Quentin Smith is Wrong
Smith, an atheist philosopher of religion, makes a curious statement regarding hypothetical match-ups between naturalists who are not philosophers of religion (or specialists in the philosophy of religion, which I will call SPR for brevity) and theists who are. Even if judged by a naturalist who is also an SPR, he says, "I expect the most probable outcome is that the naturalist, wanting to be a fair and objective referee, would have to conclude that the theists definitely had the upper hand in every single argument or debate." It seems to me that this is a bit of bad philosophical reasoning.
Smith appears to be what I call a philosophical elitist. (This is something I discussed in an earlier post.) He makes the assumption that the SPR always makes a better argument than the non-SPR. Now this may in fact be the case much of the time. But in every case? I don't think so. Even SPRs can make a bad argument. And they often do. Whether Smith agrees or not, people who aren't an SPR can make a good argument. And they often do. Smith would do well do drop his elitist attitude and examine the arguments. The last time I checked, a valid argument based on well-supported premises beats one that isn't, regardless of who makes the argument. And while an SPR might be familiar with all the theistic arguments and refutations, that doesn't imply that he has a better command of logic than the rest of the world, or that he recognizes their flaws and fallacies. (This seems to be a common misconception among philosophical elitists.) Hell, even a scientist can understand logic and use it in an argument. In fact, some people actually believe that science is founded on logic.
I really must reply to Dan Gillson's comment at Dangerous Idea:
ReplyDelete"I love Skep's post. Smith is wrong because he's an elitist (ad hominem fallacy) and because non-specialists can make good arguments (red herring). What a moron."
As one who is guilty of philosophical elitism, you seem to be unable to see that I did not commit the fallacy of ad hominem. In fact you missed the point altogether. Yes, I said Smith is an elitist, but that was not the basis of my argument, which was entirely about the quality of the argument and the validity of the logic. It was specifically not about the person making the argument.
You need to come down off your high horse, Dan.
No I didn't miss the point, but you missed mine, so let me spell it out for you: Your premises aren't logically related to your conclusion. You've committed a fallacy of irrelevance. To prove my point, let's analyze your paragraph:
Delete"Smith appears to be what I call a philosophical elitist. (This is something I discussed in an earlier post.) ... Classic ad hominem. It's intended to distract the reader.
"He makes the assumption that the SPR always makes a better argument than the non-SPR ... His argument doesn't depend at all on this assumption. This isn't relevant, it's a red herring.
"Now this may in fact be the case much of the time. But in every case? I don't think so. Even SPRs can make a bad argument. And they often do. Whether Smith agrees or not, people who aren't an SPR can make a good argument. And they often do ... Again, relevance. This has nothing to do with anything. Red herring.
"Smith would do well do drop his elitist attitude and examine the arguments ... Uh, ad hominem.
"The last time I checked, a valid argument based on well-supported premises beats one that isn't, regardless of who makes the argument. And while an SPR might be familiar with all the theistic arguments and refutations, that doesn't imply that he has a better command of logic than the rest of the world, or that he recognizes their flaws and fallacies. (This seems to be a common misconception among philosophical elitists.)" ... Ad hominem and Red Herring.
Your entire paragraph is irrelevant to the claim that Smith's argument is wrong. It really doesn't take an elitist to see that.
Dan,
DeleteGlad to see that you have not persisted with your own ad hominem attacks on me.
I think you need to understand the difference between an argument and an opinion. My post contained some of each. As I said, I called him an elitist, but that was my opinion - it was not my argument. It is wrong, therefore, to call it an ad hominem fallacy. Ironically, you say that I included a red herring by attacking something that (you claim) was not part of Smith's argument. Go figure.
On the other hand, my argument did include the idea that people with academic credentials can still make bad arguments and people who lack them can still make good arguments. This is no red herring. I'd call it a premise.
Dan, maybe you need to go back and take another look at your phil 101 book. Ii still have mine.
1. I understand the difference between an argument and an opinion just fine, thanks. You, however, don't understand that you're not just merely stating your prejudices; you are stating them in service to a claim. Moreover, they aren't relevant to your claim, which makes them by definition fallacies of irrelevance.
Delete2. I will grant you that "the idea that people with academic credentials can still make bad arguments and people who lack them can still make good arguments" is a premise, but it is logically unrelated to your conclusion, which makes it a red herring. If your conclusion is that Quentin Smith is wrong, but your only premise is that some credentialed people make bad arguments, then you haven't demonstrated that Quentin Smith is wrong, because you haven't demonstrated that his argument is wrong, only that some people make bad arguments. The fact that I other people make bad arguments has no bearing on whether or not someone is right or wrong.
Maybe you should consult your Phil 101 textbook. God, you need help.
Dan,
DeleteIt sounds like my comment about philosophical elitism struck a nerve with you. If the shoe fits, wear it.
Face it: Smith made a bad argument. It amounts to a case of argumentum ab auctoritate. He didn't present any evidence to back it up. And it's just plain not true.
"It sounds like my comment about philosophical elitism struck a nerve with you." ... What makes it sound like that? Wishful thinking, I'd say.
Delete"If the shoe fits, wear it." ... Okay, I will if it fits.
"Face it: Smith made a bad argument." ... He may have, but you certainly didn't prove that he did.
"It amounts to a case of argumentum ab auctoritate." ... It does? How so?
"He didn't present any evidence to back it up." ... Have you actually read Smith's paper "The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism"? Or is your assessment of Smith's argument based on some blogger's summary of his paper?
