FAIL, I see...

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/382596#Comment_382596

Post above now fixed.

Donnie Hale

David,

I'm not quite sure why you posted that kind of post in a Logos forum. I don't know that it violates forum guidelines, but it's certainly not any kind of standard forum post.

Now that the Logos web site supports reviews of its books, perhaps you could post your review as an actual review.

BTW, I love Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies" and consider it required reading.

Donnie

William Gabriel

It's pretty clear from the first paragraph that you don't like Carson or his theology ("I was certain that it would contain many fallacies...the ones he perpetrates"). As a fan of his, I wish I had time to plow through a book like Exegetical Fallacies the way you did as his opponent.

Nevertheless, I stopped reading when you said the following:

Wow, this is practically a twofer...two-for-one. So, for starters, I seriously doubt "good-bye" came from "God be with you". Sounds like an eggcorn to me.

You see, if you did even a little bit of research, you would have found the following: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/goodbye, http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=good-bye, http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1505/what-is-the-origin-of-the-word-goodbye

I'm sure you're a nice person with nice opinions, but you can't let those get in the way of the truth. What you think might be more interesting when you can reduce your own fallacy error rate.

Perhaps you're just a troll, but that post was an awful lot of effort to get a rise out of Logos readership.

Dave Moser

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/382654#Comment_382654

I'm not quite sure why you posted that kind of post in a Logos forum. I don't know that it violates forum guidelines, but it's certainly not any kind of standard forum post.

I don't think it violates the forum rules since it's a review of a Logos product. However, like William already pointed out on the first criticism, the review is demonstrably erroneous at almost every turn.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/382674#Comment_382674

Well, anyone that does much flying knows 'goodbye' came from the flight attendant's training manual. And the proof is from the Satuday Night Live skit.

But I agree with the comments on Carson, even if the logical path is a little bouncy.

One of the challenges on the forum are folks that 'like' an author, or don't. Trying to use their recommendations (including my own) is chancy at best, since rarely is 'the logic' the basis for the opinion.

I'm moving through the ACCS I just l purchased based on a recommendation on the forum (our Mississippi friend who's comments I value). One almost has to paper-over the intros for each book, they're so driven to re-write the ancient father's points.

Giovanni Baggio

As the old lady in the commercial with the red converse shoes said, "Dang son!" That's the most random post I've ever read in a long time...I'm sure u must have a lot of time in your hands. Anyway you're a nice dude I hope u know what dude means you elephant but hair!

LOL

Giovanni

Dave Moser

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/382681#Comment_382681

But I agree with the comments on Carson, even if the logical path is a little bouncy.

The logic isn't bouncy - it's flat out wrong. In fact, the OP's comments on the word "nice" actually prove Carson's point.

One of the challenges on the forum are folks that 'like' an author, or don't.

This is a very good observation. However, the book in question has very little theology in it. It's really just a plea for responsible reading. I'm pretty sure almost everyone is on board with that.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/382694#Comment_382694

Dave, I'd agree with you as long as we don't look at Carson beyond the book cited. But few exegetes on the forum limit their logic to the specific NT writings they're looking at. And so the 'fallacies' proceed.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/382700#Comment_382700

Yeah!

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/382725#Comment_382725

Yeah!

I nominate MJ to be our Logician in Residence. [;)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/382669#Comment_382669

It's pretty clear from the first paragraph that you don't like Carson or his theology

Not super aware of his particular theology. Don't know the man. So no...that isn't clear at all. My beef is with his assumptions regarding so-called "root fallacies". I point out, primarily, the mistake he makes regarding the Hebrew root for "bread" and "war". There is a demonstrated connection--Carson and Barr insist there isn't. Rabbi Clark identifies one in his dictionary, and I identified another that is even more to the point.

War consumes. Eating consumes. What is consumed is most often referred to as bread. These are all the same Hebrew root.

