Banned from Christianity Forum

Tim Robbins

Hi,
I was having a debate in the Christianity forum. It was about the effect of the reformation and how much impact it had on the Western world and the progress of Science.
One poster, PDN, seem convinced that the there was a strong correlation between reformed churches and scientific progress.
I was pointing out how some coutries like India had a degree of technical innovation before Christian or Reformed churches went anywhere near them.
He suggested a book for me to read, I suggested one for him to read. He had already read that book and suggested for to read it properly. I spent over a month already reading it.
I found his remark a bit patronizing (and his insinuations about Eastern culture a tad arrogant) so I told him his last argument was pathetic.
I was warned for using the word "pathetic". I found this ridiculous and challenged it i.e what was wrong? Me thinking patronizing remarks about me were pathetic or me saying what I was thought.
I was banned.
I do not think this is fair.
Here is a link to the debate.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055080846&page=5

RuggieBear

When will people learn not to bother the theists?

you can't win against faith....

Crucifix

Some words and phrasing are allowed and some are not. Which is which is always going to be a line in the sand, which it's up to the mods to draw. Obviously you crossed the line, but I suppose where the line should be could be debated.

Tim Robbins

Crucifix wrote:

Some words and phrasing are allowed and some are not. Which is which is always going to be a line in the sand, which it's up to the mods to draw. Obviously you crossed the line, but I suppose where the line should be could be debated.

Or update the charter. It seems ridiculous someone can make patronizing remarks about you and you are ot allowed use the word "pathetic" to defend yourself.

6th

If a post is insulting you would you not just report it?

Tar.Aldarion

You were banned for that?

Er, ok, yeah...

Tim Robbins

6th wrote:

If a post is insulting you would you not just report it?

I didn't feel it was insulting enough to report it. I just thought it was patronizing, arrogant and pathetic. I thought I was able to point that out myself. It was really annoying to be warned, that I effectively could not do this and if upon challenging that I get banned.

Boston

6th wrote:

If a post is insulting you would you not just report it?

You'd report a post because someone told you to go read a book properly?

fade2black

Look, Boards is rated over 12s these days. You can't annoy some mods and you can't upset their egos. There's only ever going to be one result. Surely this is in the rules of the site that you read before you registered?

6th

Boston wrote:

You'd report a post because someone told you to go read a book properly?

No, I wouldn't, because I wouldn't be insulted by it.

r3nu4l

Tim, you haven't given the full story here. I believe that a thread you were involved in was locked because it had gone way off-topic.

You then proceeded to open a new thread where you said the following:

Tim Robbins wrote:

Hi,
I was just wondering in Christianity, does the concept of a pathetic argument exist?
If it does exist, and you are asked what you think of such an argument, should you be truthful and say it's pathetic or should you lie?

This new thread has since been deleted so I can't link to it.

That's clear provocation in my view. I would say that you had already received a warning and ignored it, therefore the ban should hold. I wouldn't think something like this should be a perm-ban from the forum though.

Chinafoot

If you have a problem with a warning, however ridiculous you think it might be, surely the best course of action is to PM the mod and not debate it on-thread?

Starting another thread like you did was never going to end well for you.

Tim Robbins

r3nu4l wrote:

Tim, you haven't given the full story here. I believe that a thread you were involved in was locked because it had gone way off-topic.
You then proceeded to open a new thread where you said the following:
This new thread has since been deleted so I can't link to it.
That's clear provocation in my view. I would say that you had already received a warning and ignored it, therefore the ban should hold. I wouldn't think something like this should be a perm-ban from the forum though.

Thank you for including that as I had no access it to it myself.
I see nothing wrong with the above post, it is provocative and challenging but it gets to the core of the issue. There is either something wrong with
1. me thinking a patronizing remark about me is pathetic
or
2. saying that I think it is pathetic?

However if you are really interested in the full story you should also point out that I actually commended PDN in several posts. I called one of his patronizing remarks pathetic.

r3nu4l

My point was that starting that thread after the mod locked the previous thread was probably what got you banned. It doesn't matter how well you behaved up until that point.

Starting a new thread to get around the fact that the mod locked the previous thread is not "challenging and provocative", it's sticking two fingers to the mod (fight the powah) and saying, I'm going to continue my rhetoric whether you like it or not.

The only thing that thread was going to do was fuel more argument, not much of it constructive I imagine. You really should have PM'ed the mod. I'd say that to any user on any forum that was banned for that reason.

Tim Robbins

r3nu4l wrote:

My point was that starting that thread after the mod locked the previous thread was probably what got you banned. It doesn't matter how well you behaved up until that point.

Starting a new thread to get around the fact that the mod locked the previous thread is not "challenging and provocative", it's sticking two fingers to the mod (fight the powah) and saying, I'm going to continue my rhetoric whether you like it or not.

The only thing that thread was going to do was fuel more argument, not much of it constructive I imagine. You really should have PM'ed the mod. I'd say that to any user on any forum that was banned for that reason.

The thread was locked because it went off the OP, so I started another thread to try to resolve the issue.

Is there anyway I can access the archives of that forum? I am pretty certain worse things than pathetic argument were actually said to me before this fiasco.

r3nu4l

You might be able to view a cached version of the page on Google. Not sure about the archives to be honest, I have stumbled across them in the past but I've never actively sought them out.

Either way, what was said to you by others beforehand isn't really the issue in this particular instance. I think*the issue is the starting of a new thread that would continue an old argument when the mod had specifically locked the thread to stop any further continuance.


*Obviously I can't be sure as I'm not the person who banned you. Have you PM'ed the Christianity mods?

Tim Robbins

r3nu4l wrote:

You might be able to view a cached version of the page on Google. Not sure about the archives to be honest, I have stumbled across them in the past but I've never actively sought them out.

Either way, what was said to you by others beforehand isn't really the issue in this particular instance. I think*the issue is the starting of a new thread that would continue an old argument when the mod had specifically locked the thread to stop any further continuance.


*Obviously I can't be sure as I'm not the person who banned you. Have you PM'ed the Christianity mods?

I think it's a bit deeper than that. A particular mod just doesn't like me. All sorts of nonsense is allowed on that forum, have you seen the creationalist thread?

r3nu4l

Eeks, I can't really comment on mod<->user incompatibility issues. I think that's an issue for the mod to address himself, possibly via PM. Doing it all on the Feedback forum can make things ugly.

Tim Robbins

r3nu4l wrote:

Eeks, I can't really comment on mod<->user incompatibility issues. I think that's an issue for the mod to address himself, possibly via PM. Doing it all on the Feedback forum can make things ugly.

Fair enough, I withdraw the comment for the sake of peace.

bonkey

Tim Robbins wrote:

Is there anyway I can access the archives of that forum?

Log out.

Tim Robbins

bonkey wrote:

Log out.

It only keeps the last 20 or so threads.

Crucifix

Tim Robbins wrote:

It only keeps the last 20 or so threads.

Go down the bottom and there'll be a drop down with "From the" in front of it, and set that to beginning.

Tar.Aldarion

you can change that at the bottom of the screen of the main part of the forum. Ie, not in a thread.

Fanny Cradock

Oh my! Another thread on this. Including the provocative thread deleted from the Christianity forum, you have this opened this thread on the matter and yet another one in the atheist/ agnostic forum. 3rd time lucky, eh! Or 4th time lucky if you include the original post! You are obsessing. I believe I am too :rolleyes:

The way I see it is (I'm speaking for myself here):

1) You were warned on the matter but persisted. This persistence was the real problem.
2) You made some accusations that you would be 'mysteriously' banned. This was in reference to a technical glitch or some such that prevented another person logging on a week or so ago. The implication of this was to not-so-subtly declare the mod as untrustworthy.
3) You opened a deliberately provocative post (r3nu4l provided a copy) minutes after the initial thread was locked.
4) To date you continue with your tirade. Maybe a new fora on the matter, perhaps?

For me - yes, I'm a Christian - the mod acted correctly. It a ban, life goes on, get over it. Go out, have a drink and release any righteous indignation that has built up

philologos

r3nu4l wrote:

Tim, you haven't given the full story here. I believe that a thread you were involved in was locked because it had gone way off-topic.

