Freedomain Radio

Stefan Molyneux:

I don't think that the thesis can be easily sustained that Freedomain Radio is isolated - even if we accept that it is, which I don't necessarily agree with - because of possible logical errors.

For that argument to hold, then the more popular a site is, then the more logical it should be. In other words, the logic of our philosophy should be vastly inferior to, say, the logic and consistency displayed on other news, media or 'ideas' outlets.

If, on the other hand, more popular sites tend to be less rigorously logical, or more inconsistent, then it cannot be a lack of logic that is contributing to any possible isolation that we might be experiencing.

Of course, I would be more than happy to hear proof or argumnts to the contrary, what do you think?

I don't think that it is the fact that there are some logical errors (as I mentioned I think these are in just specific areas) but also, and maybe predominantly, that there tends to be less use of commonly used terms in philosophy and also the disconnect (although this could be just my perception) from historical philosphy. Also, I specified how I think FDR is isolated, not that it is isolated in general.

For the rest of your post I think you are equivocating isolation with unpopularity, which may be a result of what I mentioned above, confusing 'isolation from X' with general 'isolation'. I think your description of FDR as being included in "news, media or 'ideas' outlets" probably clarifies the difference between what FDR is and what I desire of it, which is something I have to work on.

I think that a lot of this sensation of FDR being isolated comes from the fact I am studying philosophy at university now and there are aspects of both university and FDR that I absolutely love but as they stand they act seperately and apart where as my desire would be that they act in concert. At university I get two main types of education. One is in logic; the basic tools of philosophy, which I am finding really enjoyable. It is allowing me to think about and articulate things in a way that I couldn't before (and I think naturally I am pretty good with logic) and I am really only in the introductory stage of this. The other part is the study of philosphers of the past. There are so many unbelievably intelligent and insightful thinkers (even if most of them are wrong most of the time) and I am discovering value in people I had previously written off such as Descartes and Nietzsche (although obviously not in the conclusions they are most famous for). FDR gives me other things that are amazing in a different way. First of all, the actual community of people here is so incredible that no other can compare. To be able to converse so easily with such a variety of self-aware, emotionally competent, intelligent people that all hold the same core values as myself, and have stepped up to the plate in terms of making philosophy real rather than a thought excercise, who live philosphy every day, and who have thought about very carefully the issues we face within ourselves and around us in the world is totally mind-blowing to me. I do notice during discussions at university this stark contrast because most other students seem to be inaccessable on a fundmental level because much of what they say and believe are the ideas of others that they have not thought through and that they do not live. I think I just want both in one place.

By the way, I really appreciate all you guys still replying :)

ash:

I am fairly anxious now about the responses (or lack thereof) I will get to this post.

I think this is a better place to start.

I have felt frustrated and somewhat annoyed, as I have said, I asked how you felt and I'll take this as my answer.

I think it would be more helpful to talk about the anxiety you feel, before getting into intellectual discussions about logic.  You are an incredibly intelligent guy, but like so many of us on the board including myself, that comes with incredibly strong intellectual defenses just given our histories.

So tell us more about the anxiety.

I may be coming a bit late to the game and people seem to have basically covered it, but here is a good definition of "arguments from adjective"

http://logicwizard.blogspot.com/2007/07/argument-by-adjective.html

Plus that site looks like a pretty good reference.

Just want to write a reply because I haven't forgot about your question Nate, I have just been tired today and am still thinking it through.

Nathan:

 

I think this is a better place to start.

I have felt frustrated and somewhat annoyed, as I have said, I asked how you felt and I'll take this as my answer.

I think it would be more helpful to talk about the anxiety you feel, before getting into intellectual discussions about logic.  You are an incredibly intelligent guy, but like so many of us on the board including myself, that comes with incredibly strong intellectual defenses just given our histories.

So tell us more about the anxiety.

 

Having thought about this for a few days I think I have a good idea of what the anxiety is.

I think the anxiety was based around the types of responses I could get to my posts. In fact your post was partially the type of post I was anxious about. I saw it likely that one of the following types of situations would occur...

1. My arguments and responses were adressed and I was made aware of an error on my part.

2. My arguments were accepted.

3. My arguments and responses were not adressed and the thread died.

4. The discussion was turned from one about the points of the discussion to one about the emotional experiences of the thread.

If situations 1 or 2 had occured, I think the result would be been pretty much ideal for me, as that was the goal of me raising the question originally.

If situation 3 occured, that would leave me wondering why the thread tapered off. I would be unsure as to what I should do, because trying to continue the discussion with those that left the thread would seem to be going against their wishes, and I would be left wondering why the discussion stopped. I would probably think that the reason for the result would be either that I was correct but people did not want to face that for some reason, or that I was incorrect and seen as having some strong emotional defence going on or just some giant rational flaw that people thought the time investment in making me aware of that was not worth it. There may be others reasons but those two of course would be pretty bad from my perspective.