Regarding the side point you decided to hang on, maybe there is a connection between "good bye" and "God be with you". Even so, that doesn't explain the meaning that the phrase/word has all on its own. Perhaps there were two phrase that were blended together--that happens sometimes. Or perhaps the phrase evolved up to a point, then side-stepped or backed-up, picked up a new meaning, and then proceeded forward. That the word "bye" has a long estabished meaning that informs the phrase "good bye" and that this meaning is not directly semantically connected to "God be with you" is rather plain. So, I concede a connection...but it isn't simply a "washing down the stream" kind of thing. Somewhere along the line, the debris of the original phrase was panned from the river and constructed into something all its own, and "good bye" is the result of that process. The similarity of the phrases masks the interjection that occurred. Because the post was already very long (I wrote the war/bread part first), I deliberately didn't belabor what I just said above. I recognized the possiblity that someone (you!) might latch onto that singular, admittedly debatable point and conflate it into a refutation of the entire post. Not surprising.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/382674#Comment_382674

However, like William already pointed out on the first criticism, the review is demonstrably erroneous at almost every turn.

Then demonstrate it...

I have conceded the point about "good bye" with an explanation, so pick something else.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/382820#Comment_382820

My main point, in case any didn't get it in the OP, is that it is rather easy to call something a fallacy, wipe the imaginary dirt from ones hands, and then walk away feeling like you've done all that's need to be done. But sometimes, calling something a fallacy...IS a fallacy. The problem is that since the issue was identified as a fallacy previously, it is assumed that sufficient diligence was already afforded and a proper verdict achieved.

Sometimes, as in the war/bread issue in the OP, that is a wrong impression based on erroneous weighing of the evidence. In this case, though, based on the choice of wording the two men employ, one gets the idea they simply dismissed the idea rather than examined it (i.e. the Cavalier Dismissal). That really isn't what you would or should expect from someone who is publically engaged as an authority on the subject of fallacy identification.

As far as Carson's book is concerned, I have no problem with critical thought. I'm a champion of it. The book should be read if one hasn't already read similar books. Just don't assume that Exegetical Fallacies is fallacy free because of the name, though. That's my point.

Dave Moser

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/382820#Comment_382820

Then demonstrate it...
I have conceded the point about "good bye" with an explanation, so pick something else.

Sure, how about the very next thing?

Regarding the word "nice", it is also rather ironic that I have used the word in the original root sense for years, even though I didn't realize it actually meant "ignorant" until I read Carson's comment above!

Carson's point is that the word "nice" - which primarily means "pleasing; agreeable; delightful; amiably pleasant; kind" in contemporary English - originally meant nearly the opposite. You say that you use it in the original sense - meaning you use it sarcastically. Your sarcasm is knowingly using the word incorrectly to make a point.

Your sarcastic use of the word demonstrates that the contemporary definition of the word is, just as Carson says, completely different from its older meaning. You've proven his point - not refuted it.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/382823#Comment_382823

Okay since I've been officially appointed the logician (thanks, George) I'll be more explicit than:

You need to separate two issues:

1) truth or falsity of the premises

2) legitimacy of the logical process

The latter is what "fallacy" applies to - one can apply perfect logic to bad premises and get bad results. That is not a fallacy - it's false premises. To claim that something is fallacious when in fact it is false premises is itself a fallacy.

An appeal to a reasonable but imperfect authority:

good-bye: also goodbye, good bye, good-by, 1590s, from godbwye (1570s), itself a contraction of God be with ye (late 14c.), influenced by good day, good evening, etc."

If you want to confirm or deny this piece of data, I would suggest that sampling every quarter century or so from the 14th century on should be sufficient for an inductive logical proof.

Also note:

fal·la·cy

[fal-uh-see]

noun, plural fal·la·cies.
1. a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.: That the world is flat was at one time a popular fallacy.

2.a misleading or unsound argument.

3.deceptive, misleading, or false nature; erroneousness.

4.Logic . any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.

5.Obsolete . deception.

fallacy: late 15c., "deception, false statement," from L. fallacia "deception," noun of quality from fallax (gen. fallacis) "deceptive," from fallere "deceive" (see fail). Specific sense in logic dates from 1550s. An earlier form was fallace (c.1300), from O.Fr. fallace.

Therefore you may reasonable reason that I am holding you to a too technical definition of "fallacy" as you were using casual reasoning rather than formal logic and in such a context your use of "fallacy" to refer to false premises was justified.