You then proceeded to open a new thread where you said the following:



This new thread has since been deleted so I can't link to it.

That's clear provocation in my view. I would say that you had already received a warning and ignored it, therefore the ban should hold. I wouldn't think something like this should be a perm-ban from the forum though.

I can clarify that as I reported it and PM'ed BrianCalgary about the thread he made.

nesf

The ban looks harsh from what I've seen (and I'm sure I haven't seen the full story) but conversely is the Christianity forum the best place for that debate? I'd have had it on more "neutral" ground to be honest.


Edit: Actually I'll expand this a little for you. When I moderated Physics we'd occasionally have someone come in with a religion thread (invariably Christianity based). These were tricky for one simple reason, if it's not based in science and specifically physics then it has no place in the forum and it's rare to find a poster who can discuss religion in a science forum and obey this. Physics was definitely not the place to discuss Creationism or its bastard stepchild Intelligent Design.

That said, Christianity is the place to discuss either of those topics. The Christianity forum makes no claim to be purely science based. It is a forum about the religion and essentially you have to expect faith to be the primary goal of the forum. Arguing that it should be science is utterly pointless and really out of place.

Personally, I find the idea of arguing Intelligent Design as a science as idiocy in the extreme; however, that doesn't mean I've a right to go and belittle people who believe it for reasons of faith. If they want to come out to Biology/Medicine and argue it then they are fair game but if they want to discuss it in a primarily faith based forum then they should honestly be left in peace and the militant atheists on this site should show some respect if they expect to be shown any in return in that forum.

/rant

Tim Robbins

nesf wrote:

The ban looks harsh from what I've seen (and I'm sure I haven't seen the full story) but conversely is the Christianity forum the best place for that debate? I'd have had it on more "neutral" ground to be honest.


Edit: Actually I'll expand this a little for you. When I moderated Physics we'd occasionally have someone come in with a religion thread (invariably Christianity based). These were tricky for one simple reason, if it's not based in science and specifically physics then it has no place in the forum and it's rare to find a poster who can discuss religion in a science forum and obey this. Physics was definitely not the place to discuss Creationism or its bastard stepchild Intelligent Design.

That said, Christianity is the place to discuss either of those topics. The Christianity forum makes no claim to be purely science based. It is a forum about the religion and essentially you have to expect faith to be the primary goal of the forum. Arguing that it should be science is utterly pointless and really out of place.

Personally, I find the idea of arguing Intelligent Design as a science as idiocy in the extreme; however, that doesn't mean I've a right to go and belittle people who believe it for reasons of faith. If they want to come out to Biology/Medicine and argue it then they are fair game but if they want to discuss it in a primarily faith based forum then they should honestly be left in peace and the militant atheists on this site should show some respect if they expect to be shown any in return in that forum.

/rant

If you read the thread which started the fuss we were talking about the reformation and one poster PDN, said that it helped progress Science. He was adamant about this saying that the Steam Engine would never have been invented in India. I was challenging this opinion and he just told me I need to read my books more attentively. It's just ridiculous that someone can say that to me and I can't call it "pathetic". It would interesting to see what would have happened if we were in the history forum and it was been moderated by people without religious bias.
A lot of people read and use boards.ie as an educational website, I can't believe someone can rant on slagging off the eastern world as effectively being inferior and the reformed churchs as a source of scientific enlightment and be effectively immune from being challenged from an opposing view. It's a very insular, protective way of discussing things.

It's a serious issue for boards.ie how serious does it consider debate and does it have a responsibility for impartiality.

nesf

Tim Robbins wrote:

If you read the thread which started the fuss we were talking about the reformation and one poster PDN, said that it helped progress Science. He was adamant about this saying that the Steam Engine would never have been invented in India. I was challenging this opinion and he just told me I need to read my books more attentively. It's just ridiculous that someone can say that to me and I can't call it "pathetic". It would interesting to see what would have happened if we were in the history forum and it was been moderated by people without religious bias.
A lot of people read and use boards.ie as an educational website, I can't believe someone can rant on slagging off the eastern world as effectively being inferior and the reformed churchs as a source of scientific enlightment and be effectively immune from being challenged from an opposing view. It's a very insular, protective way of discussing things.

