Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

How to Engage in Argumentum ad Gannitum

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Today I coin a new Latin phrase in honor of our frequent interlocutor daveS.  Here it is:  Argumentum ad Gannitum – the argument from whining.  (“Gannitum” being Latin for “whining”).

The argument from whining takes this form:

Person A makes an argument supported by logic and evidence that he believes compels a conclusion.

Person B, instead of making a counter argument based on logic and evidence, says something like “Admit that you may be wrong” or “It’s not my job to show you how you are wrong.”

Here is an example from a recent combox discussion with daveS:

Barry makes the following argument:

Either there is a God or there is not. If there is a God, meaning is possible. If there is no God, meaning is not possible. Let us, therefore, assume for the sake of argument that an atheist such as yourself is correct. There is no God. Therefore, meaning is not possible.

daveS responds:

Barry, Is it possible that you are wrong?

No, really, that is his response.  Check it out here.

Uh, yeah dave, it is certainly possible that I am wrong.  But no one will ever know that I am wrong if all you do is whine about my argument instead of attempt to rebut it.

In fairness, dave later made a run at trying to show meaning in a meaningless universe.  It amounted to “I know there is no meaning, but I feel like there is, so there is.”

 

 

 

 

 

Comments
Barry, let me propose a more concrete example, so you don't mistake it for whining... Is it possible that you made a mistake when applying logic to the question at hand? Is it possible that the field of logic as a whole is incomplete or contains mistakes, so that even if you applied it flawlessly, your conclusion regarding the question at hand could be mistaken? Is it possible that, through some inexplicable means, we ended up with the field of logic that was completely and utterly without error and cannot be improved, you somehow misinterpreted it when applying to the question at hand? (That, by the way is fallibilism)critical rationalist
November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
I'd say Barry's term is worthy of catching on...although I doubt it will...and I dont think it applies to daveslantog
November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
A general comment: I haven't noticed that anyone has trouble with logic here. I don't recall any instances where someone has been unable to identify a valid argument; that's relatively easy. The disputes I have observed center on identifying claimed self-evident propositions. That's a different matter.daveS
November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
JAD, Suppose we alter your statement a bit by deleting the word "ultimate" and focusing it on the actions of a particular individual (me, for example):
If the universe is all that exists there is no purpose and meaning to any of my actions.
Is this statement still (self-evidently) true? I ask because that's what I take the original post to imply.daveS
November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT
john_a_designer at 10: You write, "Most of our regular interlocutors don’t know the difference between making a logically valid argument and just being argumentative." Indeed. It is a crowning achievement of the school systems in which they were educated, for which their parents were bled taxes. And it is everywhere evident today on campuses, with their "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings." The life of the intellect is a lost cause in such places, increasingly dominated by safe academic piffle, and must happen elsewhere. The way the change affects sciences is the earnest pursuit of nonsensical but approved themes like "Chimpanzees are almost people and can teach us something!" The reality, evident to a non-literate person, is that dogs are in some ways a lot like people and can teach us something (and vice versa). But chimpanzees are, to us, an alien life form. The internet atheist loses the good he would have if he knew nothing of science but was aware of the natural world. But he does not gain the good of the intellect that might follow from an education in science because his beliefs prevent it.News
November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT
Most of our regular interlocutors don’t know the difference between making a logically valid argument and just being argumentative. To make a valid argument you need to start with a propositions or premises which are either self-evidently true or you can establish are probably true by appealing to factual evidence. Just stating your opinions, beliefs or feelings doesn’t prove anything. While I agree that Barry is beginning his argument with a premise that is self-evidently true, I think it might be better if we started with a non-theistic premise: If the universe is all that exists there is no ultimate purpose and meaning to human existence. (I think that is enough that you can finish the syllogism on your own.) However, while that premise is self-evidently true it doesn’t follow that the universe is all that exists. Furthermore, it doesn’t explain why humans appear to be hardwired to seek purpose and meaning that goes beyond the immediate survival needs of an accidentally evolved species of hunter-gatherer apes. There is no good explanation for why this should be from a purely naturalistic evolutionary perspective. If our atheist interlocutors have an argument they need to either state their premises or refute ours. Mindless pretension and posturing are not arguments. They are a pointless waste of everyone's time.john_a_designer
