Straight Dope Syndrome

Great Debates
1

It happened just the other day. Edlyn purred, “Oh, Lib. I love you so much.”

After a pregnant pause, I raised an eyebrow and said, “You do? Have you any fax ‘n’ figgers to prove that, or did you just make that up?”

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with fax ‘n’ figgers, and despite that overt disclaimer, I expect, based on my experience here, to be deluged with accusations that I advocate loosey goosey baseless argument. To those accusations, I will respond by linking to the OP.

I’m not talking about willy nilly making things up out of the blue. I believe that if you want to make a good inductive argument, specifically a statistical one, then you need plenty of fax ‘n’ figgers to back up your claim.

But what ever happened to common sense? Since when has a deductive argument needed fax ‘n’ figgers for anything other than its underlying axioms?

Besides, we all know about liars and figgers. Y’know, figgers don’t lie, but liars do figger. Sometimes, arguments between Straight Dopers turn into festivals of link slinging, and mutal accusations that sources are not “reliable”, or they are “biased”.

Again, I have nothing against backing up arguments, but doesn’t sound reason and solid syllogism itself back up arguments anymore? If I make the assertion, for example, that “the most vehement supporters of the War on Americans I Mean Drugs, aside from politicians, are leaders of gangs and organized crime,” why must I track down polls of these crime leaders to prove my assertion?

Is it not reasonable that a man will stand against the uncompensated abolition of his family’s means of support? Won’t he prefer that his customers have no option to buy their drugs in broad daylight at a pharmacy for a fraction of his price? If this is the axiom, then the only statistic required is one that shows people, in general, don’t like having rugs pulled out from under them. Is there not enough evidence for this in our daily lives?

Straight Dope takes on the noble cause of fighting ignorance (proof of claim), but did it also take on the dubious cause of fighting reason?

I don’t think so. But I guess I couldn’t prove that either, not without a statement from Cecil. Still, I, at least, am satisfied that reason is not censured here. You might disagree, and therein lies the debate.

Has SDS turned some of us into hyperskeptics who believe nothing that hasn’t been said in a Straight Dope column? Or worse, has it turned us into hyperbelievers who question nothing that Straight Dope columns say?

Is it possible to go too far the other way, from fighting ignorance to fighting discovery?

2

Logically, it is obvious that you are simply wrong.

3

Like Krispy Original, you mean? :slight_smile:

Where do I stand? There was a great .sig line some time ago that said “I try to keep an open mind – but not so open that my brains run out” or words to that effect.

Well, yeah. If there are data available from which the validity of a proposition can be determined, apply them. If not, shave it down to size with Mr. Ockham’s grooming equipment. Apply intelligent reasoning and let it take you where it leads – no matter how far-fetched. We’re not all hyperskeptics – including our moderators, who are more than willing to change their minds when presented with documentation. Have I missed anything?

4

Uh huh. Well, you forgot to cite a column. :wink:

5

Sorry, Poly. I didn’t know you’d posted.

But that’s my point. Why just documentation? Why won’t a good ol’ conclusion from a sound syllogism do? Once, I argued for days with someone at another message board before I realized that they did not accept A=A as axiomatic. Naturally, I dropped the argument like a hot potato. Don’t you think common sense on common matters matters? (Cool phrase…)

Yes, I know you can’t apply common sense to something like quantum theory, and you should be ready to supply a link when saying something about it. But why must you link to a study that says criminals do illegal things?

6

Why can’t we all just use common sense? Because it’s so uncommon.

7

The trouble is that everyone knows that their syllogism is sound. If you have to keep pointing out to us that you don’t need evidence because your point is self-evident…it isn’t.

8

I can definitely concur with Lib’s point.

In this world of quotations and citations it’s easy to forget that the things we quote and cite come from the powerful, driving, human mechanism of reason. The original ideas, the great inventions are a result of original, inventive, logical thought.

We’d all be a lot more ignorant today if a chap called Albert hadn’t had the ingenuity to reject the scientific stigma of the day and “think original”. The same goes for da Vinci, Plato, Aristotle. New ideas, IMHO, are what make life exciting. And new ideas are reached more by just plain thinking about it, and applying logic / commonsense, than by using previous thought.