It's a serious issue for boards.ie how serious does it consider debate and does it have a responsibility for impartiality.

Sure, I can accept all that. My question is, if I was as biased in my "protective position" on science discussion in Physics, why can't the Christianity mods be as protective in Christianity? We have a lot of forums and they are all moderated differently each with its own ethos based on the topic.

If you wanted to have that discussion in neutral territory you should have had it in Humanities. By having it in Christianity or a Science forum you'd have to accept the ethos of that forum. You obviously don't accept it, so don't have the discussion there.

philologos

He posted a childish thread criticising BrianCalgary for locking the original one for going off topic. That is the reason why he was banned, not because of the debate.

nesf

Jakkass wrote:

He posted a childish thread criticising BrianCalgary for locking the original one for going off topic. That is the reason why he was banned, not because of the debate.

Sure, but the two are not distinct and separate things.


That and I wanted to see his reaction considering he's someone who believes that arguing from analogy isn't logical when the analogy is descriptive in nature as per on the first page of that thread.

philologos

Thats all well and good, but surely if this kind of scenario occurred on other non-religious forums, surely it would be acceptable to ban? In fairness he created another thread when it was locked for going off topic, and he continued in asking a sarcastic question that was intended to insult the moderator for his moderating.

nesf

Jakkass wrote:

Thats all well and good, but surely if this kind of scenario occurred on other non-religious forums, surely it would be acceptable to ban? In fairness he created another thread when it was locked for going off topic, and he continued in asking a sarcastic question that was intended to insult the moderator for his moderating.

Debatable, it would depend on the forum and the moderator in question to be honest. It also depends on the reasons why the original thread was locked, and whether it was locked for good reasons and whether further discussion was forbidden.

Really it's just another storm in a teacup and while I think the ban was a tad harsh, I also think it was fair and that Tim can't really complain too much about it. He must have known that he was going to get a warning or a ban for what he did and it was up to the moderator's discretion which one would apply.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

If you read the thread which started the fuss we were talking about the reformation and one poster PDN, said that it helped progress Science. He was adamant about this saying that the Steam Engine would never have been invented in India. I was challenging this opinion and he just told me I need to read my books more attentively. It's just ridiculous that someone can say that to me and I can't call it "pathetic". It would interesting to see what would have happened if we were in the history forum and it was been moderated by people without religious bias.
A lot of people read and use boards.ie as an educational website, I can't believe someone can rant on slagging off the eastern world as effectively being inferior and the reformed churchs as a source of scientific enlightment and be effectively immune from being challenged from an opposing view. It's a very insular, protective way of discussing things.

It's a serious issue for boards.ie how serious does it consider debate and does it have a responsibility for impartiality.

Actually, Tim, that is a gross misrepresentation of the thread in question. I shared my opinion (familiar to anyone who has read Max Weber) that scientific method, as we know it, developed because the Reformation opened the door to a society where people could question and experiment rather than simply accepting what a monolithic Church/State structure told them to think. I also shared my opinion, which you are entitled to disagree with, that India, left to itself, would have developed along different paths and would never have invented either the steam engine or Auschwitz.

It is incorrect to say

he just told me I need to read my books more attentively.

You challenged my thesis (as is your right). I actually responded to your challenge by citing an eminent historian (not a Christian) who specialises in applying evolutionary theory to the history of historical development. You failed to address this at all, but instead advised me to read a certain book (by Jared Diamond) and included a link to Amazon. I responded that I had already read the book, but advised you to read it more carefully since you appeared to have misunderstood a major strand of the book's thesis. I'm sorry you find that patronising, but I fail to see anything there that is not part and parcel of any polite intellectual debate.

I found his remark a bit patronizing (and his insinuations about Eastern culture a tad arrogant) so I told him his last argument was pathetic.

Sorry, that is untrue. After the exchange about Eastern culture you posted four more times without calling my argument pathetic. Although you did accuse me of having "a ranting style".