November 13, 2018
November
11
Nov
13
13
2018
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT
Sev,
As a thought experiment . . .
Red herring. Because the answer to the question would turn on facts not given. Is the universe in which your thought experiment occurs one in which nothing exists but particles bumping into each other? If so, there can be no transcendent meaning, no matter what other facts you give.Barry Arrington
November 13, 2018
November
11
Nov
13
13
2018
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
Sev,
What is intriguing about this debate is how Christians believe their lives have “meaning” only if they were created to serve the inscrutable purposes of another being, in this case their God. Why is it that only God’s purpose counts?
Strawman. Everyone, including atheists, believe there can be transcendent meaning only if there is transcendence. It is very simple logic. I don't know why it is so hard for you Sev.Barry Arrington
November 13, 2018
November
11
Nov
13
13
2018
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
Seversky@6: who created the emperor? ????es58
November 13, 2018
November
11
Nov
13
13
2018
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT
What is intriguing about this debate is how Christians believe their lives have "meaning" only if they were created to serve the inscrutable purposes of another being, in this case their God. Why is it that only God's purpose counts? I realize that the appeal lies in the promise that humanity is the centerpiece of Creation and that, as long as you follow His commandments, you will be granted eternal life after the death of the body, free of all the sufferings of this mortal existence. It sounds great but I always have this suspicion that what sounds too good to be true probably is too good to be true. It could be just wish fulfillment. As a thought experiment, let's try a slightly different approach. Suppose Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars were to arrive in orbit around Earth in one of his Death Stars accompanied by an escorting squadron of Star Destroyers. He announces that, billions of years ago, the Empire had sent probes out into the Universe. Their purpose was to seed life on suitable planets so that when the Empire's expanding sphere of influence reached them they would supply a ready pool of labour and recruits for the Stormtrooper force. This is the purpose of humanity's existence. If people obey Imperial law they will be well taken care of but if they resist in any way, the Death Star will turn its primary weapon on Earth and obliterate the entire planet. Would you find that the Emperor's purpose gives your life meaning and, if not, why not?Seversky
November 13, 2018
November
11
Nov
13
13
2018
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
By the way, my comments @ 3 do not apply to DaveS. He has, indeed, been very polite, but I think he has been treated politely as wellStephenB
November 13, 2018
November
11
Nov
13
13
2018
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
daveS, If the accidental processes of Darwinian evolution programmed your brain to believe two mutually exclusive things at the same time then so be it. How can a mindless zombie, with no free will of his own, possibly believe otherwise ? (Of note, the question was rhetorical, please don't answer since there is no 'you' to answer anyway)bornagain77
November 13, 2018
November
11
Nov
13
13
2018
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT
Interesting. All around the globe, partisans for purposelessness know that they cannot win in a fair debate with design thinkers, so they resort to physical attacks, social condemnation, and professional persecution in order to shut down dissenting ideas. It has become so bad that the tech giants routinely snuff out design-related ideas, such as due process and inherent dignity, even before they have been allowed to surface. Yes, design thinkers need to watch out for their safety because their enemies will get in their face, run them out of restaurants, threaten their families, or beat them into a bloody pulp. And yet a few of these anti-design partisans, who have been pampered for generations and told that they are brilliant just for showing up, come here to UD and discover that they have been lied to and their ideas don't hold up. For many of them, it is the first time they have ever been exposed to the idea of a rational universe and, as the movie line goes, they "can't handle the truth." To make matters worse, they become indignant when we don't continue to pamper them in ways that they have come to expect, not realizing that it may well be their last chance to awaken from their intellectual slumber and join the community of rational people. So rather than learn from the experience they retire into their comfort zone thinking that they have been bullied. They don't know the meaning of the word.StephenB
November 13, 2018
November
11
Nov
13
13
2018
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
daveS
didn’t you say it was not possible that you were wrong in the original thread?
Not as a general matter dave. I did say it is impossible for me to be wrong when I say that two mutually exclusive propositions cannot both be true. See Law, Noncontradiction.Barry Arrington
November 13, 2018
November
11
Nov
13
13
2018
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
Uh, yeah dave, it is certainly possible that I am wrong.
:o I commend this part, anyway. But didn't you say it was not possible that you were wrong in the original thread? (See post #18)daveS
November 13, 2018
November
11
Nov
13
13
2018
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply