Talk:Argumentum ad baculum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Instead of writing phrase we could write term. Sebastian 04:06 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)
A related fallacy is the claim that...
How is this a related fallacy? It seems the same to me...
Contents |
[edit] Logical vs Non-logical arguments
I attempted a rewrite of the article to address the alleged claim that appeal by force is not a logical fallacy. I am of the opinion that when defined in a specific way, it is necessarily a logical fallacy, resulting in the edit. Shawnc 00:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I changed the phrase "violent consequences" to "dire consequences," hopefully broadening the definition to cover more than just the threat of punishment. If I'm not mistaken, Simon Blackburn defines it the same way in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy.--WadeMcR 06:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote the bulk of the non-logical section. It's true that the example is not a logical argument, but the reasons were mostly incorrect. Logic is perfectly capable of addressing 'should' (Inductive reasoning). I tried to eliminate terms that aren't commonly defined (e.g. 'quasi-logical'). The assertion that the argument addresses holding a belief in P 'even if P is logically false' isn't why the conclusion is non-logical, so it's removed. This section still needs work, or needs to be scrapped entirely; an article on a logical fallacy needs to address the logical fallacy - not some poorly-worded non-logical variant of it. Tofof 07:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A better (or at least funnier) example
- If not P, then I will beat you up.
- Therefore P.
Thanks for presenting this as if it were a genuine logical argument. It's both completely valid content and most definitely silly. Excellent. --Kizor 10:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Examples vs. Non-examples
The Chewbacca, 3PO reference is pointless and innaccurate. It doesn't represent an example of logical fallacy. It represents an example of threat being used to advise someone to willingly lose a contest. If Han Solo had instead argued "Wookies are known to pull the arms off people when they lose, therefore he is winning." or if instead of playing chess, they were having a philosophical debate, where a logical argument was in question and threat was used to settle that argument, it would be an example of Argumentum ad baculum.
[edit] Moral Relativism
I notice that this page seems to heavily endorse moral relativism. I would consider this to be very biased.
[edit] Name convention?
Is there a naming convention on using the Latin vs. English terms for logical fallacies?
English main, Latin redirects
- Argument from fallacy/argumentum ad logicam
- Begging the question/circular logic/petitio principii
- Correlation does not imply causation/cum hoc ergo propter hoc
- Appeal to consequences/argumentum ad consequentiam
- Argument from ignorance/argumentum ad ignorantiam
- Appeal to tradition/argumentum ad antiquitatem
Latin main, English redirects
- Argumentum ad baculum/ad baculum/appeal to force
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc/coincidental correlation
- Ignoratio elenchi/irrelevant conclusion (I think this is Greek, not Latin, but same principle)
- Argumentum ad populum/appeal to the majority
Okay, after compiling that list, this article doesn't stand out so badly. Still, it doesn't seem like there's a pattern. It seems likely to me that 'appeal to force' could be more well-known, at least now, than 'argumentum ad baculum'. If this is named in the Latin for historical reasons, then shouldn't 'cum hoc ergo propter hoc' certainly also be a main title, for example?
If there's a more appropriate and/or more general place to discuss this convention, please let me know and I'll move it. Tofof 06:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Questionable Example
The following example cited: "You should believe in God, because if you do not, you will go to Hell." Does not seem, to me, to be rightly classified as a logical fallacy. Following the form for this sort of argument,
If x does not accept P as true, then Q. Q is a punishment on x. Therefore, P is true.
The cited example certainly fulfills the two premises; however, the conclusion "that God exists is true" is not intended to follow from the premises.
Someone can make the assertion that "If you don't believe in God you will go to Hell." They may be convinced that this is true for many reasons (unspoken presupposition that "God does exist."). And they may sincerely believe that those who don't follow Him will be punished. However, the threat of the punishment, in my experience, is never offered as proof that the initial premise is true.