"And it's just plain not true." ... Perhaps it's not, but you haven't made the case against it.
He makes the assumption that the SPR always makes a better argument than the non-SPR.
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't assume. He *observes* naturalist philosophers who don't specialize in Philosophy of Religion making bad arguments, and theist philosophers who do specialize in Philosophy of Religion making good ones. Read the quotation in context.
" Read the quotation in context."
ReplyDeleteYes, I read the whole thing. And I beg to differ with you. He clearly says "... in every single argument or debate", but he never takes into account the actual argument that is presented. His only criterion is the academic credentials of the presenter. My point stands.
I'm sorry im-skeptical, but Dan Gillson is absolutely right. None of your premises support your conclusion. (BTW, I'm an atheist.)
ReplyDeleteMy argument was essentially:
Delete1. people can make good or bad arguments regardless of their credentials.
2. a good argument consists of valid logic with well-supported premises
3. Smith claims that only people with the right credentials make good arguments, which contradicts 1 (and amounts to argument from authority).
4. Smith does not base his assessment of a good argument on the logic or evidence presented, which should be the primary criteria, but doesn't even figure into his assessment.
Therefore, Smith's argument is a bad argument.
And Dan tossing around accusations of ad hominem and red herring does absolutely nothing to make his case. he hasn't even addressed the points I was trying to make. I'm sorry if you see it differently, but that's the way I see it.
5.
"My argument was essentially ... " ... No, actually. What you're saying to be your argument now isn't the argument with which you started; just compare the flow of your most recent argument with the flow of your blogpost.
Delete"And Dan tossing around accusations of ad hominem and red herring does absolutely nothing to make his case." ... Yes it does, actually, because my case is that your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises because your repeatedly commit two fallacies of irrelevance: ad hominem, and red herring.
"He hasn't even addressed the points I was trying to make" ... Yes, actually, I did. I said that your premises are fallacious and irrelevant to the conclusion.
"I'm sorry if you see it differently, but that's the way I see it." ... Then you aren't seeing things squarely.
"3. Smith claims that only people with the right credentials make good arguments ... " ... Where in his paper, "The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism" does he make this claim?
Deletepoint 1: " Even SPRs can make a bad argument. And they often do. Whether Smith agrees or not, people who aren't an SPR can make a good argument. And they often do."
ReplyDeletepoint 2: "a valid argument based on well-supported premises beats one that isn't"
point 3: "He makes the assumption that the SPR always makes a better argument than the non-SPR."
point 4: "Smith would do well [t]o ... examine the arguments [which he hasn't done]."
I was not attempting to present a formal argument, but all the points were there. Also, I haven't read the paper. I was taking his words from the cited post. It may well be the case that he makes a different case in the paper and his words were taken out of context or misrepresented, in which case, he deserves my apology, and my remarks should be directed at the person who posted them.
By the way, Dan, Aragorn and others: I welcome your critique.
ReplyDeleteLook, suppose I claim that if I fought a boxing match against each person in the next building named Derek, I would probably lose every time. I have not endorsed an argument with a premise like "It is impossible to win a fight against someone named Derek" or anything like that. I haven't endorsed an argument at all. I haven't gotten confused and started to think that being named Derek is more important to winning boxing matches than hitting hard, having good technique, etc. All I've done is assert a proposition: that if I fought a boxing match against every person in the next building named Derek, I would probably lose every time. I haven't said anything at all about why I believe that. Maybe it's because I think being named Derek makes you invincible in fights. Maybe it's because there's only one person in the next building named Derek, and he's the heavyweight champion of the world. Maybe it's because someone who knows everyone who lives in the next building told me that everyone named Derek in the next building is much better at boxing than I am. Maybe it's because I intuited it a priori. Maybe it's because I was told the proposition by an angel.
ReplyDeleteLikewise: Smith's claim in the cited passage commits him to a certain (probably true) proposition: the one expressed in the cited passage. It can't contain a fallacy because there is not an argument in the cited passage, just a claim. What is the argument for the claim? Well, you might consider reading the paper.
Dustin,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your comment. Unfortunately, the link to the paper doesn't work. At least it hasn't for me. PhilPapers doesn't have it, and I have not found a copy yet. If you know of one, I would appreciate your providing the link.
But you should notice that there is is a significant semantic difference in your proposition
a: "if I fought a boxing match against every person in the next building named Derek, I would probably lose every time"
and Smith's proposition
b. " most probable outcome is that the naturalist, wanting to be a fair and objective referee, would have to conclude that the theists definitely had the upper hand in every single argument or debate."
To see this, let's assume that the probability of Derek winning is 99%. If you have 100 matches against a Derek, you would expect to win one of them. But that's not what Smith's proposition is saying. He's saying that the most likely outcome is that Derek would win all of the matches. At 99% probability per match, the chances of Derek winning all 100 matches is only 0.366.
What Smith is doing is going beyond simply saying that naturalists would probably lose. He's saying the probability is that they'd lose all the matches, not just most of the matches.
Of course I understand that this is a hyperbolic statement. But as a philosopher, you'd think that Smith would word his statements a little more carefully.
And the fact remains that as a naturalist himself, Smith obviously doesn't buy theistic arguments. That implies the he thinks there's something wrong with them. So his statement is really assuming that whatever flaws exist in the theistic arguments, any argument proffered by a non-SPR is expected to be more flawed than the theistic argument, simply because it is a non-SPR making the argument.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete