tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post8501797681137917766..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Examples of SophistryAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-17241009450450033182018-08-02T10:00:42.207-06:002018-08-02T10:00:42.207-06:00Hi Alonzo,
I enjoyed this post.
I love the fact ...Hi Alonzo,<br /><br />I enjoyed this post.<br /><br />I love the fact that the nay-sayers in these comments are attacking you (attempting to) using the very fallacies that you write about!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-15810674265216272592017-11-30T08:34:03.139-07:002017-11-30T08:34:03.139-07:00I would say that while your definition of sophistr...I would say that while your definition of sophistry is valid, you yourself are guilty of Ad Hominem (Tu quoque) in your use of examples of fallacious arguments of the far right as sole examples of sophistry, failing to point out any possible examples outside of those from a subset of supporters of the Republican Party. I cannot assert intent on your part, as it is very difficult to be truly objective when it comes to such a subject, however it is undeniable here that there is definitely a political "slant" to this article. <br /><br />If you do believe that sophistry makes someone a "bad person" (a sort of qualitative assertion typically employed by Sophists) then you should re-read your own statements. As if to veer into an uncontrollable deluge pouring unto the highway of rational thought from a tidal wave of mediocre academic "intellectual protectionism" you fall right into the very trap you set for those on the right. You straw man right-wing thinkers and supporters through your own examples of why using sophistry subjectively makes you a "bad person".<br /><br /><br />I would say that there are many examples of ad hominem in modern politica that are crafted specifically to speciously define a person in order to not only impugn but to invalidate. "Racist", "sexist", "SJW", "Remoaner", "Islamophobe"; these are all examples of the sort of anti-intellectual, anti-rational dismissal that both sides of the political spectrum use to discredit the person they do not wish to debate. Here, in this very article, there is not only implicit guilt applied to all Republicans based on the comments of a few, but there is also a large-scale dismissal of any possible arguments they could make on the grounds that anything they could say would be inherently invalidated by some other belief.<br /><br />By this standard, I could say any person who argues a fundamental fact (five is greater than three) is immediately derisible due to another belief they may have that all Muslims are terrorists, or that Islamic Terrorism does not exist (two ends of an ideological spectrum). There is no point in arguing against any fact or statement that person may now make simply on the grounds that they believe something you fundamentally disagree with on a subjective level, or something that is objectively factual.<br /><br />You have crafted an argument about sophistry in such a way that any attempt to debate or even discredit your argument can be easily dismissed as a sort of partisanship or anti-intellectualism. It's is important to remain objective when making an objective thesis, and being unable to do so without veering into vitriol is a fundamental trait of a modern sophist. Not to say you ARE a "bad person", I do not know you, and as I stated, I can not apply intent towards you, but it is not difficult to read into your written thoughts on some people's arguments very reasonably that there is motive to your thesis beyond simply defining a fallacy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-87663555083262215952017-10-20T11:57:02.698-06:002017-10-20T11:57:02.698-06:00BRAVO ALONZO! You got what you were after. 'T...BRAVO ALONZO! You got what you were after. 'Twas an interesting read. Are you doing research on sophistry?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-53079156695508574112016-04-19T03:16:34.199-06:002016-04-19T03:16:34.199-06:00Good post. Many of the comments here give living i...Good post. Many of the comments here give living illustrations of your points. We have an overabundance of people in our society who either manipulate facts to sway the argument to their side, or simply don't understand or care about facts and logic to begin with.<br /><br />And FWIW, I say this as a theist.eainoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-12242702717968364772015-07-08T08:55:54.167-06:002015-07-08T08:55:54.167-06:00I stumbled across your blog when I took a googol o...I stumbled across your blog when I took a googol on the term "psychology of sophistry". I got a chuckle out of your first sentence:<br /><br />"An anonymous member of the studio audience has decided to illustrate some of the behaviors that are common among those who care little for reason and truth."<br /><br />It would be the height of sophistry to assert that only atheists and that no theists would care about reason and truth.<br /><br />Carry on, y'all.Ivan Oranrofhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11291714286596452639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-23672646031460076452014-05-05T20:51:35.433-06:002014-05-05T20:51:35.433-06:00This is true, Brian, we do need to do this. All of...This is true, Brian, we do need to do this. All of you have good points, but do read this comment.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06265822535133329979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-15273053037051063022012-02-15T13:47:38.621-07:002012-02-15T13:47:38.621-07:00It's amazing how we've all lost our humili...It's amazing how we've all lost our humility. Do we always have to "win"? Do we always have to save face? Cannot one person lose an argument and say, "You have a point there, let me reconsider and let's learn from each other?"Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11300023800887883472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-33271213928585905142012-02-11T23:13:16.656-07:002012-02-11T23:13:16.656-07:00"A sophist is a person who seeks to use facts..."A sophist is a person who seeks to use facts about the psychology of belief to manipulate others – often to their own disadvantage. A sophist is not a good person. He does not have desires that people generally have reason to promote. Instead of a love of truth, he has a love of manipulating others through deception – of being a type of political con man. This type of political con-man is responsible for a great deal of the suffering we see around us."<br /><br />If an article was written about criminals and only black felons were mentioned the author might be accused of racism. “Whether a person is guilty of such a transgression is independent of who else might also be guilty.”—really?<br /><br />Your point would be valid if your post was about logical fallacies in conservative arguments. As this was apparently not your stated purpose—as illustrated by the quote I copied—it makes you look less objective and more partisan. Possibly this was your intention, but it is hardly worthy as intellectual discourse. Repeatedly in your post you say that the “sophist” does this or the “sophist” does that—not the conservative sophist does this or that. <br /><br />Society already has too many unbearable, partisan commentators who demean the art of discourse. Take your pick; the insufferable Rush Limbaugh or any number of less famous, but equally brainless commentators on my local “progressive” radio station. They battle on all sides of the political spectrum. Are you no better than them? It would be refreshing to have someone to read and follow who wasn’t just another pseudo-intellectual conservative/progressive snob. <br /><br />If your purpose was to write something your progressive friends would agree with you succeeded. If your purpose was to try to convince some backward thinking conservative to change his/her way of thinking—try again. If your purpose was to enlighten and educate—epic fail!Mariohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12268049376314972467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-9922425467276791992012-01-11T15:00:24.356-07:002012-01-11T15:00:24.356-07:00Mario
That is like saying that it is intellectual...<b>Mario</b><br /><br />That is like saying that it is intellectually dishonest to accuse a black person of murder unless one accuses a white person as well - or to prove that a German is lying in the absence of proving that a Frenchman or Englishman has also lied.<br /><br />Whether a person is guilty of such a transgression is independent of who else might also be guilty.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-80957657913948731482012-01-11T14:33:04.368-07:002012-01-11T14:33:04.368-07:00It sounds like you’re saying, “Don’t look at me--l...It sounds like you’re saying, “Don’t look at me--look at those conservatives over there. They believe all these silly things because of a logical flaw in their argument.”. Your post would be intellectually honest if you had pointed out logical flaws in both conservative and progressive positions. Unless you don’t think there are any logical fallacies in the progressive point of view; in which case your argument is sound intellectually and perfectly valid.Marionoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-86207590246041131582009-08-19T12:51:30.739-06:002009-08-19T12:51:30.739-06:00"A not-so-charitable read of your comments wo..."A not-so-charitable read of your comments would deem this the latest in your growing history of twisting and lying about the words of people with whom you disagree to impugn their integrity."<br /><br />How can anyone "impugn the integrity" of an Anonymous person? That's just more sophistry it seems to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-60218698433248730972009-08-19T08:31:27.760-06:002009-08-19T08:31:27.760-06:00One of the positions that I have defended in this ...One of the positions that I have defended in this blog is that the moral standards governing accusations of wrongdoing are well captured in the principles governing a court of law.<br /><br />These include the principle that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that the accusor has an obligation to provide evidence in support of the accusation.<br /><br />This means:<br /><br />(1) Defining the moral crime (in this case, 'sophistry') in such a way so as to identify its properties including those properties that make it worthy of condemnation (sophistry pollutes public debate and promotes fictions that do real-world harm).<br /><br />(2) Demonstrating evidence that the actions of the accused have those qualities that define the moral crime (fallacious arguments that attempt to divert attention from the subject at hand or misrepresent core facts such as treating an extreme example as a typical example).<br /><br />The same as would happen in a court of law.<br /><br />Or, more precisely, a court of justice.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-29524800188190464132009-08-19T08:01:31.453-06:002009-08-19T08:01:31.453-06:00This isn't a court. You're just a jerk. ...This isn't a court. You're just a jerk. I find it hard to believe you're going to be a person responsible for making the world better.Thom Blakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00842876720820172673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-57883046245634168972009-08-19T07:27:40.259-06:002009-08-19T07:27:40.259-06:00Right on, Alonzo!!
Great Post!!
It would appear ...Right on, Alonzo!!<br /><br />Great Post!!<br /><br />It would appear that this "anonymous" is one of the "slime balls" of which you write.antonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02909850387414677663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-41865044101981133312009-08-19T07:02:17.834-06:002009-08-19T07:02:17.834-06:00Morally, it is the responsibility of the accuser t...Morally, it is the responsibility of the accuser to provide evidence supporting the truth of the accusations, not the responsibility of the accused to prove that they are innocent.<br /><br />In this post, I made my accusations and I provided my evidence.<br /><br />If you wish, you may now argue in your own defense.<br /><br />However, it is not a legitimate defense to say that the making of accusations itself is wrong. This would be like a criminal in a court case arguing that the case should be thrown out because, "The prosecuting attorney is saying mean things about me."Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-73180980246020933122009-08-19T06:13:06.193-06:002009-08-19T06:13:06.193-06:00How 'bout you explain how this one isn't a...How 'bout you explain how this one isn't a naked smear, then we'll talk about your greatest hits?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-61528690136799732352009-08-19T05:28:52.850-06:002009-08-19T05:28:52.850-06:00Anonymous
You make an accusation without providin...Anonymous<br /><br />You make an accusation without providing any evidence to back it up - suggesting that the accusation has value, whether or not it can be shown to be true does not.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1420998075956157902009-08-18T22:51:18.955-06:002009-08-18T22:51:18.955-06:00A charitable read of your comments would be that y...A charitable read of your comments would be that you are a sloppy and/or impatient reader of the things people say to you. You wrote your original response in the comments without thinking about my actual words, and wrote this extended response without reading my further explanation.<br /><br />A not-so-charitable read of your comments would deem this the latest in your growing history of twisting and lying about the words of people with whom you disagree to impugn their integrity. That does not strike me as the sort of thing that "a person with good desires" would do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com