Dan McClellan on Mormon Stories

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I see that Matt Walsh, who has no education, is opining on trans issues,

That's true.  He's stating his opinion, and he is welcome to do so.

That said, Matt Walsh is not positioning himself as an expert or authority on any particular issue, nor is he attempting to leverage his status as an expert on X so as to bolster his credibility to speak on Y.

13 minutes ago, Duncan said:

what his authority on that is who knows so why would anyone should pay any attention to him?

What you are saying here is, I think, an example of the "Credentials Fallacy," described here:

Quote

The credentials fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone dismisses an argument by stating that whoever made it doesn’t have proper credentials, so their argument must be wrong or unimportant.

For example, if a person raises concerns about a political policy, someone using the credentials fallacy might dismiss those concerns without addressing them, by saying that the person who raised them isn’t an expert in the field so their concerns aren’t important.
...

The credentials fallacy is a type of informal logical fallacy, since there is an issue with its premises, and namely with the premise that if someone doesn’t have credentials in a certain field, then any argument that they make can be immediately dismissed. This premise is problematic, since even though it can be appropriate to take credentials into account in some cases, it’s fallacious to assume that if someone doesn’t have appropriate credentials then their argument must necessarily be wrong.

Based on this, the credentials fallacy can be categorized as a genetic fallacy, since it focuses on the origin of the argument rather than on the argument itself. More specifically, it can be categorized as a type of ad hominem attack, since it personally targets the individual who is making the argument.

See also "Appeal to False Authority," described here:

Quote

Appeal to false authority[edit]

This fallacy occurs when a person appeals to a false authority as evidence for a claim.^[15] These fallacious arguments from authority are the result of citing a non-authority as an authority.^[16] The philosophers Irving Copi and Carl Cohen characterized it as a fallacy "when the appeal is made to parties having no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand".^[17] Copi stated: "In attempting to make up one's mind on a difficult and complicated question, one may seek to be guided by the judgment of an acknowledged expert who has studied the matter thoroughly. [. . .] This method of argument is in many cases perfectly legitimate. [ . . . ] But when an authority is appealed to for testimony in matters outside the province of that authority's special field, the appeal commits the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam ".^[18]

In other words, one could say that the premise of the argument does not hold in such a case, rendering the reasoning fallacious.

An example of the fallacy of appealing to an authority in an unrelated field would be citing Albert Einstein as an authority for a determination on religion when his primary expertise was in physics.^[16]

 

13 minutes ago, Duncan said:

It's the same with Ben Shapiro, he's a lawyer, why anyone should take his uneducated opinion on LGBTQ issues is also beyond me.

I don't understand.  What sort of academic credential do you think qualifies a person to speak intelligently on "trans" or "LGBTQ" issues?

I think people are listening to folks like Walsh and Shapiro because what they have to say makes a lot of sense, and because they regularly defend and explain the rationales for their perspectives.

13 minutes ago, Duncan said:

These men aren't educated in LGBTQ issues and so have zero authority but yet they want people to take their opinion seriously. 

I disagree that these men aren't "educated in LGBTQ issues."  I think they are quite well-versed in the stuff.  I think that is why so many folks are listening to what they have to say.  And this is also why ad hominem and appeal to authority fallacies don't really work well in this context.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I appreciated how that video ended:

"I just want to end this video by saying: Dan, if you see this and feel misrepresented in any way, I would be happy to have you on my channel, so that we can set the record straight.  At the end of the day, I very much respect your scholarship, even if I take serious issue with your analysis of the facts.  Anyway, my email is in the video description if you wanna connect."

I dearly love Dan's "Ok, let's see it" approach to things, and I'd dearly love Dan to show up and tell the ThoughtfulFaith guy where he's off.  Do we have any indication that Dan wants to connect?

I suspect Dan, like Dehlin and Reel and others, will remain safely ensconced in friendly venues where they can control the narrative.  I sure would like to be proven wrong, though.