Then, seeing that you were getting a bit steamed up, I posted this:

I think one of our failures to understand each other, Tim, is that you seem to be determined to invest a lot of time and effort to prove that my opinion is wrong and your's is right. I, on the other hand, am simply defending my hypothesis as a reasonable explanation, albeit one which has considerable support among historians.

Your calm and logical response to this "rant" of mine was:

Oh I see now, it's all my fault. What a pathetic argument. I am one of the few people who frequents these forums and will admit to being wrong. Your analysis is ferociously biased. I admit I don't know much about Eastern history or Culture. I don't speak any of their languages for example, so I would be slow to judge them. You seem not to have this reluctance. I think you are judging them to make yourself feel better about yourself and your own culture. That's the impression I get.

Then a mod stepped in, objected to the word 'pathetic' and, as they say, the rest is all history.

Rather a squalid little storm in a tea cup, in my opinion, but I do so dislike being misrepresented. Just accept that the mods don't like that particular word and move on. It's the same rules for us all.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Actually, Tim, that is a gross misrepresentation of the thread in question. I shared my opinion (familiar to anyone who has read Max Weber) that scientific method, as we know it, developed because the Reformation opened the door to a society where people could question and experiment rather than simply accepting what a monolithic Church/State structure told them to think. I also shared my opinion, which you are entitled to disagree with, that India, left to itself, would have developed along different paths and would never have invented either the steam engine or Auschwitz.

It is incorrect to say You challenged my thesis (as is your right). I actually responded to your challenge by citing an eminent historian (not a Christian) who specialises in applying evolutionary theory to the history of historical development. You failed to address this at all, but instead advised me to read a certain book (by Jared Diamond) and included a link to Amazon. I responded that I had already read the book, but advised you to read it more carefully since you appeared to have misunderstood a major strand of the book's thesis. I'm sorry you find that patronising, but I fail to see anything there that is not part and parcel of any polite intellectual debate.


Sorry, that is untrue. After the exchange about Eastern culture you posted four more times without calling my argument pathetic. Although you did accuse me of having "a ranting style".

Then, seeing that you were getting a bit steamed up, I posted this:


Your calm and logical response to this "rant" of mine was:


Then a mod stepped in, objected to the word 'pathetic' and, as they say, the rest is all history.

Rather a squalid little storm in a tea cup, in my opinion, but I do so dislike being misrepresented. Just accept that the mods don't like that particular word and move on. It's the same rules for us all.

I don't see any misrepresentation. You made a serious of personal attacks:
1. I should a book more carefully
2. You made this derogatory remark:
"It appears as if Tim and I are equally bad when it comes to rules of formal logic."
3. this one: ". I can appreciate that, to a layperson unfamiliar with Diamond and the ongoing debate on his work,"
and
4. then the one you just quoted.

It was cumulation of your derogatory remarks, the final was the straw the camels back, but suggesting I read a book more carefully was the most pathetic. It was like a school teach talking to a teenage - just pathetic.
Nothing I couldn't deal with, but it was unfair of a mod not allow me freely defend myself.
Thankfully this is 2007 and it's only an internet forum and I am not getting burnt at the stake!

Boston

Your think thats a serious personal attack. Why don't you go read this It's only 9.95 at amazon.

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote:

He posted a childish thread criticising BrianCalgary for locking the original one for going off topic. That is the reason why he was banned, not because of the debate.

Incorrect, I didn't even mention Brian's name in that thread: Read it again!

Hi,
I was just wondering in Christianity, does the concept of a pathetic argument exist?
If it does exist, and you are asked what you think of such an argument, should you be truthful and say it's pathetic or should you lie?

nesf

Tim Robbins wrote:

2. You made this derogatory remark:
"It appears as if Tim and I are equally bad when it comes to rules of formal logic."

Honestly, I cannot see how you could consider that derogatory.

Hagar

And yea verily I say unto thee "get down from thine Cross" and give unto us a fúcking break.

Tim Robbins

Boston wrote:

Your think thats a serious personal attack. Why don't you go read this It's only 9.95 at amazon.

