What is the name of this "Art"?

[Sabras]

Hello,

 

We often hear Stefan comparing examples to other examples in order to clarify and spot contradictions.

 

For example:

 

If somebody said "Government is moral"

 

Stefan would probably reply similarly to this - "So if I come to you and take your money at gunpoint, that is not moral. This is exactly what governments do, therefore we cannot call governments moral if we have already established that they steal, which we know is immoral"

 

Then the contradiction becomes clear since we all know that this is precisely what governments do.

 

My question is, does this art of spotting and pointing out contradictions with the use of metaphors and different examples have a name?

 

Is it Aristotle's First Principles?

 

Sorry for a silly question but I wish to learn more about this art of....brilliancy.

 

 

[Will Torbald]

Epistemological Pyromancy: The Art of Pointing Out Self Exploding Arguments

[Sabras]

Never heard Stefan calling it that. But isn't it "First Principles"? The idea that one thing cannot be and not be something at the same time?

[Will Torbald]

Never heard Stefan calling it that. But isn't it "First Principles"? The idea that one thing cannot be and not be something at the same time?

 

It's a term I came up with on the spot, just a bit of humor. I guess it would just be applied principles of non contradiction.

[Sabras]

Sorry a bit of hard to recognise sarcasm over the internet when the sarcasm consists of clever sounding words 

[Alan C.]

The word you're looking for is 'analogy.'

[Kevin Beal]

My question is, does this art of spotting and pointing out contradictions with the use of metaphors and different examples have a name?

There are a few things which roughly take that form. An argument by analogy (like Alan mentioned), but there's also reductio ad absurdum which wouldn't use metaphors, but would apply some kind of logic consistently in such a way that would reveal that it's bad logic.

 

Stef would probably start with the socratic method, reveal what premises people are basing their arguments on, and then reveal the bad logic with something like an argument by analogy. So, the art is really the socratic method and what you're talking about is really an extension of that.

 

Starting from first principles means that you start from what you know and build up from there, rather than trying to justify a conclusion you already hold.

[DaVinci]

There are a few things which roughly take that form. An argument by analogy (like Alan mentioned), but there's also reductio ad absurdum which wouldn't use metaphors, but would apply some kind of logic consistently in such a way that would reveal that it's bad logic.

 

Stef would probably start with the socratic method, reveal what premises people are basing their arguments on, and then reveal the bad logic with something like an argument by analogy. So, the art is really the socratic method and what you're talking about is really an extension of that.

 

Starting from first principles means that you start from what you know and build up from there, rather than trying to justify a conclusion you already hold.

 

Out of curiosity, what do you do when you use an analogy to reveal bad logic and the person you are talking to responds with the "We aren't talking about 'X' (The thing you used as an analogy) we are talking about 'Y'." (The thing you needed an analogy for to help point out the bad logic)? In other words, what do you do when people try to circumvent you pointing out their bad logic and try to bring the conversation back to their own conclusions. I run into this problem a lot with family.  

[Alan C.]

Examples of reductio ad absurdum would be the following:

 

"If raising the minimum wage doesn't cause disemployment, as you claim, then it should be raised to $100/hour."

 

"If natural disasters result in economic growth because of the spending needed to fix everything, then it makes sense to bulldoze everything because the ensuing reconstruction will also result in economic growth."

 

When people reject your analogy (eg. taxation is theft, conscription is slavery) then they are experiencing cognitive dissonance.

[Sabras]

Yeah thanks a lot guys, you see when you are a professional donut eater (cop) like myself you have to start from scratch.

 

I appreciate all the comments!!

[Kevin Beal]

Out of curiosity, what do you do when you use an analogy to reveal bad logic and the person you are talking to responds with the "We aren't talking about 'X' (The thing you used as an analogy) we are talking about 'Y'." (The thing you needed an analogy for to help point out the bad logic)? In other words, what do you do when people try to circumvent you pointing out their bad logic and try to bring the conversation back to their own conclusions.

I don't know if this is actually a good thing to do, but I break down the analogy and say "X is to A, as Y is to B". The more I explain it as if they are 10 years old and they get increasingly uncomfortable, the more certain I am that I did enough and they are just being defensive. That way, I don't get caught thinking to myself later "if I had only argued it better, then maybe they would have understood".

