This an appeal to authority (saying a fact is true or argument is correct simply due to who endorses it). But an appeal to authority is not always a fallacy. Saying I do not like chocolate (unless I am lying) is a allowable appeal to authority because I am the only one who gets to decide that. Saying I don’t like chocolate, therefore chocolate sucks would be a fallacy.
The premises of the anti-SSM argument are that certain people who are currently employed as government workers believe that being involved with SSM is immoral and want to keep their jobs. I (and it seems you) disagree with them, and further, I do not accept that their desire to be government workers and not be involved with SSM necessitates banning same sex marriage. But that does not mean there are any logical fallacies in their argument, it is merely weak.
Nothing you say here has anything to do with logical fallacies. Logical fallacies are mistakes in presenting an argument. Just because an argument does not have fallacies does not mean it wins. Find one logical fallacy or irrationality in this argument:
Premise: I like Dairy Queen Blizzards as they are currently made with vanilla ice cream. I do not like Blizzards made with chocolate ice cream.
Argument: If Dairy Queen stops offering vanilla ice cream for Blizzards, I am much less likely to buy a Blizzard therefore they should continue to offer vanilla.
If there was a stronger counter argument (e.g. vanilla has been found to be poisonous, therefore it is now illegal to sell) my argument may not carry the debate, but it still contains no fallacies.
You do need to keep in mind that most of the things that are called fallacies have legitimate uses. For example, using the statements of AMA in a debate about immunizations is an appeal to authority, but not usually a fallacy. If the matter under discussion is complex citing a relevant authority is a legitimate argument. Likewise ad hominem can be valid as well. If the person presenting the argument has a known bias or mental defect it is not inappropriate to point it out. For example if a think tank funded by tobacco companies argues that smoking is a net benefit to society it is appropriate to point out that they have a conflict of interest in the debate.
I’ve only heard one ever.
No government (state or Fed) should be in the business of marriage. However, the right of a man and woman to marry would be considered an unenumerated right to the Founding Fathers under the Ninth Amendment. Notice, this argument would also exclude polygamy, marriage to animals or inanimate objects, etc. Marriage to minors is covered by the concept of “age of consent”.
Thus there should be no official recognition of any marriage except a traditional one.
The other is the same, just the authority is different, you see.
I can say - it is 81 degrees outside now because my thermometer tells me so, and you might say that is an appeal to authority. You could be right. then it would be up to me to show how thermometers work, and why, and that mine in fact works that way and measures properly. I am pretty sure I don’t have to go to the details to show you convincingly that what you are left with then in what intially appeared to be an appeal to authority is in fact a shorthand for an argument that purports to qualitatively measure something and interpret it in a way we mutually agree to interpret it.
In other words, we can posit something as a hypothesis and prove it. Maybe my thermometer is inaccurate, or measures Celsius when you thought I meant Fahrenheit. These can be rectified by refining the argument. Appeals to authority though, such as to a Bible or to Obama in your example, are not resolvable or refineable in that way, even if you had direct access to Obama.
The ice cream example though, we could set up an experiment that would convince us he likes us independent of his appeal to authority (that being himself in that case).
But then, if challenged, the implication is that you can show the authority is both relevant and rationally correct. It is shorthand, sure, but not ultimately the same as saying “god told me to act this way”.
How would that be an ad hominem attack? You can either prove it or you can’t. if you can’t, or you are simply asserting it, well, OK, but if you can demonstrate it, then no, it is not ad hominem IMHO.
The first sentence is simply an opinion and adds nothing. Drop that and the “however” and you have the core argument.
It is fallacious because the civil right to marry is embedded (in our legal tradition anyway and IANAL) somewhere in the 1000 years almost of English common law or other ancient legal traditions we have picked up here and there. A bit of research at any law library would find the citations, I am sure we all agree to that.
The bit in the middle about 9th amendment and exceptions is superfluous , jsut meant to anticipate objections and CYA
The conclusion is fallacious, because the key term, “traditional marriage” is nowhere defined.
And that last bit is at the heart of most anti-SSM positions - it is a shibolleth really, meant to separate the in crowd from the out crowd. The in crowd knows it means “as in the Bible” when they communicate with each other, but they sell it as something less nefarious and in fact secular with others who are concerned with secular governance.