BJ

9

I just love the old They laughed at Albert Einstein! excuse for proving the validity of someone’s pet theory. :slight_smile:

10

“No man has ever had an original thought.” — Edgar A. Poe

Actually, Einstein got some of his ideas from Planck and others. But as stated in the OP, I am not arguing for loosey goosey argument; I am arguing for solid deduction in matters that lend themselves to syllogism.

If an implication is made from an axiom that is reasonably accepted as true (e.g. that leaders of gangs and organized crime make a comfortable living from sales of illegal drugs), then you can assail the implication only by assailing the premise from which it was drawn, or else by showing that the implication does not follow from the premise.

I have drawn the implication that drug dealers, who make their living by dealing drugs in a black market, would oppose measures to take their living out from under them. If there is some reason not to draw that conclusion, then argue that. But don’t ask me to cite figgers about it because figgers are not relevant to the point.

If someone wants to go around interviewing drug dealers and asking, “Would you like it if people could by their drugs legally during normal business hours at the pharmacy for a fraction of what you sell them for?”, they are welcome to do so. Meanwhile, it is a perfectly valid assumption drawn from common sense that they would not like it.

11

and

[quote]
I have drawn the implication that drug dealers, who make their living by dealing drugs in a black market, would oppose measures to take their living out from under them. If there is some reason not to draw that conclusion, then argue that. But don’t ask me to cite figgers about it because figgers are not relevant to the point.

[quote]

Actually, perhaps the trouble arises from the subtle difference between these two claims. I have no trouble believing that drug dealers would oppose any measures which might end their lucrative business.

But your first assertion is twofold; it also contends that, apart from politicians, drug dealers are the “most vehement” in opposing any changes. This may simply have been meant as hyperbole, but it didn’t come across that way when I read it. Perhaps AvenueB-Dude and his ilk are the most vehement. Perhaps the Mothers Against Drunk Driving also take a vehement position against legalization. When you elevate drug dealers to the number two spot, as it were, it is not a conclusion compelled by common sense.

So – my guess only – perhaps it was this unfortunate choice for rhetoric effect that caused the call for cites to arise.

  • Rick
12

Libertarian, I think I see what you mean. I’ve just come over from reading a thread in the BBQ Pit about depression (Lookie here). It looks like that thread has devolved upon two lines for the kind of reasons you state. One side seems to be arguing about the corruption within the current system of Govt. funded charitable support, while the other side is arguing the moral flaws a Govt. funded charity is based on. Quite a few faxs and figgers have been tossed around, to little end. “40 Million” disabled is such a nebulous term, that as a “fact” hasn’t really done much to bolster anyones case.

I agree some (many?) arguments seem to be getting mired in the facts and figures lately, but that’s not always a primary symptom. Some arguments are getting just as mired in emotion, personal opinion, morality, philosophy, or just limited perceptions (not meant to be an insult). These are the hurdles to any sort of discourse, especially idealogical ones.

I’m not sure I’d go so far as to say it’s pulling the board down, however, and if I misread your meaning I apologize. Anyway, that’s just my two cents (and my first GD post, yikes!).

Thanks,
inkblot

“Stercus, stercus, stercus, moritus sum!”

13

Certainly some statements would seem to stand by themselves, not requiring corroborating research to convince us –

“People should have the freedom to voice their ideas”

“Oh? Why do you say that?”

“Huh? Well, a free exchange of ideas promotes the proliferation of the better ones and the quicker death by examination of the lousier ones, and of course as individuals our well-being is enhanced by maximizing our freedom.”

“Even assuming that is true–which you did not demonstrate–can you show that such an outcome is somehow intrinsically desirable?”

“??!*#??”
However, it is your audience, and not you yourself, which tends to be the arbitrator of when you do and when you do not need to support your own statements.

Disable Similes in this Post

14

Libertarian wrote in the OP:

She calls you “Lib” in real life? :wink:

15

No, Tracer, in real life, she calls me her boy, and I call her my bitch.