A while back I enjoyed the debate between Ben Shapiro and Cenk Uygur.  A frank exchange of ideas, with neither side "protected" by the arbiter.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

55 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

The notion that only those with formal education on a topic, can have a relevant opinion on a topic, seems really, really, really, really, reeeeeeeeeally weird to me.

Especially given the almost monopolistic postmodernist worldview adopted by formal education providers.  

I'm not a fan of "only those in authority have valuable opinions".  

well, I do so. I don't care for people's opinions on gum disease who have never been to Dental School.  I don't care for Walsh or Shapiro just like SMAC97 doesn't care for Neil or Dan's opinions and I don't care for his either. I think Dan's opinions are, to use Smac97 words "I think people are listening to folks like [Dan]  because what they have to say makes a lot of sense, and because they regularly defend and explain the rationales for their perspectives."

Edited August 28, 2023 by Duncan

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

That said, Matt Walsh is not positioning himself as an expert or authority on any particular issue, nor is he attempting to leverage his status as an expert on X so as to bolster his credibility to speak on Y.

which is why people shouldn't listen to him, why take seriously someone who isn't an authority on a subject? I couldn't care less what my lawyer's opinion of the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905 is. 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  What sort of academic credential do you think qualifies a person to speak intelligently on "trans" or "LGBTQ" issues?

Someone who has a PH.D. in Psychology or Psychiatry. Walsh and Shapiro uneducated hacks, they want the likes, the stroking of their egos, otherwise they would be just be another blogger or a lawyer, they want to stand out. They are no different than Reel, Dehlin or some other exmo of the week with a youtube channel or instagram, otherwise they would be just another inactive member that no ones knows are cares about, they want to make a name for themselves.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think

you don't sound convinced so I am dismissing the logical fallacy stuff because you can convince someone to believe in something you don't even believe in yourself

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And this is also why ad hominem and appeal to authority fallacies don't really work well in this context.

and good thing I didn't do that then and you agree with me too , you aren't convinced. 

Edited August 28, 2023 by Duncan

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Quote

That said, Matt Walsh is not positioning himself as an expert or authority on any particular issue, nor is he attempting to leverage his status as an expert on X so as to bolster his credibility to speak on Y.

which is why people shouldn't listen to him,

Again, this is fallacious reasoning.

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

why take seriously someone who isn't an authority on a subject?

For the same reasons you are posting here, and expecting me to take you "seriously" despite your lack of credentials or authority.  And I do.  

Unless the topic requires particularized training / experience / expertise, arguments ought to be evaluated on their merits, not on the academic credentials (or lack thereof) of the person making them.

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I couldn't care less what my lawyer's opinion of the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905 is. 

Nor should you.  Unless, of course, your lawyer is well-read in the particulars about the Russo-Japanese War, and is able to articulate evidence and reasoning in support of his opinion.  In that case, I think you would care about his opinion.

I don't repose much trust or confidence in Dan's conclusory declarations on matters outside of his area(s) of expertise.  But that's because I don't think he has done a very good job of marshaling evidence, argument, reasoning, logic, etc.

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Quote

I don't understand.  What sort of academic credential do you think qualifies a person to speak intelligently on "trans" or "LGBTQ" issues?

Someone who has a PH.D. in Psychology or

Could you elaborate?  What is it about this PhD that qualifies a person to speak on, say, the merits of trans ideology?  

For example, is such a PhD holder qualified to speak intelligently about the physiological differences between biological males and females in terms of athletic ability?  And what is it about the absence of this credential that disqualifies, say, Matt Walsh from educating himself about the various sociological ramifications of trans ideology and speaking in relation thereto?

Have you watched Walsh's What is a Woman? documentary?  He was asking some pertinent questions of people with all sorts of academic credentials.  IIRC, none of them sought to rebut his inquiries by saying "You're not allowed to have an opinion on these issues because you don't have the right academic credentials."

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Quote

I think people are listening to folks like Walsh and Shapiro because what they have to say makes a lot of sense, and because they regularly defend and explain the rationales for their perspectives.

you don't sound convinced

I don't "sound convinced" of what?

