How (in)valid are arguments "based on worst example"?

[wynn]

Here is an example of an argument that some theists sometimes make against some atheist ones:

I'm sure I mentioned this before: Once when I was in Japan visiting a Shinto Temple I must have caught the eye of this fat American woman. She nonchalantly mentions to me: It's so sad that all these Japanese will be in Hell.

And by golly if you can't find a tolerant monotheistic view from the lips of a fat american female christian tourist in a shinto temple you can't find one anywhere?
/.../
Whats pathetic is drawing up an argument based on worst example of a genre and stereotype.

Countering like that may seem very common sense - drawing up an argument based on worst example of a genre and stereotype generally is considered lowly, inaccurate, misleading.
For example, just because one had some bad experiences with one doctor, doesn't mean that all doctors are bad, nor that medicine is bad.

But such reasoning does not apply when it comes to Christianity, for example.

Even though some Christians themselves will use it against someone who has a negative view of Christianity. They say, "You should study the words of Jesus and then see for yourself whether those people who have hurt you really acted in line with Jesus words."

But those same Christians will also claim that an outsider cannot have proper knowledge of Christianity to begin with.

So that advice "You should study the words of Jesus and then see for yourself whether those people who have hurt you really acted in line with Jesus words." is a completely useless piece of advice, something that may seem common sense enough, but it is not something an outsider could actually do.

Similar can occur with other religions as well.


What is an outsider supposed to build their understanding of a particular religion on?
How is an outsider supposed to contextualize the experiences with religionists which, in the outsider's view, have been negative?
How can an outsider know what indeed is a bad or worst example of a genre?



One solution is to just refrain from all judgment and all assessment altogether. But given the important topics that religions deal with, such refraining may not always be acceptable; some things just are too important to ignore them.

What else can one do?

 

[wynn]

Here is an example of an argument that some theists sometimes make against some atheist ones:

I'm sure I mentioned this before: Once when I was in Japan visiting a Shinto Temple I must have caught the eye of this fat American woman. She nonchalantly mentions to me: It's so sad that all these Japanese will be in Hell.

And by golly if you can't find a tolerant monotheistic view from the lips of a fat american female christian tourist in a shinto temple you can't find one anywhere?
/.../
Whats pathetic is drawing up an argument based on worst example of a genre and stereotype.

Lightgigantic -

How do you know this woman was a "worst example of a genre"?

Declaring eternal damnation is regular for people who claim to be Christians, this can be observed.
If anything, the only objection that they would probably have against this woman is that she started her sentence with "It's so sad ..."

You seem like you know what a "good example" of a Christian is, that you know what Jesus taught, how a proper Christian should be. As an outsider, how do you presume to know such things?
Where, how did you get such confidence that you think you can assess Christianity justly?


At this point, I am not doubting your confidence and your abilities, I am just amazed at them.

 

[Sarkus]

Interestingly, it is the person who is saying "Whats pathetic is drawing up an argument based on worst example of a genre and stereotype" who is the one utilising that stereotype to belittle the argument. And is thus a logical fallacy on their part, not the original person's.

That the tourist who the first person saw happened to be an American female, and described as fat, does not negate the conclusion of the experience / observation - which the second person is seemingly trying to do. But the first person must be accepting that their example might not be the norm.


In general terms, I would say that arguments that utilise the worst examples are valid if properly used, but one must avoid fallacies when using them, the most obvious, imo, being one of generalising on the basis of that example alone.


But in arguments where a quality of X is how consistent it produces things, then "worst examples" are valid in assessing that quality.
E.g. If you have a machine that says it only produces nails between 10 and 11mm long, and the "worst example" you've seen is a nail of 20mm, then it certainly can be used as an argument against the stated effectiveness of the machine.

 

[S.A.M.]

Its usually how the argument is made. Worst example as representative. Think Stalin and Atheism. Mao and Communism. And as I have been repeatedly demonstrating since the last few years, it can be used in either direction.

 

[wynn]

Its usually how the argument is made. Worst example as representative. Think Stalin and Atheism. Mao and Communism. And as I have been repeatedly demonstrating since the last few years, it can be used in either direction.

What real Communist thinks that Mao was a bad example of a Communist??

 

[S.A.M.]

Whats a real communist?

 

[wynn]

Someone who believes in Mao.


My point is - How can we correctly assess a member of a group, by the characteristics pertinent to that group, without ourselves being members of that group?

Do you, for example, feel qualified to declare whether Mao was a proper Communist, given that you yourself are not a Communist?

 

[S.A.M.]

Someone who believes in Mao.


My point is - How can we correctly assess a member of a group, by the characteristics pertinent to that group, without ourselves being members of that group?

Do you, for example, feel qualified to declare whether Mao was a proper Communist, given that you yourself are not a Communist?

How do you know I am not a communist? I don't believe in the class system nor do I believe in landlordism. I could qualify.

"Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.

That sounds good to me. You?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Signal

So you think all communists believe in Mao? :bugeye:


What of Marx's economic principles? Because it is that which makes one a communist.

 

[wynn]

What of Marx's economic principles? Because it is that which makes one a communist.

Are you a Communist? Do you have the according documents and are listed as a member?

 

[wynn]

SAM -
My question remains:
How can we correctly assess a member of a group, by the characteristics pertinent to that group, without ourselves being members of that group?

There is sometimes focus on the emic vs. etic distinction - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emic_and_etic


Which one is correct is often irrelevant, except when it comes to religious issues and the possibility of eternal damnation.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Are you a Communist? Do you have the according documents and are listed as a member?