Good point!

That would be pointing out a logical flaw, whereupon I would have reworded.

Another good point.

It seems reasonable to expect Christians, for example to post according to their Christian view points, even if the thread is not about Christianity per se.

And no, I have no figures to document that observation.

16

Lib, there is no reason why a solid and complete deductive chain would require support for anything other than the initial axioms. However, I have very rarely seen a solid and complete deductive argument presented on this board. The silogism you presented, for instance, has several weaknesses that prevent it from being compelling. Aside from the point Bricker made you would need to demonstrate several more things to make your conclusion compelling. Among them:

  1. Leaders of gangs and organized crime act consistently and rationally in forming their political views.
  2. The current “War on Americans I Mean Drugs” offers the best profit margin for drug-dealing activities when compared to all other likely scenarios.
  3. Monetary profit is the only factor that people use to decide their political views. Fear of incarceration, early death, the emotional strain of living under constant threat, etc. are inconsequential in forming attitudes about this issue.
  4. “Leaders of gangs and organized crime” share overwhelmingly similar beliefs and attitudes regarding law enforcement policies.

If you shore up your argument to deal with all of those issues, and Bricker’s, then I will certainly give it new consideration.

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

17

Spiritus:

Yes, I’m willing to revisit my argument. As I conceded, I agree with Bricker that its rhetoric is faulty.

But I’m not sure I get the rest of your protests.

Here, are you asking for data that shows that crime leaders think no differently from most people in terms of reasoning out a set of pros and cons?

If that is the case, then why isn’t incumbent on you, as one who disagrees, to point to data that shows crime leaders reason things out substantially and fundamentally differently from the general population that they’re a subset of?

All other likely scenarios? :smiley:

Who will say that one has not been left out? And who will say that one is likely or one isn’t? Never having made any claim about best profit margins at all, why is this in my lap?

Well, that seems established de facto.

Obviously, they have already decided that their fears are off-set by their profits. The only difference between us and them is that we have decided the other way. But I think it’s safe to say that we and they used basically the same review and reason process.

I don’t see why they need share more than one, namely that if drugs were legal, they might lose a lot of business.

18

Hmmm. It seems that some of the prior posts have disappeared during the interegnum. Oh well . . .

Lib, this position is implicit in your syllogism. You state that the “War on Drugs” provides an economic benefit to dealers. From this you conclude that dealers are vehement supporters of said “War on Drugs”. How do you get from point A to point B, if it is not by relying on these dealers to form their views rationally and consistently? If you want to claim the ground of deductive reasoning, you need to follow <b>all</b> of the rules. This includes the necessity to account for the reasoning you use to draw your conclusions.

That sure looks to me like a single position <b>Lib (earlier)</b> the most vehement supporters of the War on Americans I Mean Drugs, aside from politicians, are leaders of gangs and organized crime
being asserted as the most desirable (vehemently supported based upon rational analysis).

You are asserting that a group of people supports a specific political position. If you don’t want to talk about politics, make a different argument.

Make up your mind. Do you wish to “deduce” that drug dealers support a political position because it is the most economically advantageous or do you want to “deduce” that they support it because it is convenient for them not to have to change. Whether I agree with any of your positions is irrelevant to the discussion I thought we were having. I have been discussing the characteristics of a well-formed deductive argument, using your OP as an illustrative example. What conversation were you having?

Yes, you do. At the very least you need to state that you are accepting it as axiomatic and specify the specific behaviors and attitudes of entrepreneurs that you are taking as universal. Frankly, it seems to me that you want the respect of logical deduction without the rigor. As we say in America, “no dice”.

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

19

Yet again, you misstate what I said, and then attack the straw man.

Do you understand the difference between a “leader” and a “dealer”? If not, do you own a business? If so, think of the difference between your interest in it and one of your clerks’ interest in it.

Do you understand the difference between “politics” and “economics”? If not, do you have an investment portfolio? If so, think of the difference between investing in something to make a political statement, and investing in something to make money.

Well, I’m still trying to get you to understand what I’ve actually said.