Of course, you could also complain that I assumed you were applying the rules of propositional or, perhaps, relational logic when in fact you intended to be understood as using the logic of belief. Should I have assumed, then, that I should consider the ramifications with regards to belief revision? (If you are lost at the point, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy should fill you in with a mere 80 pages of technical reading).

[^o)]Am I hearing a cry for a removal of me from the forum logician chair?[:D][;)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/382842#Comment_382842

Your sarcastic use of the word demonstrates that the contemporary definition of the word is, just as Carson says, completely different from its older meaning. You've proven his point - not refuted it.

Actually, the reality is I detected a sense of the word that is present in numerous situations. You can call that sarcastic if you like, but it isn't. The word practically screams out as a duality...one which exists because of a devolution and reformulation of meaning into the one you call contemporary.

Pleasant, (for-the-most-part) harmless, somewhat air-headed...when being put on the spot to describe such a person, the word for that is "nice". I've heard the word used in that way by others as well. If you have never detected an element of the negative in the word "nice", I would say you were quite tone deaf. In fact, most of the words you list, excepting perhaps "delightful" and "kind"--"pleasing; agreeable; amiably pleasant"--all of these have all been used to describe things or people that are perceived to have an element of being boring, unexciting, unoriginal, tepid, lacking in depth, etc.

Your pronouncement about me proving Carson's point is gaseous. No, just as I said, while I didn't consciously use the word in accordance to what the Latin meaning is, that doesn't mean I was using it sarcastically. I very much used the word to describe what I perceived the word to mean, just as I described above.

Btw, Carson's point explicitly was NOT that the word originally meant the opposite of what it means now. The idea of "opposite" is something that you injected into the conversation all on your own. He was merely pointing out that it significantly different. Pretty much everything you said is inaccurate.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/382848#Comment_382848

No issues here with the new chair, MJ. But I'm curious how you would analyze your light hearted if/then statement at the end of one of your posts on the eastern Catholic church. Don't view this as some sort of criticism; as I read it I surmised what demands are made between an if and a then.

I'm guessing humorous or ironic if/then's don't demand the cute dog with the magnifying glass.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/382880#Comment_382880

David (Paul) ... you're showing your age (and Carson's). 'Nice' now is the opposite of boring. At least for the generation now growing their families.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/382848#Comment_382848

good-bye
also goodbye, good bye, good-by, 1590s, from godbwye (1570s), itself a contraction of God be with ye (late 14c.), influenced by good day, good evening, etc."

The bolded text above pretty much seals my point. This is NOT NOT NOT an issue of sole and direct influence of the phrase "God be with you". The "influenced by good day, good evening, etc." phrase is (to quote myself from above) the "debris of the original phrase...panned from the river and constructed into something all its own". "Bye" means to give permission to procede. That concept in NOT found in "God be with you". It IS, however, a historical component of the meaning behind "good bye". Where did the word "bye" and its meaning come from? Good question.

I've read extensively in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Took tons of logic and philosophy in college. I take it all with a grain of salt. A great deal of what passes for the kinds of logic you are talking about is "snow globe theorizing". It bears little if any connection to the real world. Much of it is proposed as little more than theoretical math with its attendant concept of set theory.

The latter is what "fallacy" applies to - one can apply perfect logic to bad premises and get bad results. That is not a fallacy - it's false premises. To claim that something is fallacious when in fact it is false premises is itself a fallacy.

You may want to let Carson know about that, since he includes a whole section (called "Improperly handled syllogisms") about false premises in his book on the subject of Exegetical Fallacies. Actually, though, I think your exclusion of false premises is an inaccurate portrayal of what constitutes fallacy. A false premise, when undetected as they often are, has just as much probability to deceive as an invalid argument. Both are breakdowns of logic. Choosing and stating true premises is part of the logical process. "Applying logic", as you put it, must include the choosing of premises as part of its domain.

Am I hearing a cry for a removal of me from the forum logician chair?

Perhaps...I don't know what Carson's voice sounds like.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/382899#Comment_382899

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/382903#Comment_382903

Is that supposed to mean something?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/382908#Comment_382908

It means that searching for fallacies between the posts containing the book cover would be a productive exercise for anyone interested in pursuing the search.