No I am not a communist. I am asking you why makes you think belief in mao is what makes a communist? The Khmer rouge were communists and they believed in their king sihanouk. The russians were and are communists despite any 'belief' in stalin. I know a couple who work with the ECCC here in Cambodia and they are both communists and just returned from a conference in Cuba but neither of them have a 'belief' in mao or stalin or even castro. They simply adhere is an economic philosophy somewhat based on marxist principles.

 

[Spectrum]

Posted by Signal
What is an outsider supposed to build their understanding of a particular religion on?
How is an outsider supposed to contextualize the experiences with religionists which, in the outsider's view, have been negative?
How can an outsider know what indeed is a bad or worst example of a genre?

A person is supposed to create their own beliefs, and then compare them to religions to discover which religion they belong to. You cannot force yourself to believe in a religion, if you simply do not believe in it's teachings.

 

[wynn]

A person is supposed to create their own beliefs, and then compare them to religions to discover which religion they belong to. You cannot force yourself to believe in a religion, if you simply do not believe in it's teachings.

How do you know any of this??


- - -

Lucy - See my post on emic vs. etic above.

 

[Ophiolite]

How can we correctly assess a member of a group, by the characteristics pertinent to that group, without ourselves being members of that group?

By understanding the claims and ethos of a group by consulting their recognised authorities and not by listening to the rank and file.

 

[lightgigantic]

Here is an example of an argument that some theists sometimes make against some atheist ones:



Lightgigantic -

How do you know this woman was a "worst example of a genre"?

You examine a category and find the worst examples of it.
For instance you take suicide bombers as representative of islam.
You take Paris Hilton as representative of entertainers.
etc etc

Declaring eternal damnation is regular for people who claim to be Christians, this can be observed.
If anything, the only objection that they would probably have against this woman is that she started her sentence with "It's so sad ..."

You seem like you know what a "good example" of a Christian is, that you know what Jesus taught, how a proper Christian should be. As an outsider, how do you presume to know such things?
Where, how did you get such confidence that you think you can assess Christianity justly?


At this point, I am not doubting your confidence and your abilities, I am just amazed at them.

There's a few things that come into play, but in short understanding something of actual religious principles and various historical events (eg Paul, Constantine, Luther etc ) that have shaped christianity, its easy to understand why there is a distinction between what people might commonly say and what the founders of such thought say.

 

[lightgigantic]

Interestingly, it is the person who is saying "Whats pathetic is drawing up an argument based on worst example of a genre and stereotype" who is the one utilising that stereotype to belittle the argument. And is thus a logical fallacy on their part, not the original person's.

Huh?
It might pay to reread the OP

That the tourist who the first person saw happened to be an American female, and described as fat, does not negate the conclusion of the experience / observation - which the second person is seemingly trying to do. But the first person must be accepting that their example might not be the norm.

Its more about whether she was representative of the ethos of monotheism

In general terms, I would say that arguments that utilise the worst examples are valid if properly used, but one must avoid fallacies when using them, the most obvious, imo, being one of generalising on the basis of that example alone.


But in arguments where a quality of X is how consistent it produces things, then "worst examples" are valid in assessing that quality.
E.g. If you have a machine that says it only produces nails between 10 and 11mm long, and the "worst example" you've seen is a nail of 20mm, then it certainly can be used as an argument against the stated effectiveness of the machine.

and if the machine was a cheap import version of the one in question?
IOW where the argument falls down (or stand up, as the case may be) depends on the article's authenticity.

 

[Doreen]

What is an outsider supposed to build their understanding of a particular religion on?
How is an outsider supposed to contextualize the experiences with religionists which, in the outsider's view, have been negative?
How can an outsider know what indeed is a bad or worst example of a genre?

I don't know how priviledged an insider is either, at least when it comes to something as diverse, contradictory and massive as Christianity. Does a Catholic understand Protestantism? I wouldn't want to make a rule that outsiders cannot comment or tha insiders are necessarily priviledged, at least when it comes to behavior issues like the one in the OP. If we are talking about how people interact, what they do in the world, I think outsiders and insiders will both have insights. And so to the latter two questions I guess I would answer that the outsiders may not know what they are talking about or concluding, but the insiders may also be deluded or have their impressions skewed by chance, limited contact, desire, confirmation bias, hindsight biases and so on.

 

[Sarkus]

Huh?
It might pay to reread the OP

Why the confusion, LG?
An example was posted. I provided a passing comment on that example.
You have issues with that?

Its more about whether she was representative of the ethos of monotheism

Sure, but it's also about whether arguments "based on worst example" are valid or not. Have you read the thread title?

and if the machine was a cheap import version of the one in question?
IOW where the argument falls down (or stand up, as the case may be) depends on the article's authenticity.

Why does it need to be a cheap import version? Why can it not merely be a machine that does not do what it is supposed to? A machine that sounds great in theory but is practically not feasible? Where then is the issue - with the machine in not being able to do what it theoretically should, or with the user for not possibly being able to use it to get the claimed results?

 

[lightgigantic]

Why the confusion, LG?
An example was posted. I provided a passing comment on that example.
You have issues with that?

Sure, but it's also about whether arguments "based on worst example" are valid or not. Have you read the thread title?

errrr .... and in the example there was the argument of the american tourist in a Shinto temple being representative of the ethos of monotheism

Why does it need to be a cheap import version? Why can it not merely be a machine that does not do what it is supposed to? A machine that sounds great in theory but is practically not feasible? Where then is the issue - with the machine in not being able to do what it theoretically should, or with the user for not possibly being able to use it to get the claimed results?

Once again, it boils down to whether one is actually working with an authentic article to measure the claims against.

If it works out that one isn't, then one is judging a genre by its worst example (which is a fail safe means to discredit absolutely anything)