›
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE

The Courtier's Reply

MyrmidonMyrmidon
edited 2011-04-28 16:43:41 in General
IT'S NOT A REAL FALLACY

STOP PRETENDING IT'S A REAL FALLACY

STOP
«13

Comments

  • ClockworkUniverseClockworkUniverse
    OOOooooOoOoOOoo, I'm a ghoOooOooOOOost!
    Haven't heard of that one.
  • MyrmidonMyrmidon
    EXACTLY

    BECAUSE IT'S NOT A REAL FALLACY
  • BonSequiturBonSequitur
    edited 2011-04-28 17:09:06
    As a petty and vindictive person, I have to take extra steps not to appear petty and vindictive.
    The courtier's reply, which as I recall originated the P. Z. Myers, goes something like this: 

    1.1 INT. DAY - CITADEL STREET
    A busy street in the citadel market. A PROCESSION walks along;
    at its head is the EMPEROR (Completely nude) and several COURTIERS.
    A CHILD stands in the sidelines, observing.

    CHILD
    (Pointing at the Emperor)
    The emperor has no clothes!

    COURTIER
    But you have never taken the time to study
    the wondrous properties of the infinitely
    beautiful fabric the Emperor's clothes are
    made of! How can you possibly hope to say
    anything about them, let alone that they do
    not exist?
  • RottweilerRottweiler
    Inside, too dark to read
    Oh God. Of course it's a real fallacy, because you can use it to attack God.
  • BonSequiturBonSequitur
    As a petty and vindictive person, I have to take extra steps not to appear petty and vindictive.
    It's not a fallacy, though, so much as an intellectual bludgeon, in that it's not a logically unsound argument, as much as a tactic used to exclude people from the conversation. Should have made that clear before.
  • glennmagusharveyglennmagusharvey
    edited 2011-04-28 17:08:32
    Creature - Florida Dragon Turtle Human
    This does not seem to be so much a fallacy as it is a particular version of the Chewbacca Defense.

    Or, in other words, topic-make-me-make-this-face.
  • Wicked223Wicked223
    We Played Some Open Chords and Rejoiced, For the Earth Had Circled the Sun Yet Another Year
    So, it's not fallacious, it's just obnoxious?


  • glennmagusharveyglennmagusharvey
    Creature - Florida Dragon Turtle Human
    Well I guess the Chewbacca Defense aims to use a fallacy, so one could say that it is fallacious.
  • RottweilerRottweiler
    edited 2011-04-28 17:15:52
    Inside, too dark to read
    Chewbacca Defense? Please don't be Tomu.

    People like P.Z. Myers have a specialized education focused on natural science. Without a core curriculum at university that includes philosophy, they end up believing philosophy is a waste of intellect effort that could be devoted to more Science!

    As Myr said elsewhere on this board, saying science is the only meaningful knowledge assumes that science has a coherent ontology. It's more a set of proven rules of thumb for analyzing material things.
  • ChagenChagen
    [tɕagɛn]

    It's pretty much a completely retarded idea, and the fact that people have used it seriously is kinda sad.


    It basically says that...shit, I just reread it, and the combined stupid and how the writer basically shut down the argument is making my head hurt.


    It may not be a fallacy itself, but it does use the Invincible Ignorance Fallacy. 

  • GelzoGelzo
    edited 2011-04-28 17:29:35
    Pony Sleuth
    ^If this is an accurate description of the idea, I fail to see a problem with it.

    There are loads of religions out there, and no one is able to become an expert on all of them. This doesn't mean that they oughtn't dismiss even a single one of them.
  • glennmagusharveyglennmagusharvey
    Creature - Florida Dragon Turtle Human
    > Chewbacca Defense? Please don't be Tomu.

    Huh?

    > People like P.Z. Myers
    have a specialized education focused on natural science. Without a core
    curriculum at university that includes philosophy, they end up believing
    philosophy is a waste of intellect effort that could be devoted to more
    Science!  As Myr said elsewhere on this board, saying science is
    the only meaningful knowledge assumes that science has a coherent
    ontology. It's more a set of proven rules of thumb for analyzing
    material things.

    And what does this information about P.Z. Myers have to do with the topic at hand?
  • BonSequiturBonSequitur
    As a petty and vindictive person, I have to take extra steps not to appear petty and vindictive.
    The Courtier's Reply essentially functions as an ad hominem. Instead of replying to someone's argument, pointing out why it is wrong, you say they're not qualified to make the argument because they haven't read Maistre or Plato or whatever.
  • ChagenChagen
    [tɕagɛn]

    "In the case of religion, it's arguing against the idea that you have to read pretty much everything ever written by the proponents of the religion in order to argue that the religion is (probably) false. "


    No, it was used when Dawkins was screaming about how ebul and dumb them crazy Christians are, and then a bunch of sane christians pointed out how modern theology usually is compatible with science and is relatively sane.


    Then that stupid cunt on that blog went all "LOL ME AN' DAWKINS IS GONNA IGNORE ALL THE LOGICAL REFUTEMENTS AND SAY THAT ALL CHRISTIANS ARE EVIL HOMOHPHOBE SCIENCE-HATERS". Because, apparently, what you believe that Christians are is what they are, not what they actually are, even though you have TALKED WITH THEM.


