Jul 15 2012

Plaintive logic

Categories:

Humor

by PZ Myers

It’s phrased as a syllogism, so William Lane Craig ought to love it.

Also, 100% of all creationist arguments. Therefore, philosophy is better than creationism.

This post has no tag

19 comments

Skip to comment form ↓

1

Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

15 July 2012 at 7:39 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Also, 100% of all creationist arguments.

It sure sounds like our present creobot. He is so sad science is right and his babble is wrong.
2

Dick the Damned

15 July 2012 at 7:56 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Jumpin’ Jeezus on two sticks, that sure sums up the religious mindset. And it does so, making me chuckle, which is more than i can say for what comes out of their mouths.
3

'Tis Himself

15 July 2012 at 7:57 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

So, what’s the fallacy in the argument given in the cartoon? It’s the basis of much political and economic thought these days.
4

andrewskegg

15 July 2012 at 8:00 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Self referential appeal to emotion fallacy. Also known as the “head up the ass” fallacy.
5

Iain Walker

15 July 2012 at 8:02 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

‘Tis Himself (#3):

So, what’s the fallacy in the argument given in the cartoon?

Probably argumentum ad consequentiam, with a side-order of self-directed argumentum ad misericordiam.
6

'Tis Himself

15 July 2012 at 8:28 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

I should know better than to try sardonic irony with this crowd.
7

kevinalexander

15 July 2012 at 10:09 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Self referential appeal to emotion fallacy. Also known as the “head up the ass” fallacy.

The theological version of that is In Anus Dei
8

hyperdeath

15 July 2012 at 10:10 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

It also sums up the Paula Kirby et al. mindset:

If the skeptic movement is contaminated with misogyny, then I will be sad.

I do not wish to be sad.

Therefore the skeptic movement is not contaminated with misogyny. (And everyone who makes me feel sad by disagreeing is a bully.)
9

DLC

15 July 2012 at 10:36 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

If set including PZ Myers is not a Poopyhead . . .
If set not including PZ Myers has a sad . . . oh skip it.
Too tired for faux boolean logic today.
10

radpumpkin

15 July 2012 at 10:45 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Ah, a most intriguing variant of modus tollens. And by variant I mean indefinite truth value, ergo flawed negation of conclusion, ergo flawed negation of initial premise. This could be fixed with “I am not sad,” though setting up an inference relationship with those two conditions is somewhere north of ludicrous.
11

Glen Davidson

15 July 2012 at 11:11 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Yes, but P is omnipotent. Therefore it can do anything, and thus is the best answer for any problem.

Which means that it’s good inductive reasoning to infer P, God.

Works at Uncommon Descent.

Glen Davidson
12

raven

15 July 2012 at 12:20 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

So, what’s the fallacy in the argument given in the cartoon? It’s the basis of much political and economic thought these days.

Fallacy that wishing something is true, makes it true. AKA as the Fallacy of Wishful Thinking or Magical Thinking.
13

Stardrake

15 July 2012 at 12:51 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

But if P is not true, what’s gonna happen with all this water and Diet Dew I’ve been drinking?
14

David Marjanović

15 July 2012 at 1:07 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

I should know better than to try sardonic irony with this crowd.

Look:

1) We can’t hear the tone of your voice, and we can’t see the subdued smirk on your face.

2) To say this fallacy is “the basis of much political and economic thought these days” is not irony or sardonic. It’s a plain, uncontested statement of fact. :-| Have you forgotten? We live in a world where, when the Onion publishes an article, a few months to years later some Republican acts it out.

The theological version of that is In Anus Dei

In ano. In goes with the ablative.
15

Frank Asshole

15 July 2012 at 2:55 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Just to set aside creoturds and other issues. John Searle (1998 ‘How to study consciousness scientifically’) made in my opinion good point about relation of philosophy and science.

“For the purposes of this discussion the only important distinction between philosophy and science is this: science is systematic knowledge; philosophy is in part an attempt to reach the point where we can have systematic knowledge. This is why science is always `right’ and philosophy is always `wrong’: as soon as we think we really know something we stop calling it philosophy and start calling it science. Beginning in the 17th century, the area of systematic knowledge, i.e. scientific knowledge, increased with the growth of systematic methods for acquiring knowledge.”

I know that it was provisonal, but i think it’s honest place for philosophers. IN THE PAST.
16

unclefrogy

15 July 2012 at 5:18 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

I think Frank’s quote has it about right. The ideas philosophy is mostly to my ears some variant of speculation until there is data to “prove’ the point when it then becomes part of the understanding of the world provided by science until then any actions taken as the result of those thoughts are gambling which can be accompanied by an unlimited amount of self delusion but do not need to be.

uncle frogy
17

Markita Lynda—damn climate change!

16 July 2012 at 12:33 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

That is about 50% of the generalized Christian argument right there. The other half is “The Bible is true because it’s the Word of God because I’ve been told so.”
18

carbonbasedlifeform

16 July 2012 at 9:59 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

I believe that the logical fallacy in the cartoon is affirming the antecedent, AKA modus ponens.
19

daniellavine

17 July 2012 at 2:39 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

This is why science is always `right’ and philosophy is always `wrong’: as soon as we think we really know something we stop calling it philosophy and start calling it science.

Dan Dennett said basically the same thing in one of the early lectures in his Philosophy of Mind class. I tend to trust his perspective on that sort of thing.