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

so I am dismissing the logical fallacy stuff because you can convince someone to believe in something you don't even believe in yourself

I don't know what you are talking about here.  And I don't think you can speak intelligently to what I do or do not believe (because you have not asked me).

Feel free to clarify what it is your talking about here.  Meanwhile, your usage of the fallacy remains.

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and good thing I didn't do that then and you agree with me too , you aren't convinced. 

I don't know what you are saying here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Quote

The notion that only those with formal education on a topic, can have a relevant opinion on a topic, seems really, really, really, really, reeeeeeeeeally weird to me.

Especially given the almost monopolistic postmodernist worldview adopted by formal education providers.  

I'm not a fan of "only those in authority have valuable opinions".  

well, I do so.

Then I invite you to expand your horizons, rather than resort to fallacious reasoning.

There are all sorts of intelligent and informed people who lack credentials, but who can nevertheless speak intelligently to all sorts of topics, including LGBT issues.  These issues encompass a variety of disciplines, none of which have a monopoly, and none of which are competent to play some sort of gatekeeping function.

If you want to talk about some complex technical or scientific concept, I'll readily concede that specialized training / experience / qualifications will likely be an important - and perhaps necessary - prerequisite to having an informed and reasoned opinion.  But "LGBT" is far from that.

41 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I don't care for people's opinions on gum disease who have never been to Dental School.  I don't care for Walsh or Shapiro just like SMAC97 doesn't care for Neil or Dan's opinions and I don't care for his either.

Actually, I give Dan's opinions on biblical scholarship some real credence.  Regarding other things (his pronouncements on LGBT issues, the motives of other people, etc.), not so much.

41 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I think Dan's opinions are, to use Smac97 words "I think people are listening to folks like [Dan]  because what they have to say makes a lot of sense, and because they regularly defend and explain the rationales for their perspectives."

I think the issue is that Dan is "borrowing" his academic credentials about X (biblical scholarship) to bolster his opinions about Y (LGBT issues, etc.).  We've seen Tyson do this, and it's not persuasive.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

On 8/23/2023 at 4:47 AM, Tweed1944 said:

I read Stirling McMurrin's book on the Theological Foundations of Mormonism a man Joseph Fielding Smith wanted  disciplined but President McKay wanted him left alone.

I joined the church, partly (intellectually) because it shows well the Pragmatic views held in our theology.

Thank God for this "apostate.

Too bad he could not see it as I do.

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, this is fallacious reasoning.

For the same reasons you are posting here, and expecting me to take you "seriously" despite your lack of credentials or authority.  And I do.  

Unless the topic requires particularized training / experience / expertise, arguments ought to be evaluated on their merits, not on the academic credentials (or lack thereof) of the person making them.

Nor should you.  Unless, of course, your lawyer is well-read in the particulars about the Russo-Japanese War, and is able to articulate evidence and reasoning in support of his opinion.  In that case, I think you would care about his opinion.

I don't repose much trust or confidence in Dan's conclusory declarations on matters outside of his area(s) of expertise.  But that's because I don't think he has done a very good job of marshaling evidence, argument, reasoning, logic, etc.

Could you elaborate?  What is it about this PhD that qualifies a person to speak on, say, the merits of trans ideology?  

For example, is such a PhD holder qualified to speak intelligently about the physiological differences between biological males and females in terms of athletic ability?  And what is it about the absence of this credential that disqualifies, say, Matt Walsh from educating himself about the various sociological ramifications of trans ideology and speaking in relation thereto?

Have you watched Walsh's What is a Woman? documentary?  He was asking some pertinent questions of people with all sorts of academic credentials.  IIRC, none of them sought to rebut his inquiries by saying "You're not allowed to have an opinion on these issues because you don't have the right academic credentials."

I don't "sound convinced" of what?

I don't know what you are talking about here.  And I don't think you can speak intelligently to what I do or do not believe (because you have not asked me).