 

If they are experiencing cognitive dissonance like Alan said (which would explain the lack of effort to comprehend) then there may not be anything you could do to move the conversation forward. With ideas that challenge people's worldviews, a person who puts in no effort to understand just simply won't (in my experience).

 

I think to just assume that the analogy is you changing the subject entirely, instead of assuming that you must be saying it for a reason and trying to figure out what that reason is, is them not putting any effort in.

[Sabras]

I don't know if this is actually a good thing to do, but I break down the analogy and say "X is to A, as Y is to B". The more I explain it as if they are 10 years old and they get increasingly uncomfortable, the more certain I am that I did enough and they are just being defensive. That way, I don't get caught thinking to myself later "if I had only argued it better, then maybe they would have understood".

 

If they are experiencing cognitive dissonance like Alan said (which would explain the lack of effort to comprehend) then there may not be anything you could do to move the conversation forward. With ideas that challenge people's worldviews, a person who puts in no effort to understand just simply won't (in my experience).

 

I think to just assume that the analogy is you changing the subject entirely, instead of assuming that you must be saying it for a reason and trying to figure out what that reason is, is them not putting any effort in.

 

 

Kevin, could you provide me with some examples of "X is to A, as Y is to B" analogies?

 

Cheers!

[Kevin Beal]

Kevin, could you provide me with some examples of "X is to A, as Y is to B" analogies?

By that I mean that I make it explicit how the analogy fits what is being talked about. Here's an example analogy:

 

"When you say that we need the state to protect your property, that's like saying that we need to pay the mafia in order to protect us"

 

I would be making the analogy explicit by saying exactly how the state is like the mafia: it's an involuntary relationship where they steal from you while telling you that they are protecting you from things like loss of property. Taxes are like the mafia's "protection" racket.

 

So, if they accept that it's absurd when the mafia does it, and the analogy fits closely enough for them to see it works the same in both instances, then that should be cause for them to really consider that we don't need the state to protect our property, and further, doing so is as absurd as relying on the mafia for protection. That is, if they have any integrity they will really consider it.

[DaVinci]

I don't know if this is actually a good thing to do, but I break down the analogy and say "X is to A, as Y is to B". The more I explain it as if they are 10 years old and they get increasingly uncomfortable, the more certain I am that I did enough and they are just being defensive. That way, I don't get caught thinking to myself later "if I had only argued it better, then maybe they would have understood".

 

If they are experiencing cognitive dissonance like Alan said (which would explain the lack of effort to comprehend) then there may not be anything you could do to move the conversation forward. With ideas that challenge people's worldviews, a person who puts in no effort to understand just simply won't (in my experience).

 

I think to just assume that the analogy is you changing the subject entirely, instead of assuming that you must be saying it for a reason and trying to figure out what that reason is, is them not putting any effort in.

 

Thanks for your response!

 

I've also wondered before if I've explained something as well as I could have after running into so much resistance to specific topics. I'm always striving to be able to explain things better, and expand my vocabulary. However I'm begging to wonder if these thoughts that I need to explain myself better after I've had a difficult conversation are me playing a part in my own manipulation. Instead of trusting that I have explained something adequately, and someone who cares about what I have to say will then ask questions or be empathetic, I take the resistance and push against what I'm saying as a sort of deficiency on my part and question whether I know what the heck I'm talking about.  

[Kevin Beal]

I take the resistance and push against what I'm saying as a sort of deficiency on my part and question whether I know what the heck I'm talking about.  

There's a psychological phenomenon where the feelings one person denies that they themselves are experiencing, end up being provoked in the other person.

 

Imagine that you are talking to someone who's irritated or resentful but pretending to be happy, they are going to inevitably send you mixed signals, or say passive aggressive things, veiled insults, etc. And that's going to make you feel irritated.

 

Or imagine that someone is really anxious, but pretends to themselves that they aren't anxious. Those mixed signals will start be confusing; you'll wonder what's missing and you'll start to feel anxious, unsure of what's going on.