Ah come one away with the sarcasm!
I don't deny PDN his right to say what he said, what I am absolutely livid about is my lack of right to refer to one his negative personal arguments about me as pathetic.
It's completly unfair for the Mod's to overlook any provactive remark by PDN (presumably because he is Christian with a bias to the reformation) and then to have a go at me for using a descriptive adjective that would perfectly acceptable in any debate or leaving cert paper. It's has been sued over 300 times on boards.ie for flips sake, and guess who gets warned for using it.
Ridiculous! Boston the irony is it is they who should be reading that book.

Tim Robbins

nesf wrote:

Honestly, I cannot see how you could consider that derogatory.

It's not something to get upset about, it's not something I would care about but there's context here: his innocuous implication that I am quite bad at logic is ignored but my usage of the word "pathetic" ends up getting me banned.

nesf

Tim Robbins wrote:

It's not something to get upset about, it's not something I would care about but there's context here: his innocuous implication that I am quite bad at logic is ignored but my usage of the word "pathetic" ends up getting me banned.

Honestly, you're not that good at logic. Your very first post in that thread was completely incorrect and showed that you didn't understand the fundamental difference between someone arguing from analogy and making an analogy. You also seem to think that it's correct to apply a mix of inductive and deductive logical principles to non-argument statements which is also fallacious.

Shall I go on or do you just want me to recommend a few good logical primers for you to read?

Boston

Tim Robbins wrote:

Ah come one away with the sarcasm!
I don't deny PDN his right to say what he said, what I am absolutely livid about is my lack of right to refer to one his negative personal arguments about me as pathetic.
It's completly unfair for the Mod's to overlook any provactive remark by PDN (presumably because he is Christian with a bias to the reformation) and then to have a go at me for using a descriptive adjective that would perfectly acceptable in any debate or leaving cert paper. It's has been sued over 300 times on boards.ie for flips sake, and guess who gets warned for using it.
Ridiculous! Boston the irony is it is they who should be reading that book.

There's a certain level of "provaction" you have to swallow to be able to use the internet to discuss things. In fact there's a certain amount you have to take in real life as well. You can't go around calling people pathetic, it's an escalation. And that is what you did. I think the comment would have earned you a ban from politics or humanities just as quickly.

Boston

nesf wrote:

Honestly, you're not that good at logic. Your very first post in that thread was completely incorrect and showed that you didn't understand the fundamental difference between someone arguing from analogy and making an analogy. You also seem to think that it's correct to apply a mix of inductive and deductive logical principles to non-argument statements which is also fallacious.

I always smile when someone uses knowledge to own someone else.

Tim Robbins

nesf wrote:

Honestly, you're not that good at logic. Your very first post in that thread was completely incorrect and showed that you didn't understand the fundamental difference between someone arguing from analogy and making an analogy.

The Fine Gael / don't analogy was part of his argument and was fallacious as far as I was concerned. Elaborate why you think it was not.

You also seem to think that it's correct to apply a mix of inductive and deductive logical principles to non-argument statements which is also fallacious.

?

Shall I go on or do you just want me to recommend a few good logical primers for you to read?

I have read bits and pieces already, let's hear your recommendations.

DublinWriter

Tim,

I think what this all really hinges on is the reason for the Christianity Forum - is it a forum to discuss Christianity or promote Christianity.

If the latter is the case then I would have said you were banned rightly, but now I'm back-seat modding, so I'll fetch me coat...

Seriously, personal beliefs are a deeply-cherished thing. Going in like a Exocet missile never gets anyone anywhere, but I have to say that Asiaprod did give you some sage-like advice originally.

DW.

Tim Robbins

DublinWriter wrote:

Tim,

I think what this all really hinges on is the reason for the Christianity Forum - is it a forum to discuss Christianity or promote Christianity.

If the latter is the case then I would have said you were banned rightly, but now I'm back-seat modding, so I'll fetch me coat...

Seriously, personal beliefs are a deeply-cherished thing. Going in like a Exocet missile never gets anyone anywhere, but I have to say that Asiaprod did give you some sage-like advice originally.

