Reasoning

2005-12-19 01:56:00

Larry begins by writing:

"The fundamental problem is that you did not understand the point I was making. You saw the data, and missed the principle by a mile."

JJ:

Are you are reading my posts? I understand you precisely.

Larry:

"The first question was whether or not the anti-abortionists were being primarily logical, or not. It is entirely possible to be completely logical, and still be wrong."

JJ:

I understand and agree.

Larry:

"It all depends on whether or not one has all the relevant facts to work with."

JJ:

This is where we disagree. Relevant facts have little or nothing to do with whether an argument is based on logic or feeling. Facts can be accurate yet the line of reasoning be completely based on feeling leading to incorrect and illogical conclusions.

Larry:

"Consider this. Let's say that arriving at a true conclusion in a matter requires that one know facts A, B, and C. If one does know A, B, and C then one has sufficient data to derive a correct principle and/or conclusion."

JJ:

This is true if he has sound logic. If not then all the facts in the world will not lead him correctly.

Larry:

"So let us say that you know A and B, but have not yet discovered C. You have considered all that you know on the matter, and have made logical conclusions from what you do know, but your conclusion is incorrect simply because you haven't discovered C yet."

JJ:

But if he is using sound logic he will recognize he is missing C and will not come to a definite conclusion and see his belief as a guess or at best a belief subject to change when more data is made known. Most pro-life people I have met don't see they are missing C. They think the Bible has every piece of knowledge they need and that they understand it.

Larry:

"So the question originally was about whether many of these people were being logical (given their knowledge and point of reference)."

JJ:

Logic does not consist of having facts, but putting facts together in such a way to reach the highest possible conclusion in the direction of the truth. I have stood by this from the beginning.

Larry:

"While the very extreme fundamentalists might have a problem in this regard, many of the people who are anti-abortion (but not extreme fundamentalists) have exhibited a pretty fair amount of rationality in trying to come up with some standard of when a fetus becomes something we can, or should call a human being for legal purposes."

JJ:

An extreme person would have a belief covering maybe five per cent of the population. A whopping 55 percent of the population of the USA believe that life begins at conception. A belief shared by 55 percent of the population is not extreme by any standard.

See poll at: http://www.sba-list.org/polls08072003.cfm

Larry:

"Where you shifted the focus was in trying to show the arguments were fundamentally wrong. That is really not the question. The question is whether they are acting primarily as rational people, or not. I say that many of them are working very hard to establish a rational basis for their position. Of course I am speaking of some anti-abortionists, and not all (and not especially about the lunatic fringe of the fundamentalist side)."

JJ:

I have not changed focus. From the beginning I have attempted to show, not so much that they are wrong, but that their arguments are based upon feeling and not logic. Because their arguments are based on feeling they either come to incorrect conclusions or think they have A,B and C when they only have A and B.

Larry:

"But you did shift the focus because you misunderstood the principle I was making. Whether or not the more rational anti-abortionists are ultimately correct is not the issue. The issue is whether they are being rational using what they do know, and accept."

JJ:

I've tried to maker it clear to you several times that I see your point here, but disagree. I do not think they are being rational with what they know. They are clearly missing C, it is obvious they are missing C, and they ignore the fact they are missing C. This is not rational. It is not rational to pretend you can come to a sure conclusion when you are missing a big piece to the puzzle. That missing piece is when the actual entity enters the body and the life begins as seen in the eyes of God.

Larry:

"In fact the conservative side shows a great deal of reason and logic in attempting establish their case. That is simply a fact."

JJ:

If this is a fact I do not see it. Where is the reason and what is the argument?

Larry:

"What is there for you not to understand? Many anti-abortionists have invoked a great deal of scientific evidence to show that a fetus at some stage (after conception) exhibits behaviors that are like, or identical with behaviors of human beings."

JJ:

BUT this has nothing to do with being rational or using logic and reason. Even many of the strongest pro-choice advocate realizes this. The abortion doctors certainly do.

Larry:

"They have sophisticated brain waves, they feel pain, they move purposefully, etc. I am not saying they have absolutely proven their position, but they most certainly have done research, derived facts, and drawn conclusions that are not something that a rational person can dismiss out of hand."

JJ:

And what does this tell us about when the entity enters the body and when real life begins?

Nothing.

Larry:

"So, are you being deliberately refusing to not understand that?"

JJ:

I perfectly understand what you are saying but disagree. I do not see facts like this as having much to do with the use of a logical reasoning process.

The person today knowing about the development of a fetus has no more power in his reasoning than someone from the days of Moses unless he uses this knowledge to connect the dots. I see few logical dots connected by anyone using this knowledge.

Larry:

"Some on the anti-abortion side use pictures for 'shock value.' However that does not negate the fact that many anti-abortionists have done much research, and presented many facts supporting the view of the 'humanness' of a fetus at some point before physical birth."

JJ:

Many who do much research have poor reason and incorrect conclusions from the research. Yes, the pro-lifers do more research, and that is to their credit, but this does not mean that their beliefs and conclusions are detached from their feelings.

Larry:

"You wrote today in 'What the Bible Says':

"'And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.' (Genesis 2:7)

"He became a 'living soul' when the breath of life entered into him. Of course, the breath of life enters into a baby when he is born and takes a breath, not before.

"You sound exactly like an extreme fundamentalist preacher here, quoting the Bible to prove when 'the breath of life' enters into a baby? I am not sure exactly what you mean by 'breath of life' here, but if you mean something like the 'Divine spark of life,' then I will just have to disagree with you."

JJ:

Being compared to an extreme fundamentalist preacher is about the worse insult anyone can make in my direction. Why do you, a good friend, insult me by calling me an such an extremist, especially when I said nothing extreme? If you call me an extremist then I expect you to point out how I am being extreme. If you were not a good friend I would not care if you had a reason or not.

To quote a verse from the Bible and then point out what it says, especially when allowing room for other opinions, is not extreme by any standard I can think of. If anyone agrees with you here I would like to hear it.

"From now on, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put."
-- Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)