But they won’t be pinned down on how it is in fact a secular term, because it isn’t.
Ad hominem does not mean what you are saying about the person (or entity) is untrue. It just means you are trying to discredit their argument by discrediting them. That can be fallacious.
So, the tobacco think tank may put out a well researched paper on smoking that is completely true. Noting they are funded by tobacco however is appropriate since they have an apparent conflict of interest in producing an unbiased report so it behooves us to look a little more closely at what they are saying. However, if the think tank produces a report on, say, which dog breed is the most intelligent then pointing out they are funded by evil tobacco companies would be an ad hominem attack. Maybe they do get their money from unsavory sources but that really has no bearing on the report they wrote on dogs.
Not entirely. In the Bible example, we have presented premises that state that God exists and that the Bible is his Holy Word. Now, there would be implicit premises that state something along the lines of “The law should reflect the will of God” and the argument would be valid and rational. Anyone would be free to disagree, but the argument would work.
The one about Obama is missing a premise. I suppose if you wanted to contend that Obama is infalliable, then it would be a valid argument, but that doesn’t happen in these Appeal to Authority fallacious arguments. They typically don’t connected the two, which is why they are fallacious.
Along the same lines: Bob Vila says that we should use Craftsman tools, so we should.
Where is the connection there that tells us WHY we should believe what Bob Vila has to say.
Another poster said it best: Just because an argument is rational doesn’t mean is is indisputably true, and an irrational argument is not necessarily false, it just doesn’t follow from the premises…
Or, there is no reason to accept the premise without rational justification. The only reason to do that is if there is a “gentleman’s agreement” that the claim is shorthand for an argument all parties are familiar with and can point to if so needed. If one party does not agree, or needs to see the entire argument supporting the shorthand, then it needs to be presented in in its entirety. That is why we say “cite” here so much
An argument is not true or false, it just is.
A conclusion is either true or false or unsupported , as determined by argument as presented ultimately.
If you mean that there is an example of a accepted rational, fallacy free argument where the conclusion is not true, I’d like to see it - that would fight some ignorance of mine for sure
If you also mean there is a conclusion that is true, and can not be reached by a rational fallacy free argument, but instead only by an irrational one, I’d like to see that too for the same selfish reason
That reason being I am sure I would be able to apply the lesson immediately to the problem of finding a way to understand and then reframe pro-prop-8 arguments, that being the topic of the thread of course
In a debate, you can counter an argument by showing it is fallacious, its premises are false, or presenting a stronger counter argument. These are three separate things. You seem to be getting hung up on the fallacy issue. Having a false premise is not a logical fallacy. Neither is being a weaker argument. You counter them both differently.
In this case, the premises are true (some people who currently hold positions that may force them to grant SSMs if they are legal hold religious objections to the institution). There is no logical fallacy (I even ran down a check list). However, I consider it a weak argument and there are many counter arguments. I do not believe that anyone who does not have strong emotional reasons for opposing SSM will accept it a sufficient argument, and they don’t really need it.
ETA: Another weak, but logical, argument (pre-the CASC ruling last year) is that government agencies had to redo paper work to make it gender neutral. Valid premises, solid logic, but weak argument as the cost was low and the process fairly easy to implement.
You are right about an argument not being true or false. An argument is just consistent or valid. Conclusions based on true premises and valid arguments should be true. They may not be convincing, but they should be true.
In my example it is a true conclusion that with legal SSM a certain subset of the population will need to either change jobs or perform duties they consider to be immoral. While a true conclusion it does not out weigh the conclusion that without legal SSM a significantly larger portion of the population will be denied the legal right to marry the person they wish.
Here’s one:
Premise 1: The earth is flat.
Premise 2: China is East of England
Conclusion: Therefore you cannot get from England to China by going West.
My fist premise is wrong. But that is not a fallacy. A fallacy is logical, not factual error. My conclusion are based on a rational interpretation of my premises.
Bolding mine. There are probably many conclusions that are true and reached by irrational arguments. The only time I would imagine it would be the only way is if there is a necessary but unknown premise. For example, take Columbus. He concluded a ship could sail West from Portugal and hit land before running out of food. He based that conclusion on the false premises, but he could also have used true premises, but faulty logic to come to the same conclusion. In a Platonic sense, every true conclusion has at least one valid argument from true premises. Most probably have many.
I would take the lesson that having a fallacy is only one way to counter an argument.
On preview: You already acknowledged that point, so I think I am done.
But my question is this then - why do you get to call premise 1 a premise at all, not subject to its own argument? Why isn’t it the conclusion of a earlier argument, the result of having started out as a hypothesis?
Otherwise you can simply sidestep the tough questions in an argument by declaring anything a premise rather and a hypothesis or conclusion.
then we would be left with intractable arguments, and that is what I am seeking to get out of.
e.g.
premise 1:There is a god
premise 2: The bible is the absolute word of god
premise 3: My group’s interpretation is the only one that matters
premise 4: The bible says no ssm
conclusion: no ssm.
Why not label everything a premise? Then if all you are left with is a conclusion, then everything is rational and fallacy free?
An argument is a formal structure of presenting ideas. You start with premises, follow a logical process, and come to a conclusion. When refuting an argument you can say the premises are false or unprovable and work that way. But be careful. You need to understand the premise before you attack it. In your example you start with “There is a god” which is not a universally accepted premise. But usually the more rational (and more effective legally) arguments start with the premise not that God actually exists, but that most citizens believe in God. One is demonstrably true, the other is unprovable.
I will keep an eye out for that distinction, but I am pretty sure there are some very important times, including discussions with general rank and file population, when that is not the case.
anyway, what then is the difference between saying a premise is false and being forced to provide the entire counter argument yourself, subjecting yourself to claims of error as you listed, and putting the burden of proof on the one making the claim by treating it as a conclusion that needs to be proved affirmatively if there is not universal agreement on the premise.
e.g. anyone that uses the existence of god as a premise puts the burden of proof on the other side to refute the premise, and that is absurd, the burden of proof on a premise should be on whoever relies on the premise if challenged.
If you haven’t already read a good book on Logic or take a course in Logic at a local university. It is a great way to get the formalism of arguments and spot fallacies and so on (kinda like doing math with words). If you really internalize that stuff and have a good command of it you will be a demon in debates. You’ll also probably annoy the hell out of friends and family as you catch people making faulty arguments all the time.
Here is a web page that seems to have some of this.
Not suggesting you argue poorly, just saying this stuff is really good to know.
The problem is you are conflating formal debate with persuasive speaking in a public forum. Knowledge of formal debate techniques and structures can help in persuasive speaking, but the rules are only enforced in competition.
Attacking deeply held beliefs like faith in god will rarely convince anyone. When I discuss this type of thing with people (such as my mother) who hold those positions, I try and consider what premises can be changed, how they respond to logic, and what counterarguments will be acceptable.
My mother is LDS. She strongly believes in God. I will never convince her SSM should be legal by telling her God doesn’t exist. But I may whittle her down by pointing out that once the government gets in the business of making religious beliefs law, she should consider how many LDS there are in the U.S. v. people who think they are screwy . I might also challenge her on the premise that Bible spells out what is and is not a proper marriage. I also remind her that the the government would never force the Temple to marry same sex couples.
The point is, that you have to pick you battles. If someone honestly, truly believes that God told them personally that they must oppose SSM, nothing you can say will convince them otherwise. The first step in persuading is to figure out who can be persuaded.
Not looking to develop a debate strategy here though, but rather to counter and actually persuade in a non-controlled environment. Trust me, most folks here have no more than an HS education. “Fallacy” aint gonna fly. I am only working that out for my own purposes, maybe the outcome will be a series of scripts I can send people out with or something like that.
The big issue is going to be where we are now in the thread - what we are calling premises are people’s entire worldview. Moving people off of that is difficult, dirty, and quite possibly dangerous work. To be effective, it will need to be very very subtle indeed, delivered repeatedly, personally, and persuasively.
Solid debate itself, I can get here all I want
I know most of it already - this is all just some devils advocate exploring really. Agree wholeheartedly all should know it and internalize it.