Feel free to clarify what it is your talking about here.  Meanwhile, your usage of the fallacy remains.

I don't know what you are saying here.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

"despite your lack of credentials or authority.  And I do."

and I you as well. I think you are enamored by this Shapiro guy, as you keep bringing him up, and want to be like that and further your own ego within the online LDS world.

It's strange that you posit that Walsh asked  "pertinent questions of people with all sorts of academic credentials" and yet you can't even identify, "What is it about this PhD that qualifies a person to speak on, say, the merits of trans ideology?" Why don't you ask Matt Walsh, he seems to know

"I don't repose much trust or confidence in Dan's conclusory declarations on matters outside of his area(s) of expertise"

why is this not an ad hominem fallacy? besides of which it's a good thing he doesn't speak on matters outside his area of expertise. 

You don't seem to know very much, so good luck to you

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

"despite your lack of credentials or authority.  And I do."

and I you as well. I think you are enamored by this Shapiro guy, as you keep bringing him up, and want to be like that and further your own ego within the online LDS world.

I think Shapiro is a sharp guy, and he is good at marshaling evidence and reasoning and argument.  Nevertheless, I diverge from his views on some issues.

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

"I don't repose much trust or confidence in Dan's conclusory declarations on matters outside of his area(s) of expertise"

why is this not an ad hominem fallacy?

Because I am not dismissing them because they come from Dan, but because I don't think he has done a good job of marshaling evidence, reasoning, argument, etc. in support of his position/opinion.

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

besides of which it's a good thing he doesn't speak on matters outside his area of expertise. 

Actually, he does.  Quite often, actually.  I have first-hand experience with him doing this.

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

You don't seem to know very much, so good luck to you

This is ad hominem.  Also a logical fallacy.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 29, 2023 by smac97

[LoudmouthMormon]

Hey @Duncan, just out of curiosity, what authority do you approach for your definition of a woman?

[Smiley McGee]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

an example of the "Credentials Fallacy,"

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

See also "Appeal to False Authority,

 

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is ad hominem.  Also a logical fallacy.

Good god @smac97 , did you just discover the logical fallacies page on Wikipedia? You might want to take it easy my guy. Don’t want you to slip into an existential crisis when you read about the fallacy fallacy.

Edited August 29, 2023 by Smiley McGee

[Duncan]

32 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Hey @Duncan, just out of curiosity, what authority do you approach for your definition of a woman?

a consensus on medical authority

[OGHoosier]

57 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

Don’t want you to slip into an existential crisis when you read about the fallacy fallacy.

The fallacy fallacy is the fallacious assumption that, because a fallacious argument has been made, its conclusion must be false.

It would be fallacious if I were to look at my watch, see the number 3:14, and from that "evidence" argue that the first digits of pi were 3.14. It would also be fallacious to argue, upon seeing my error, that the first digits of pi were not 3.14 because I arrived at them via a fallacious mode. That would be the fallacy fallacy.

However, the commission of the fallacy fallacy does not relieve the first argument of its fallacious nature. A critique of one's reasoning (as opposed to one's conclusion) cannot be accused of committing the fallacy fallacy. Therefore @smac97 has little to worry about.

Edited August 29, 2023 by OGHoosier
Clarification

[Smiley McGee]

17 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

A critique of one's reasoning (as opposed to one's conclusion) cannot be accused of committing the fallacy fallacy.

Are you kidding? When was the last time you saw someone post, “oh boy I sure do like you conclusion but you’re committing a logical fallacy. Let me help you clean that up.” The only reason people cite logical fallacies is to dismiss or call into question conclusions they don’t like. It’s apologetic comfort food. 

[OGHoosier]

9 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

The only reason people cite logical fallacies is to dismiss or call into question conclusions they don’t like.

Yeah. By attacking the reasoning on which the conclusion is based. What's the problem?

