anyone would want to promote that.

 

The topic you wanted to explore is a worthwhile one IMO, but it wasn't relevant to that discussion (it could be relevant to the thread in general, just not that exchange within the thread). That's really the only point I wanted to make.

If you don't raise the issue when it is relevant, it makes it that much less likely that people will notice it when it does come up. I don't know why you would want to separate one from the other unless you were just trying to allow the analytical assumptions to pass uncritically and stifle any recognition of them as such.

 

 

[swansont]

I neither jumped the gun or did I attack a problem. I just pointed out an implication that could be inferred from the discussion for the sake of preventing that inference from being made.

 

 

It doesn't matter to me what his intent was because I wasn't accusing anyone of anything. I was just pointing out that the longer multiple people ran with the assumption that there was a threshold of attribution to the religion as a collective, the more likely it would be to associate ALL religious practitioners with the attribute. I don't know why anyone would want to promote that.

 

 

When you say "You are arguing X to imply Y" you are making an accusation (post #1). "You are trying to compare" is an accusation (post #10). When you say "one was claiming X was true" you are making an accusation (post #17). Not once in that span was the word "infer" used. The only time "imply" was used was as part of the accusation in post 1.

 

Pointing out an inconsistency in an argument in no way implies that the rest of the argument is assumed to be true. And what made matters much worse is that I told you I wasn't endorsing that argument, and I had to do it more than once.

[lemur]

Pointing out an inconsistency in an argument in no way implies that the rest of the argument is assumed to be true. And what made matters much worse is that I told you I wasn't endorsing that argument, and I had to do it more than once.

It was irrelevant what you endorsed or were aware of. The fact was that the discussion contained the logic I drew attention to. All that matters to me is that there is an awareness that whatever correlation you find between Islam or religion generally and violence, that the relationship is not causal and does not imply that religion or Islam is a necessary or sufficient cause of violence. The simple fact is that it doesn't matter how many muslims commit violence, that says absolutely nothing about the muslims who don't. Same with other religions and secular people.

[swansont]

It was irrelevant what you endorsed or were aware of. The fact was that the discussion contained the logic I drew attention to. All that matters to me is that there is an awareness that whatever correlation you find between Islam or religion generally and violence, that the relationship is not causal and does not imply that religion or Islam is a necessary or sufficient cause of violence. The simple fact is that it doesn't matter how many muslims commit violence, that says absolutely nothing about the muslims who don't. Same with other religions and secular people.

 

My issue isn't that you drew attention to the logic. It's that you did it by repeatedly accusing the wrong target of using that logic.

[lemur]

My issue isn't that you drew attention to the logic. It's that you did it by repeatedly accusing the wrong target of using that logic.

 

How many times do I have to repeat that I wasn't "targeting" anyone, just explicating an observation about analytical implications? Why do you insist on making this into a personal status issue?

[swansont]

How many times do I have to repeat that I wasn't "targeting" anyone, just explicating an observation about analytical implications? Why do you insist on making this into a personal status issue?

 

You may not have meant to target anyone, but that's what ended up happening. It became personal when you quoted my posts and told me, erroneously, what I was saying or doing, and what my objective was in doing so. I don't like being misrepresented.

[lemur]

You may not have meant to target anyone, but that's what ended up happening. It became personal when you quoted my posts and told me, erroneously, what I was saying or doing, and what my objective was in doing so. I don't like being misrepresented.

 

I don't blame you but all you have to do to prevent that is to clearly state your position. All you seem to do is make arguments about what is or isn't inferable. Why don't you just state your position and be done with it?

[Pangloss]

Well, that's why you should ask rather than assume, lemur. As I explained to you earlier, you're expected not to read between the lines, but there's no reason why you can't ask another party what their opinion is (or to clarify, etc). If they object, then I will remind them that this is an opinion-based subsection of the forum and as such one's opinions are not only subject to discussion, but expected to appear in post content. But often, if you ask, you'll likely discover that they weren't intending to hide anything at all. They might have made an error, or perhaps assumed that the community was already familiar with their position on the issue. (Most of these folks have been posting here for quite a few years.)

 

I'm closing this thread because it's devolved into an unproductive (and rather silly) merry-go-round. You're more than welcome to send me a private message about it if you would like to discuss it further. Thanks.