DW.

I think they should update their charter at the very least.

Boston

DublinWriter wrote:

Tim,

I think what this all really hinges on is the reason for the Christianity Forum - is it a forum to discuss Christianity or promote Christianity.

If the latter is the case then I would have said you were banned rightly, but now I'm back-seat modding, so I'll fetch me coat...

Seriously, personal beliefs are a deeply-cherished thing. Going in like a Exocet missile never gets anyone anywhere, but I have to say that Asiaprod did give you some sage-like advice originally.

DW.

Fundamental thing about all the forums on boards, is that the people that use them don't have to justify themselves to those that feel they are a waste of space. Thats the same right accross the board from mustard to islam.

nesf

Tim Robbins wrote:

The Fine Gael / don't analogy was part of his argument and was fallacious as far as I was concerned. Elaborate why you think it was not.

It wasn't part of his argument. It was a throwaway observation with no bearing on his argument and he didn't argue anything from it. You can call it a good analogy or a bad analogy or whatever but he didn't conclude anything strictly from it. It wasn't a premise for any conclusion of his.

Just because someone makes an analogy doesn't mean they are arguing from it.

This is what I meant by non-argument statements. Logic is only useful when applied to arguments. There's little point applying it to things that aren't arguments for or against something.

Also, arguing from analogy isn't necessarily illogical. But that's a different debate.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I have read bits and pieces already, let's hear your recommendations.

Two good starting places:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Critical-Thinking-Merrilee-Salmon/dp/0534626637/ref=sr_1_6/203-9991841-3601505?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177619627&sr=1-6
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Languages-Logic-Introduction-Formal/dp/155786988X/ref=sr_1_1/203-9991841-3601505?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177619655&sr=1-1

Tim Robbins

Boston wrote:

Fundamental thing about all the forums on boards, is that the people that use them don't have to justify themselves to those that feel they are a waste of space. Thats the same right accross the board from mustard to islam.

Well that's a good point and I suppose the crux of the issue.

Tim Robbins

nesf wrote:

Just because someone makes an analogy doesn't mean they are arguing from it.

Agree, I thought it was part of the argument. I don't see the point in him making it otherwise, although it would be interesting for his view on this.

This is what I meant by non-argument statements. Logic is only useful when applied to arguments. There's little point applying it to things that aren't arguments for or against something.

Also, arguing from analogy isn't necessarily illogical. But that's a different debate.

It usually is and I sure you know why.
When an the analogy is valid, or when something seems like a valid analogy it's usually (but not always) an example rather an analogy.

Two good starting places:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Critical-Thinking-Merrilee-Salmon/dp/0534626637/ref=sr_1_6/203-9991841-3601505?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177619627&sr=1-6
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Languages-Logic-Introduction-Formal/dp/155786988X/ref=sr_1_1/203-9991841-3601505?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177619655&sr=1-1

[/QUOTE]
Thanks.
I've read this, quite good:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Logic-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192893203/ref=sr_1_1/203-9689463-4487929?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177620448&sr=1-1

nesf

Tim Robbins wrote:

Agree, I thought it was part of the argument. I don't see the point in him making it otherwise, although it would be interesting for his view on this.

I read it as a bit of tongue in cheek humour tbh.

Tim Robbins wrote:

It usually is and I sure you know why.
When an the analogy is valid, or when something seems like a valid analogy it's usually (but not always) an example rather an analogy.

That doesn't necessarily apply to inductive logic where arguing from analogy is valid, it is only the strength of the analogy that is important in evaluating the strength of the argument. In deductive logic it isn't valid unless it compares two things that are the same thing essentially. There's more to logic than deductive logic though and most practical logic isn't deductive in nature.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Thanks.
I've read this, quite good:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Logic-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192893203/ref=sr_1_1/203-9689463-4487929?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177620448&sr=1-1

That series of books is good but it won't really help you apply logic. It's one thing to know the principles and quite another to actually apply them successfully in arguments with people. Also, you need to learn the limitations of logic if you are ever going to get anywhere (i.e. recognise when it can't be applied).