I wouldn't start from here ...

[Mulder]

There's an old 'joke' (if you can call it that) where someone is lost and asks a local for directions to a (named) town. The local helpfully says, 'If I was going there, I wouldn't start from here ...'

It reminds me of the many conversations I have with people who believe in the paranormal. The arguments they make in favour of their beliefs are often surprisingly logical and well argued.

However, almost without exception, I've found that their arguments all suffer from the problem of false assumptions. No matter how cleverly they argue, you will always find a dodgy assumption somewhere. For instance, they will assume that ghosts are spirits and everything else will, perfectly logically, flow from that.

I find it surprising that, considering all the logical fallacies they could commit, it almost always comes down to false assumptions. Maybe it's just the way the mind works when it's in 'belief' mode ...

[wrongun]

I find it interesting where these assumptions come from. They seem to filter into sub cultural millue (and even into wider culture) until they become accepted fact. Viz: ghosts are spirits, orbs are ghosts, ghosts drain energy etc. (Hey it happens in areas other than ghost stuff, they're just examples)
I guess it is some critical mass thing - eg. if enough people in a group think ghosts drain energy it becomes a given. You can then build your castle of why ghosts drain energy on the sand that they do.

[NorthernSoul]

It reminds me of the many conversations I have with people who believe in the paranormal. The arguments they make in favour of their beliefs are often surprisingly logical and well argued.

You're kidding?

[Mulder]

You're kidding?

Not at all. Many believers are well educated, highly intelligent, understand logic and can put together perfectly reasoned arguments. That's really my point. It is only because of incorrect assumptions that their whole argument can appear nonsense. If the assumptions were correct, the argument would be perfectly sensible.

[Trinoc]

I'd say that if these people have good rhetorical skills, they are more usually employed in the cause of sophistry than in sound logic. Of course, dodgy assumptions help, but you can't beat a good dose of faulty logic if you want to prove something absurd.

[NorthernSoul]

Not at all. Many believers are well educated, highly intelligent, understand logic and can put together perfectly reasoned arguments. That's really my point. It is only because of incorrect assumptions that their whole argument can appear nonsense. If the assumptions were correct, the argument would be perfectly sensible.

I can see where you're coming from. My experience in arguing against crazies I guess has been limited to believers who really want and need to believe in what they do, contesting those beliefs has, in my experience, just lead to shouting and storming out (like in the case of the 50 year old man who wanted to believe in mediums).

I guess not everyone has the same motivation for believing in woo.

[Dubious Dick]

It reminds me of the many conversations I have with people who believe in the paranormal. The arguments they make in favour of their beliefs are often surprisingly logical and well argued.

However, almost without exception, I've found that their arguments all suffer from the problem of false assumptions. No matter how cleverly they argue, you will always find a dodgy assumption somewhere. For instance, they will assume that ghosts are spirits and everything else will, perfectly logically, flow from that.
...

In the spirit (deliberate pun) of all good discussions on these boards, would it not be fair to say that one cannot make a logical argument from an illogical assumption i.e. to assume there are ghosts/spirits in the first place is illogical in itself due to the complete lack of any credible evidence?

I am also a bit baffle by the line "...they will assume ghosts are spirits..." which in itself seems to assume there are ghosts?

Anyway, back to whacking the wackos!

[chillzero]

Speaking as an ex-believer, with a very logical mindset, not all believers are 'whacko', nor idiots, nor insane.

It's a terrible assumption to make, and the idea that all 'whackos' need to be 'whacked' may lead you down a path that won't convince anyone and will only alienate you from those you hope to reach.

[Mulder]

In the spirit (deliberate pun) of all good discussions on these boards, would it not be fair to say that one cannot make a logical argument from an illogical assumption i.e. to assume there are ghosts/spirits in the first place is illogical in itself due to the complete lack of any credible evidence?

I don't see why you can't make a logical argument based on false assumptions. It would, surely, only be illogical if you KNEW the assumptions were false. In the case of believers they clearly know no such thing.

I am also a bit baffle by the line "...they will assume ghosts are spirits..." which in itself seems to assume there are ghosts?

There is ample evidence that people report seeing ghosts. If someone sees a human figure in a locked room, where they are alone (no, not a reflection, it's not a puzzle), many people would report it as a ghost. So far, so uncontrovertial. Many people will go on to think that they have seen a spirit. This is where the assumption bit comes in as they haveno evidence that it is anything of the sort. In fact it is most likely to be a misperception or hallucination.

[wrongun]

I think there are two points to this

1. The arguing inside of false assumptions can be quite logical, inside its own parameters. The how-many-angels-you-can-get-on-a-pin-head philosophising in the middle ages probably covered some great points of maths and logic.

