COMPASSION?

by SolidSender 25 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  BigQuestion

  .

  Edited by - bigquestion on 10 August 2000 5:25:38
• 

  Friend

  SolidRunAway asked:

  if something, let's just say for arguments sake, pulling an example out of the air, an anecdote, has been embellished, technically speaking, an anecdote that has been embellished, how could it then be not false? please don't try and tell me because it's partly true or contains elements of truth - either something is true or it's false.

  First of all, embellished or not, it is fallacious to rely on anecdotal evidence to establish an assertion as true or false because of one simple thing, experiences from person to person differ and they differ because of an infinite number of variables and dynamics. It is quite valid to use personal experience to illustrate a point, but proving conclusions true or false to someone else is another thing entirely. Unless their experience is similar they will be unconvinced and rightly so. Akin to this subject is denial of the antecedent. Even if evidence is lacking or if assertions are false that does not evidence that a conclusion is false, it just means that a conclusion is not proven true.

  As for whether an anecdote is true or false based upon embellishment, by definition embellishment is not factual, which means that any embellishment in a story is false. That does not mean that nothing about the story is true, it just means that the embellished part is false. Frankly, hardly any of us can recount our experiences to others with absolute precision, which, again, is part of the problem with relying on anecdotal evidence. However, that does not make sharing experiences wrong or somehow dishonest. Sharing experiences is part of normal human interchange, but relying upon such interchange to deem a conclusion true or false is fallacious, it is unsound reasoning.

  So, anecdotes are fine for sharing experiences and illustrating a point. Also, because an anecdote might contain some embellishment that does not make portions relevant to a conclusion false. True portions relevant to an assertion will tend to lend credence to conclusions but, again, relying on that form of evidence is precarious to the point of fallacious.

  SS, you are apparently hung up on my manner of examining assertions and conclusions. Giving you the benefit of a doubt, you are probably sincere in your attacks upon my character and discussions on this forum. That is, you probably really do perceive my contributions as somehow less than Christian, less than loving. I would assert that ignoring fallacious reasoning and its effects is definitely unchristian, especially when such addresses a serious discussion or concern. Christianity motivates that its adherents help others out of love. Because I am Christian and love people—including you—I find myself compelled to help if possible those who are exposed to arguments that are fallacious, that is arguments that are not soundly reasoned. Whether those persons listen to or appreciate that action of mine is another matter and beside the point. In so doing I am not attacking a person or persons who may be offering or accepting those arguments, both may be sincere yet ignorant of a particular fallacy in the reasoning. They are not unloving for innocently offering or accepting a fallacious argument any more so than the one pointing that out. If you feel otherwise then you feel that it is okay to use, accept and/or allow unsound reasoning on serious concerns, which I do not believe you do.

  You may not like what follows, but I think you need to hear it. Get an education about your subjects before addressing them. In your diatribes against me you have embarrassed yourself incredibly. Especially on the subject of argumentation you have manifested extreme ignorance of the subject. I have no need to continue addressing your silly tirades against me. You have already shown a propensity to share accusatory assertions and innuendo about other people’s character and then run away without answering for yourself—which is childish to the extreme. You have also demonstrated a willingness to ignorantly chide others over details that are not only irrelevant but also that you are ill-equipped to address and, in fact, are wrong about. Furthermore you have manifested a fondness for dwelling on personalities rather than issues. Each type of behavior leaves a bitter taste in my mouth and I find each a meaningless and unchristian pursuit.

  I am providing a link that you should enjoy and learn from, that is if you have any inclination toward learning how to spot unsound reasoning for helping yourself and others form better conclusions.

  [url= http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html]Logic & Fallacies[/url]

  You should find that I am open to discussing whether certain of my views are correct or incorrect, that is the only way any of us can learn. Therefore, if you have the inclination to point out perceived errors in my views then I am more than willing to discuss the same—hopefully others feel likewise. However, if you want to be taken seriously you must build stamina, education and maturity enough to not only claim an error but to stand and evidence the claim with sound reasoning.

  I will look forward to future exchanges of ideas between us, I am sure you have some good ones.

  Friend

  Edited by - Friend on 7 August 2000 15:50:35
• 

  BigQuestion

  .

  Edited by - bigquestion on 10 August 2000 5:29:25
• 

  SolidSender

  .

  Edited by - SolidSender on 10 August 2000 3:56:38
• 

  Friend

  ***

  If you think my post of was of any other value to me than that of a ploy – think again. [sic]

  I think your posts are exactly what they are, stupid, just like your last one. It is unfortunate that you persist in your foolery. My only curiosity is, at what point will you run out of your own foot to shoot?

  Friend
• 

  waiting

  Friend

  My only curiosity is, at what point will you run out of your own foot to shoot?

  Friend

  1. How long does a foot have to be before it runs out?

  2. That fool can run his mouth as long as he has electricity for his computer and his vacuum. A bottomless pit of stupidity.

  Just my personal observations.....

  waiting