 

Being told that taxation is theft is difficult, not because it's difficult to process logically, but because the implications around never being told something so obvious are very uncomfortable. How many people have colluded in this theft and their blindness to it? How many people have they rationalized evil to?

 

I think that most people just think unconsciously: this makes me feel really bad -> the conclusion is bad -> therefore he's wrong. And so, they deny their own anxiety and self doubt and it infects the people they're talking to.

 

Maybe that self doubt you feel is not even your own?

[bugzysegal]

There's a psychological phenomenon where the feelings one person denies that they themselves are experiencing, end up being provoked in the other person.

 

Imagine that you are talking to someone who's irritated or resentful but pretending to be happy, they are going to inevitably send you mixed signals, or say passive aggressive things, veiled insults, etc. And that's going to make you feel irritated.

 

Or imagine that someone is really anxious, but pretends to themselves that they aren't anxious. Those mixed signals will start be confusing; you'll wonder what's missing and you'll start to feel anxious, unsure of what's going on.

 

Being told that taxation is theft is difficult, not because it's difficult to process logically, but because the implications around never being told something so obvious are very uncomfortable. How many people have colluded in this theft and their blindness to it? How many people have they rationalized evil to?

 

I think that most people just think unconsciously: this makes me feel really bad -> the conclusion is bad -> therefore he's wrong. And so, they deny their own anxiety and self doubt and it infects the people they're talking to.

 

Maybe that self doubt you feel is not even your own?

Legal reasoning (in addressing common law which is based on past cases)  uses argument by analogy to a great extent.  I'm literally taking legal writing right now and the formula for application of the law is fact=fact because reasons.  So it's not just presenting two sets of facts and expecting the other person to intuit them as similar, but providing explicit reasons for why they are similar. Someone can counter by providing  reasons why the facts are not analogous in a relevant way, or directly attacking your reasoning for their similarity. By making your reason for comparison explicit, you give them something they need to refute or weaken before furthering their position.

[Kevin Beal]

Legal reasoning (in addressing common law which is based on past cases)  uses argument by analogy to a great extent.  I'm literally taking legal writing right now and the formula for application of the law is fact=fact because reasons.  So it's not just presenting two sets of facts and expecting the other person to intuit them as similar, but providing explicit reasons for why they are similar. Someone can counter by providing  reasons why the facts are not analogous in a relevant way, or directly attacking your reasoning for their similarity. By making your reason for comparison explicit, you give them something they need to refute or weaken before furthering their position.

If you don't talk to me like I'm 10 years old, I'm not going to understand what you're trying to communicate. I've given you a bunch of crap already for not speaking simply in the other thread. Speak simply, for the love of god.

[bugzysegal]

If you don't talk to me like I'm 10 years old, I'm not going to understand what you're trying to communicate. I've given you a bunch of crap already for not speaking simply in the other thread. Speak simply, for the love of god.

"fact=fact because reasons.  So it's not just presenting two sets of facts and expecting the other person to intuit them as similar, but providing explicit reasons for why they are similar. Someone can counter by providing  reasons why the facts are not analogous in a relevant way, or directly attacking your reasoning for their similarity. By making your reason for comparison explicit, you give them something they need to refute or weaken before furthering their position."  This is plain English.  My little bit about the class I'm in was superfluous background.  Where is there any ambiguity in the other part of the statement? 

I'll break it down:

"Fact=fact" <--- the listing of two set of circumstances 

"because reasons"<----the way in which the facts relate to each other relevant to the point you are trying to make

For example, when concerning the mental state of pilots.

Planes are like cars (fact=fact) because both can carry passengers and in their operations risk the lives of others (because reasons). Therefore pilots, like motor vehicle operators, should not increase the risk to others by being intoxicated when they fly(full argument).  

You can attack the facts as being dissimilar in a relevant sense, or the reasoning provided after as being faulty.  

An example of what not to do is this :planes are like cars therefore pilots should not drink.

[DaVinci]

There's a psychological phenomenon where the feelings one person denies that they themselves are experiencing, end up being provoked in the other person.

 

 

Maybe that self doubt you feel is not even your own?

That is highly likely, and I can sometimes catch those feelings being provoked the more I am aware that it can happen. It's a skill I'm trying to get better at. 

 

Thanks for your responses.