The Cycle of Action

The Cycle of Action

Adapted from pg. 20 of "Turning Numbers Into Knowledge", by Johnathan G. Koomey, and from "The Design of Everyday Things", by Norman, See it at Amazon

 

"Unpacking" the Atonement Comments Opened 20100125

This is a continuation of comments from "Unpacking" The Atonement Project.
Project members are MattK, RichD, and Harlan Quinn.

Arguments from Popular Opinion Scheme (Ad Populum)

aka, the Ad Populum Argument Scheme

* If a large majority in a particular reference group G accepts A as true (false), then there exists a defeasible presumption in favor of (against) A * A large majority accepts A as true (false). * Therefore, there exists a presumption in favor of (against) A This form of the argument might use polls or statistics meant to measure public opinion. This argument may or may not accurately reflect a real world state, but the fact that so many people commit to it, gives it a presumption that it does accurately reflect a real world state. (Walton, Reed, Macagno. 125) Critical Questions regarding the argument scheme. 1. Is it really the case that a large majority of the particular reference group accepts A as true? 2. Is there any other available evidence that would support the assumption that A is false? 3. What reason is there for thinking that the view of this large majority is likely to be right?

In order to determine if it does accurately reflect a real world state, whatever claim is being made must be verified.  Data gathering must be done with an emphasis on data about what its causes are, where it came from, what it interacts with, what it depends on and what it causes. 

Variant of the Basic Form of Ad Populum Argument Scheme
1. Position to Know
2. Expert Opinion
3. Deliberation
4. Moral Justification (Excuse subtype)
5. Moral Justification
6. Common Folks
7. Rhetoric of Belonging
8. Snob Appeal
9. Appeal to Vanity

Walton, Reed, Macagno. Argumentation Schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008, pgs 122-131

Bibliography

Diagramming Arguments for Study

On the left is a picture of a type of argument diagram. Douglas N. Walton uses the araucaria program, but I don't use it as much as I use this type of  form mixed with flowcharting conventions by hand. I use the software sometimes, but I mostly do diagrams using the tools I already know. Here are a couple of links to PDF Documents by Walton explaining what diagramming arguments is good for. Araucaria as a Tool for Diagramming Arguments in Teaching and Studying Philosophy   Argument Visualization Tools for Corroborative Evidence Douglas N. Waltons' site, University of Windsor

ARGUMENT VISUALIZATION SOFTWARE

Araucaria Argunet Automated Argument Assistance Carneades Compendium Debategraph Debatepedia Rationale

Position to Know Ad Populum Argument Scheme

Depending on preferred classification style, it can be a subcategory of Ad Populum or a subcategory of Source-based Arguments. Ad Populum arguments are inherently weak and prone to exploit prejudice. They are typically categorized as fallacies but in many instances they can be reasonable arguments and the best kind of evidence available to make a rational decision (Walton, Reed, Macagno. 121).

The degree of commitment to the truth of the argument varies from person to person, however, if artifacts are available for review in support of the Ad Populum argument, they strengthen the persuasiveness of the argument, and the Ad Populum argument takes on the characteristics of another more persuasive reasoning scheme.

The type of reasoning scheme that it transitions to must be assessed with regard to all that is known about it in order to determine which scheme it has transitioned to.

Major Premise: a person a is in a position to know about things in the domain of a subject which contains proposition P. Minor Premise: a asserts that P is true (or false). Conclusion: P is true (or false). Critical Questions about the argument 1. Is a in a position to know whether P is true (or false)? 2. Is a an honest (trustworthy, reliable) source? 3. Did a assert that P is true (or false)? Reference for this example in the book Argumentation Schemes Douglas Walton, Legal Argumentation and Evidence. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002, p. 46. Reference for this page in Argumentation Schemes Walton, Reed, Macagno. Argumentation Schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008, p. 309

The "Look" Test

As I study Informal Logic and argumentation, it occurs to me that arguments and persuasion are not necessary when the subject of discussion can be observed or if the discussants can "take a look". However if two discussants observe the same thing and understand it in different ways, then more looking is necessary.  There has to be some set of logical relationships inherent in the subject of a  topic that can be understood equally otherwise the subject of the topic couldn't exist outside of the mind that produced it.