The fallacy fallacy is when someone uses the presence of a fallacy to say that the presence of said fallacy affirmatively demonstrates that the conclusion is false. It is not the fallacy fallacy to use the presence of a fallacy to demonstrate that the argument fails to establish its conclusion. Therefore, the fallacy fallacy cannot be ascribed to a critique of reasoning. 

I hope that made things more clear. I am not kidding in the slightest.

Edited August 29, 2023 by OGHoosier

[Navidad]

What is not a fallacy is that I think someone from this forum should write a book on fallacies. I have learned more about fallacies on this forum than anyone else in my 74 years. I know I'd buy a copy!

[Smiley McGee]

16 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

It is not the fallacy fallacy to use the presence of a fallacy to demonstrate that the argument fails to establish its conclusion.

Not what I said. I suggested that people identify logical fallacies as a defense against conclusions that contradict their own. The concern is not for the validity of the argument, as you are suggesting; it’s to dismiss the conclusion. You think @smac97 would be open @Duncan’s arguments if they were logically valid?  

[OGHoosier]

20 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

Not what I said. I suggested that people identify logical fallacies as a defense against conclusions that contradict their own. The concern is not for the validity of the argument, as you are suggesting; it’s to dismiss the conclusion. You think @smac97 would be open @Duncan’s arguments if they were logically valid?  

Are they?

And if they are not, why would @smac97's attitude matter?

A "logical fallacy" is merely a formalized description of a common reasoning error. Is it wrong to identify reasoning errors in arguments with which you disagree? Especially when those errors are in fact there?

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Are they?

And if they are not, why would @smac97's attitude matter?

A "logical fallacy" is merely a formalized description of a common reasoning error. Is it wrong to identify reasoning errors in arguments with which you disagree? Especially when those errors are in fact there?

FWIW,  I am not in support of logical fallacies regardless of which side is presenting them.

[Smiley McGee]

44 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

And if they are not, why would @smac97's attitude matter?

You don’t think emotion/attitude affects one’s logical reasoning? 

[pogi]

A quick assessment easily shows where this thread went downhill.   Even an indirect reference to the transgender cultural war issue in a thread like this is looking for trouble.  It is getting exceedingly old.  Find other ways to make your point.   It’s a thread killer. 

While we are at it, perhaps consider burying a favorite weapon of war and covenanting to never use it again - the heavily bloodied logical fallacy club.  I’m tiring of the dull and needless sound of thumping.

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by pogi

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

say a lot of words when I probably don't need them. 

Lots of us do, especially me.  

[Calm]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sadly, it looks like Dan is on his way out.  I hope I'm wrong in that assessment. 

Seriously, what is the benefit of gossiping about whether a member is leaving or not?

You want to challenge his positions, fine.  Questioning his faithfulness, especially future faithfulness or not is not something other members should be doing.

Edited August 29, 2023 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

You don’t think emotion/attitude affects one’s logical reasoning? 

You are tent camping and in the middle of the night there is a scratching and growling sound that wakes you up, just outside, next to your head.

Should your logic be affected by emotions?

Can logic and emotion become one? Can they pragmatically become the "same thing"?

Edited August 29, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

Are you kidding? When was the last time you saw someone post, “oh boy I sure do like you conclusion but you’re committing a logical fallacy. Let me help you clean that up.” The only reason people cite logical fallacies is to dismiss or call into question conclusions they don’t like. It’s apologetic comfort food. 

Are you saying no one points out errors of logic in conclusions they like or are neutral on (if so, I strongly disagree) or are you saying no one uses the language “you are committing the logical fallacy xyz, which is….” unless they are trying to discredit the argument?  I wouldn’t say never on this last bit because I know I could do it if appropriate for someone’s whose argument I liked but felt was weak and could be improved or shouldn’t be used unfortunately, so I imagine others could as well, I just don’t remember if anyone has gone to that extent.  One reason I like this board is it helps me polish up my reasonings as well as gives me a chance to examine others’ arguments and see if I should add them to my portfolio, but they may need some work before that happens and this could lead to discussions.

Edited August 29, 2023 by Calm