    And you wonder why I don't respect Dawkins.

  • RottweilerRottweiler
    Inside, too dark to read
    The courtier's reply argument suggests that reading about questions
    such as how many angels can dance upon the head of a pin is not worth
    the time if there's no reason to believe the angels actually exist.

    opens beer
    cries in it

    The question "Do angels exist?" is in Aquinas before any questions of their nature. If you read the reasoning and disagree with it, all questions about angels that follow are indeed not worth your time.
    That was not a question of arithmetic. It was a question of "one" or "infinite", of whether angels have bodies. An infinite number of disembodied intellects could all focus on a point in space simultaneously.
    The verb was only changed to "dance" as a strawman.
  • ChagenChagen
    [tɕagɛn]

    Funny: That's has the implication of "x" automatically being wrong. If you have an axiom like that in your mind, then there's no point to arguing with you, because you will not even attempt to stray from your position.


    I don't hate Dawkins for critisizing Christianity. I hate him for constantly generalizing and demonizing all it's members, and holding onto these demonizations even when they're blatantly and completely wrong.


    Dawkins holds the "Christians= evil homophobes and science haters" axiom in his mind. There is no point to arguing with him, just as arguing with a brick wall does no good, though it would be pretty funny.


     

  • Wicked223Wicked223
    We Played Some Open Chords and Rejoiced, For the Earth Had Circled the Sun Yet Another Year
    Dawkins holds the "Christians= evil homophobes and science haters" axiom in his mind.


    Can you provide an example of him actually saying this?
  • RottweilerRottweiler
    Inside, too dark to read
    There are loads of religions out there, and no one is able to become an expert on all of them.

    That's no excuse for learning none, and no idealist or dualist philosophy either.
  • GelzoGelzo
    Pony Sleuth
    What would you have me read before being qualified to assess the truth value of religion?
  • RottweilerRottweiler
    Inside, too dark to read
    @Gelzo: Plato.

    Who is absolutely essential to understanding either the Western or Middle Eastern "great conversation" in any case, and very close to Hindu philosophy, so even if you decide you disagree with his idealism, the Myers analogy is utterly nonsensical.
  • GelzoGelzo
    Pony Sleuth
    That's it? Well, I might actually humor you at some point, but I'm pretty sure I'd come to the same conclusions regarding religion.
  • RottweilerRottweiler
    Inside, too dark to read
    @Gelzo: Yeah. His logic for why ideas/Forms must exist and why this necessitates the One (God) and the beings/Being itself (again, God) distinction are absolutely foundational.
  • MyrmidonMyrmidon
    At best it's a more obscure way of pointing out already named fallacies, and at worst it's a Sarah Palin-esque appeal to common sense.
  • BonSequiturBonSequitur
    edited 2011-04-28 21:18:20
    As a petty and vindictive person, I have to take extra steps not to appear petty and vindictive.
    The point of the fallacy is that a reference is not an argument. 'Go read Plato' isn't an argument; it's a dodge from an argument. It's fair enough to say 'I'm not interested in holding this conversation with you, because you haven't read up on the same philosophical grounds I'm using,' but it doesn't refute anyone's argument or make any point, except about what kind of conversation you would (Supposedly) like to have.

    This is also problematic in that it carries the implicit presumption that someone who reads Plato will read it the same as you do and thus implicitly agree with you, even when you haven't made an argument in the first place. I'm comfortable with saying 'You should probably pick up some Foucault, he has more about this issue.' Even 'I'm really not interested in debating the issue with a lay person,' is valid, but it doesn't actually answer anyone's questions. However, 'How can you make this argument if you haven't read Lacan?' is ridiculous.

    Essentially: The Courtier's Reply idea offers no proof that there isn't a super-secret argument for the existence of God known only to theologians; however, it points out that by discounting Dawkins' arguments against the belief in God because he is not a theologian, theologians aren't actually countering anything or even engaging with him intellectually, but rather excluding him from the conversation; you can view this as intellectual bullying.
  • MyrmidonMyrmidon
    So I guess all the people who believed that Harry Potter was the devil's work didn't even need to read the book, huh?

    And try to make it more subtle when you're working out your hatecrush.
  • Wicked223Wicked223
    We Played Some Open Chords and Rejoiced, For the Earth Had Circled the Sun Yet Another Year
    No, that doesn't work, as Plato or Harry Potter isn't actually the subject of discussion.
  • BonSequiturBonSequitur
    As a petty and vindictive person, I have to take extra steps not to appear petty and vindictive.
    @Myrmidon

  • GelzoGelzo
    Pony Sleuth
    Well, it should be apparent that it isn't the devil's work before reading it, right?
  • GLORIOUSLeaderGLORIOUSLeader
    edited 2011-04-28 21:28:29
    When in Turkey, ROCK THE FUCK OUT
    ^^^^ Pot, kettle, etc. 
  • MyrmidonMyrmidon
    I REALIZE THAT GL
Sign In or Register to comment.