Looking should always carry more force or be more persuasive than any argument.  Artifacts should always be more persuasive than arguments.

Distinguishing Between Arguments and Explanations

While the two can functionally be used interchangeably and combined, the intent behind each determines the context and the context is what makes the difference.

An explanation provides background information to facilitate understanding, and an argument is meant to persuade. In some cases the explanation is being provided to facilitate understanding of something that has already been accepted as true. In the case that an explanation is offered by a discussant and the other participating discussant knows the explanation can't be correct, then the context can shift and argumentation can proceed.

Explanation  Information that is supposed to indicate the origin, cause, meaning, or significance of an event or other phenomenon.
Example: "She's the best tennis player on the team because she has had better coaching, is in better shape, and practices a lot more than anyone else"

Argument  Information that is supposed to establish that a proposition is true or otherwise worthy of belief or acceptance.
Example: "She consistently defeats all her teammates, so she's the best tennis player on the team."
Ralph H. Johnson, J. Anthony Blair. Logical Self-Defense. New York: IDEA, 2006. 18-19.

Argument Indicators Quick Reference

A good way to spot an argument and identify its components are to look for the following words.

Premise Indicators

because	given that
since	granted that
for	for the reason that

Conclusion Indicators

therefore	thus	it follows that
so	accordingly	I conclude that
hence	and [so]	my conclusion is

Ralph H. Johnson, J. Anthony Blair. Logical Self-Defense. New York: IDEA, 2006. 13.

Unpacking "The Atonement" Project

This is a long term project intended as a collaboration with theists using shared documents with diagrams to Analyze the Concept of the Atonement as much as possible to assess its coherence.

STATUS 20100116

Currently coping with interpretability issues

INTRODUCTION

Project Documentation Index

[The questionnaire in the lower part of the article was an attempt to define some terms. Feel free to try your hand at filling in the questionnaire in the bottom portion and join the discussion. I'd like to get feedback from Adherents to other religions, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, etc]

Problem of Evil/Suffering/Victimization Must be A Design Flaw

This is a response I made to a Christian on the "Problem of Suffering".
The problem of suffering is really a problem of victimization, where gods 'gift' of free will enables the stronger to victimize the weak, with god allowing it in some of the most horrible ways imaginable, and Christians blame humans for it. Effectively blaming the victim. One persons free will impedes another. Obviously a SUBOPTIMAL design.

A lot of the 'sins' are committed because they are LIKED or are PLEASURABLE for people. This is a reaction that is built into people, conversely like the nausea reaction people get around vomit. If God had built the urge to vomit into people when they think of having sex with children the there wouldn't be so many church authorities wanting to molest children.

Additionally a lot of harm is done in the name of religion because of religious texts ambiguity, which is a common human problem of Information Quality. It leads to low scores in the category of "interpretability". This interpretability problem manifests itself in causing lots of women and children suffer needlessly, at the hands of Christians looking for witches and forcing genital mutilation on girls and women. You can see recent cases detailed in the news at my blog QuIRP

There are some impediments to free will that are built into us that make it less likely humans are going to do some act, such as eat vomit or feces. Since god did not build the nausea reaction into us for things that displease him, then we can only infer that he built the pleasure reaction into us for things that displease him on purpose. We can infer from this that he built them into us to make it more likely that we would sin. It is a trap. He has baited a harmful trap for us.

He could have built an aversion to sin into us but he didn't, so its not 100% humans fault that we sin, we sin because we are made to be predisposed to be more likely to sin.

In common sense terms, to have a goal, then to make the design parameters undermine the goal flies in the face of reason. For god to want us not to sin, then to build the mechanisms into us that make it more likely we are going to sin is inchoherent.

Atonement Project Questionaire

Atonement Project Schema

Atonement Project Document Index