Syllogism 1: Entrepreneurs like making money. Leaders of organized crime are entrepreneurs. Therefore, leaders of organized crime like making money.

Syllogism 2: Owners of businesses do not like sudden disruptions in their businesses. Leaders of organized crime are owners of businessess. Therefore, leaders of organized crime do not like sudden disruptions in their businesses.

Syllogism 3: Sudden disruption of business means loss of revenue and customer base. Creation of new and ubiquitous competition, subsidized and supported by government, would be a disruption to any business. As owners of their businesses, leaders of organized crime would oppose the creation of new and ubiquitous competition, subsidized and supported by government.

Syllogism 4: Legalizing drugs would allow pharmacies and other retail and wholesale outlets to sell drugs. Those drugs would be new and ubiquitous competition that compete with leaders of organized crime. Therefore, leaders of organized crime would oppose the legalization of drugs.

Looks pretty airtight to me. Of course, simple common sense leads one to the same conclusion.

20

Goodness, Lib, several days off do not seem to have improved your consistency rating.

This was in response to my asking you to defend the transition from economic benefit to group attitudes. Whether the group in question is “dealers” or “leaders” makes no difference to that point. It was a nice herring for you to raise, though, very pinkish and no dount quite tender.

Yes. Do you? If so, then perhaps you would like to explain how the “War on Drugs” is an economic platform and <b>not</b> a political one? Shall I remind you (again) of the wording in your OP?

Please parse that phrase in a manner which leaves it devoid of political content. I think it will be fun to read. I might even learn some new double-speak.

No. You are trying to weasel out of what you have actually said. I do not mind if you wish to rephrase your argument to more accurately reflect your thoughts. It certainly appears that your original statement did not accurately capture the position you wish to defend.

And look – here is just such a restatement"

Please provide a set definition for the class “entrepeneurs” so that we can know exactly those traits necessary and sufficient for membership. Regardless, though, I would happily accept the proposition that crime leaders like making money.

Persuasive, but not necessarily tight. It is conceivable, for instance, that a business owner would not mind a short-term disruption in his business (assuming he has enough capital to weather the storm) providing he expects a significant long-term benefit. Remember the oil embargo?

(a) Loss of revenue: maybe. It depends upon the disruption, really. Deregulation of industry is certainly a disruption of the rules under which businesses had operated, but many companies thrived under the new system. Loss of customer base: not necessarily. It depends upon many factors, including whether there exists an alternative supply for the priduct in question, the nature of demand for the product in question, etc.
(b) & © Seem reasonable, but they rely upon the somewhat shaky reasoning of syllogism 2 and of (a).

More importantly, though, © does not follow from (a) + (b). At most you could have offered a (weak) chain of logic to support the proposal that drug leaders would not like the disruption of new and ubiquitous competition. You have offered nothing to allow conclusions about what a drug leader (or a business man) would oppose. I personally do not like dental cleanings, but I do not oppose them. I even voluntarily submit to them on a regular basis. In the real world, people make decisions based on more factors than a single-cause like or dislike analysis.

I notice you have dropped the “subsidized and supported” by the government restriction on teh competition that you are talking about. Perhaps this is because you realize that what suport and subsidies that would exist for drug manufacturors and distributors under legalization would also benefit the crime leaders who are supposed to be universally opposed to the idea? Again, of course, you are drawing conclusions about an attitude (opposition to legalization) without supplying any reasoning from which to confidently derive that attitude.

Now, to address your argument as a whole, you have changed your final conclusion from “the most vehement supporters of the War on Americans I Mean Drugs, aside from politicians, are leaders of gangs and organized crime” to “leaders of organized crime would oppose the legalization of drugs.” Of course, in your latest post you did not give any other indications that your reasoning had changed, so perhaps you think these conclusions are the same. I believe the fallacy that a logician would point to now would be “false dichotomy”. Of course, I have never claimed to be a logician.

Simple common sense is not generally considered a good substitute for rigor when producing a deductive argument, no matter how many times that you have seen the phrase used by Aristotle or Russell.

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*