Therefore, I recommend removing this example from the "logical argument" section, with the possibility of relocating it to the "rhetorical argument" section. Vanwatts 15:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- They you are assuming that either God could exist and not believing would be fine, or that He/She might not exist, and believing would be fine! It is absolutely clear that when they ask you to believe it goes implied that it is because it exists, and conversely, God existing and you not believing is "unacceptable". I know, the argument does not say "If God doesn't exist, you will go to hell", but it is a circular argument involving that, as God exists, there is hell, and non-believers will be punished. Then, if you do not believe, you will go to hell. Then, since if you do not believe you will go to hell, it means that there is a God who made hell in first place, and will punish you if you do not believe. It is absolutely implied that you will be punished because God does exist (and, circularly, that God exists because you will be punished), so, to me it is a valid example. Look at it this way: the conclusion "Therefore, P is true" is for all means equivalent to "Therefore, x should accept P as true" (which is implied in "If you don't believe in God you will go to Hell"). — Isilanes 16:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The correct form as far as I can see would be a change to "You should believe in my God because if you don't and he is real, you will go to hell". Using inductive reasoning we can see that the point " you should believe in my" implies that that person's concept of God would indeed punish you with hell. But just stating that if you don't believe in God you will go to hell is illogical as you could believe there was no God and be wrong, but that deity was not predisposed to send you to hell for whatever reason. Just stating that if there is a God you will go hell is incorrect because of the countless number of different theoretical God's. But stating that if you don't except my God and he is real, you will go to hell is correct. Because if that person's conception of God is in fact real and you don't believe in him which is a prerequisite of salvation than he will in fact punish you with hell, if that paricular concept of a God does in fact exist. Colin 8 17:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with your first amendment, but I do not like the "my God" expresion, and propose to use "God X" instead. The fact that God X punishes non-believers is implied. However, I disagree with the "if he's real" part, as it takes the fallacy away. Notice that the implied argument (ad baculum) is that God X exists because She'll send you to Hell if you do not accept that She exists! Yes, it is ridiculous, but that's the bottom line of the argument (that's why it's a fallacy). As I point above, the argument is circular (as She exists, She'll punish you. As She'll punish you, She must exist). It is completely implied that God X existing forces you believing in Her inherently, and also that not believing would bring punishment (these are "safe" assumptions in that context). — Isilanes 13:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I'm a bit thick, but I fail to see how this argument does not more properly fall into the category of the subsequent section in the article, as listed below. It seems to fit exactly into this form.:
A similar but non-logical argument has roughly the following form:
If x does not accept P as true, then Q.
{If you don't believe in God you will go to Hell}
Q is a punishment on x.
{Implied: Hell is a punishment on you}
Therefore, x should accept P to avoid Q.
{Therefore, you should believe God (to avoid Hell)}
- No, you are quite right. However, I must be a bit thick myself, because I actually see little difference between the "logical" and "non-logical" arguments... The difference seems to be "it is true" vs. "you should accept it". However, it goes implied that when sb tells you to accept something, it means that this something is true. Otherwise they are openly forcing you to be a hypocrite. In the example of $GOD and Hell, is it obvious that when they tell you that you should believe in $GOD, they imply that She exists. It wouldn't make much sense a preacher saying: "Brothers and sisters, believe in $GOD (even though She doesn't exist), because it's better for you". Anyway, if they are two different arguments (logical and non-logical), the Hell example seems to belong in the latter, as you say. — Isilanes 08:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bad Example
If you commit the thought crime of not believing in Jesus Christ, you will go to hell. Therefore, Jesus Christ is God.
This seems like a bad example to me, because following the formula listed, it should read, "If you do not believe that Jesus Christ is God...", not "If you [do not believe] in Jesus Christ." Also, I think that the term thought crime isn't helpful to this example. First of all, the explicit referencing of 1984 in an example that is specifically about Christianity seems fairly biased to me. It's easy enough to avoid this possible bias in such a simple example! Secondly, the addition of thought crime is irrelevant and doesn't even add anything to the example; it doesn't clarify or make it easier to understand. Valkotukka (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
