The Spinning Ballerina
Is she spinning clockwise or counter-clockwise? Are you sure? Look again. Ask a friend.
"Self-Hating Jew": Rhetorical Explanation, Circumstantial Ad Hominem
Norman Finkelstein is a well known critic of Israel and its policies towards the Palestinians. Because he himself is Jewish people accuse him of being a "self-hating" Jew.
The logic, or lack thereof, seems to be something like this:
P1: Finkelstein is a Jew.
P2: Anyone who opposes the State of Israel is anti-semetic.
_______________________________
C: Finkelstein is anti-semetic, i.e., a "self-hating jew."
Of course, this argument only goes through if one accepts the second premise which is precisely what is at issue. Put differently, the argument only goes through via circularity.
I'm including this as an example because of the unique clarity that Finkelstein displays in responding to the question as to whether or not he considers himself a "self-hating jew" (posed at 3:53). His direct response begins at: 7:05. Though his point is well made in the first clip the second clip from the beginning to 2:25 seals his case.
Rhetoric versus Science: Perfectionist Fallacy/Subjectivism/Argument from Ignorance
This clip contains a "witches brew" of fallacies. This may explain Dawkins' inability to lucidly counter-attack.
O'Reilly's argument seems to be something like this:
P1: Science hasn't figured out everything, including how life began--(i.e., it is not perfect).
P2: Christianity proposes an explanation, albeit, non-scientific.
_______________________
C: One ought to believe the Christian explanation.
It seems for this argument to go through the absurd "suppressed premise" must be something like:
P3: Any explanation that merely claims to be definitive is correct. (!)
or
P3': If science hasn't come up with a definitive explanation (i.e., is not perfect) go with any other contender irrespective of likelihood/unlikelihood.
Also notice at one point (2:41) O'Reilly says that Dawkins "cannot prove to me [O'Reilly] that Jesus is not" God therefore he is entitled to his belief in God.
Dawkins correctly points out that you can use this form of pseudo-reasoning to "prove" anything exists (e.g., Zeus).
This situation is complicated by the fact that O'Reilly is treating this as a matter of opinion where Dawkins is treating this (correctly) as a matter of fact.
[Submitted by former student John Razi.]
O'Reilly's argument seems to be something like this:
P1: Science hasn't figured out everything, including how life began--(i.e., it is not perfect).
P2: Christianity proposes an explanation, albeit, non-scientific.
_______________________
C: One ought to believe the Christian explanation.
It seems for this argument to go through the absurd "suppressed premise" must be something like:
P3: Any explanation that merely claims to be definitive is correct. (!)
or
P3': If science hasn't come up with a definitive explanation (i.e., is not perfect) go with any other contender irrespective of likelihood/unlikelihood.
Also notice at one point (2:41) O'Reilly says that Dawkins "cannot prove to me [O'Reilly] that Jesus is not" God therefore he is entitled to his belief in God.
Dawkins correctly points out that you can use this form of pseudo-reasoning to "prove" anything exists (e.g., Zeus).
This situation is complicated by the fact that O'Reilly is treating this as a matter of opinion where Dawkins is treating this (correctly) as a matter of fact.
[Submitted by former student John Razi.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)