2. Debating the actual false assumptions I've found to throw up a greater lack of logic. I dont know why - perhaps to question them means questioning some fundamental aspects of who they have constructed themseves to be.

Sometimes the two blur: when the arguements inside the parameters lead to questions about those very parameters, again I've found that this is where logic starts to get lost again. (Any arguements with people who literally believe the bible usually end up here)

For a recent view of some people desperately reconstructing a belief shattered before their very eyes this website
(from the Hopi Ear candle discussion elsewhere on this forum) is just brilliant. When 'belief' is this desperate to survive logic has no chance!

[Dubious Dick]

Speaking as an ex-believer, with a very logical mindset, not all believers are 'whacko', nor idiots, nor insane.

It's a terrible assumption to make, and the idea that all 'whackos' need to be 'whacked' may lead you down a path that won't convince anyone and will only alienate you from those you hope to reach.

O.K. apologies if that was offensive to some. Is it fair to say that you have become logical only since becoming an ex-believer? I am very largely anti false beliefs because they are dangerous in many cases. I am aggressive at times because of an impatience to see 'belief' and 'faith' die the deaths they deserve more rapidly than they seem to be.

I sometimes short cut because of a sense that endless reasonable argument so rarely seems to get anywhere with believers. My anger is directed largely at the so called mediums etc, and not at the vulnerable and the gullible who lap it up.

All the evidence I have seen to date is that the purveyors are not nice people who really believe, but con artists who know full well what they are selling. If not then they are delusional and hence insane in some way.

Sometimes it seems necessary to try to shock people out of their cosy beliefs because they are immune to reason.

I am here partly to learn better ways of trying to persuade, so I do take on board much of the criticism. That I get angry and passionate is not something I want to lose altogether however. Without those motivations there is the danger of too much soft soaping.

Anyway, if it is any consolation, I hope that it is some comfort to know that I try to take a more reasonable approach when dealing with believers, and sometimes here seems a good place to let off a bit of steam, and indeed get slapped occasionally for being too feisty. No bad thing at all!

[Dubious Dick]

I don't see why you can't make a logical argument based on false assumptions. It would, surely, only be illogical if you KNEW the assumptions were false. In the case of believers they clearly know no such thing.

There is ample evidence that people report seeing ghosts. If someone sees a human figure in a locked room, where they are alone (no, not a reflection, it's not a puzzle), many people would report it as a ghost. So far, so uncontrovertial. Many people will go on to think that they have seen a spirit. This is where the assumption bit comes in as they haveno evidence that it is anything of the sort. In fact it is most likely to be a misperception or hallucination.

If logic is based on reason, and one makes an unreasonable assumption at the outset, then anything that follows is illogical. Let me state with absolute certainty that I am as guilty as anyone of failings in this regard, but am trying!

On the matter of ghosts. Evidence that people report seeing them is not evidence that they exist. Surely we must equally question and where at all possible disprove ghosts. Ghosts and spirits are surely, in practical terms, the same misguided fallacy that the dead live on in some other form.

[Matt]

If logic is based on reason, and one makes an unreasonable assumption at the outset, then anything that follows is illogical. Let me state with absolute certainty that I am as guilty as anyone of failings in this regard, but am trying!

On the matter of ghosts. Evidence that people report seeing them is not evidence that they exist. Surely we must equally question and where at all possible disprove ghosts. Ghosts and spirits are surely, in practical terms, the same misguided fallacy that the dead live on in some other form.

On a point of terminology if an argument follows logically from it's assumptions then it is a logical argument.

Only if the assumptions are "sound" is the resulting logic also "sound" however that doesn't stop it being logical.

For example if I allow the assumption that all men called Winston are black, then it follows logically that Sir Winston Churchill is black.

This is a logical argument. The assumption however is unsound and so the arguments relying upon it are also unsound. Of course unsound doesn't mean wrong. I could equally have said that it follws logically that Dr Winston Roberts is black. As it happens unsound though that argument was it just so happens to be correct.

The other way round however is valid. If the conclusion drawn is wrong then the logic supporting it must be unsound. If after double checking the logic, you are satisified that you have indeed made a logical argument then it must follow that at least one of your assumptions was unsound.

Since we know that Winston Churchill was not black we can say that the assumption that all men called Winston are black is unsound. We couldn't do that if we couldn't assert that him being black was a logical consequence of the assumption.

[chillzero]

Is it fair to say that you have become logical only since becoming an ex-believer?

Not really, no.
As I said, I've always had a very logical mindset. I was just deprived of information, and of people to discuss the opposing view with.

I have had major changes in my outlook and my beliefs, but very little changes in my character or approach.

[Nasib]

If logic is based on reason, and one makes an unreasonable assumption at the outset, then anything that follows is illogical. Let me state with absolute certainty that I am as guilty as anyone of failings in this regard, but am trying!

Very trying ...