It seems situation 4 is occuring. I take it from your post that you are implying that I may have some strong defence going on, which could be true. If this were the case though, and someone wanted to help me see it, I think the only way for me to do that would be to address the argument though. This type of situation has happened for me a number of times in the past at FDR, where I disagree with something on logical grounds, it is assumed for whatever reason that I have a psychological defence, and then that is explored. This has not worked for me because if I cant see an error in my thinking (and people fail to explain it to me) then believing I have a defence is very difficult. In the past this has been quite frustrating and the issues were never resolved so I think that if I do have a defence but noone shows me where the error in my thinking is (and to be honest, the arguments are fairly simple, so this should not be difficult) then this would be a dead end too. Of course, it could be possible that there are defences at work, but they aren't mine too.

What do you think?

Wonderful post Ash. I really appreciate the way you are approaching this discussion with your level of combined honesty and analysis.  

So Ash, let me see if I understand clearly both the arguments you've posted and what it is you're saying you're anxious about:

1. You believe that we isolate ourselves in our vocabulary by redefining some concepts with new words when other more common words already exist. (i.e. argument from adjective vs. red herring, etc).

2. We isolate ourselves in that we do not hold ourselves to a high enough standard of logic, and you have learned a lot about logic lately and believe that it could be improved.

3. Since we cannot present arguments which satisfy your contentions, one way or another, we resort to a discussion of emotional experiences as a kind of "red herring" or "argument from adjective" or "argument from motive", to explain why you are wrong.

4. You were afraid that #3 would happen when you presented your contentions about the use of the term "argument from adjective" and it did.

Is this an accurate summary?

Thanks for your reply Nate, and for giving me the opourtunity to clarify.

Nathan:

 

1. You believe that we isolate ourselves in our vocabulary by redefining some concepts with new words when other more common words already exist. (i.e. argument from adjective vs. red herring, etc).

I would change the wording of this a little, but I am being a bit nit-picky. I think what you wrote could be read as an intent to isolate, and I want to make it clear that it is not what I meant. I think maybe it could be described as not 'joining in' a larger discussion by not always using a common language. Maybe this was intentional on Stef's part for various reasons, I am not sure. I do not have a particular problem with using other terms for concepts when the meaning is still clear (such as the term "argument from effect" when a more traditional term would be consequentialism) but I do think the invention if you will of a fallacy is a different situation. I also do not think it was really a redefinition, I think it was an erroneously used term because of the arguments I have put forward previously (it is used to refer to something that is either not an argument or if we extrapolate it to an argument one with no fallacy).

Nathan:

2. We isolate ourselves in that we do not hold ourselves to a high enough standard of logic, and you have learned a lot about logic lately and believe that it could be improved.

I have only learned a little about logic really, I don't want to overstate my knowledge. I do think there is room for improvement in some instances for sure. I think some areas are absolutely fantastic and it is the more perhiperal topics to Stef's work that I think lack some rigour. These were areas I was always uncomfortable with, and what I have learned recently has just allowed me to articulate why.

Nathan:

3. Since we cannot present arguments which satisfy your contentions, one way or another, we resort to a discussion of emotional experiences as a kind of "red herring" or "argument from adjective" or "argument from motive", to explain why you are wrong.

I don't think this is what I said. My point was that if I am wrong, going to the emotions before dealing with the logical side won't work (at least it hasn't in the past). If I am confronted with the evidence that I am wrong, I can then explore why, and doubting myself without evidence would not seem like a rational thing to do.

Nathan:

4. You were afraid that #3 would happen when you presented your contentions about the use of the term "argument from adjective" and it did.

It was one of the possibilities for sure. At first I was just trying to find out what the defintion was (as I had never heard of the term and have spent a little time studying the best known fallacies). When I realised that the term was perhaps incorrect and I posted about it, this was one of the outcomes I would have not preferred, although it certainly is not the worst. I think having this discussion with you has shown that the particular outcome was not as bad as I imagined, as it seems we still have some good momentum in the conversation.

ash:

I do not have a particular problem with using other terms for concepts when the meaning is still clear (such as the term "argument from effect" when a more traditional term would be consequentialism) but I do think the invention if you will of a fallacy is a different situation. I also do not think it was really a redefinition, I think it was an erroneously used term because of the arguments I have put forward previously (it is used to refer to something that is either not an argument or if we extrapolate it to an argument one with no fallacy).

It doesn’t have to be a logical fallacy to be an argument from adjective. An argument from effect isn’t necessarily a logical fallacy, but it is still an argument

Logic fan:

 

It doesn’t have to be a logical fallacy to be an argument from adjective. An argument from effect isn’t necessarily a logical fallacy, but it is still an argument

 

The term was described earlier in the thread as a logical fallacy and nobody disputed or corrected it. If it is not meant as a fallacy, what is the point of the term at all?

What do you think it means? Any argument that contains an adjective? Or something else?

ash:

The term was described earlier in the thread as a logical fallacy and nobody disputed or corrected it. If it is not meant as a fallacy, what is the point of the term at all?

What do you think it means? Any argument that contains an adjective? Or something else?

I think of an “argument from adjective” as being a type of argument that uses an adjective to argue a point by hiding the argument behind the adjective.