View Single Post
  #103  
Old 08-11-2013, 01:48 AM
viva_nate viva_nate is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 65
Default Re: Can there be free will in a world where pre-destiny exists?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrInsanePolack View Post
Logic is directly related to arguments.
Yes, of course. "Every effect has a cause" is an assumption, and there's nothing wrong with that. Arguments are based on assumptions, all informal logic, all rhetoric, is probabilistic, is based on assumptions. If it didn't, it would have to rely on a formal language, like Logic does. (Aristotelian rhetoric/informal logic is based on three assumptions, for instance. You can't have a rational or informal logic without these assumptions)

I don't even necessarily disagree with assuming causal relationships. But my point is that the event isn't reduced to cause and effect in a lot of philosophical systems, current and ancient. The informal logic you cite, the naturalistic panpsychism of panspermia - these are hard to reconcile with strict causality. But you're insisting on it. I'll admit these are minor points in the scope of the argument, but they're technical points worth mentioning.

Quote:
The slippery slope is an argumental fallacy that debunks the random series of events. The user who linked these events is guilty of using a slippery slope. Perhaps my wording left a bit to be desired.
No, the wording was ok, I just don't believe the definition is correct. If you were talking about random connections between premises and conclusion, you'd be talking about non sequitur arguments.

Slippery slope arguments are generally intentional, and they're often effective (and valid). I feel like the appearance of the slope is what makes the "butterfly effect" rhetorically powerful, actually: there are so many steps on the slope with seemingly weak causality. But it's actually the steps that exhibit strong causality, and our perception of the steepness of the slope that makes us doubt the accuracy of the scientific model. It's the impossibility of the scale between the butterfly and the storm that intrigues us, but exhibits coherence when you focus. It mimics the models chaos proposes. It's a great metaphor.

Again, these are quibbles, kind of a fallacy in itself.
Reply With Quote