quote:

ORIGINAL: stellauk

Okay, so I am with you on the rebuttal not being logical. I'm just having a problem with the rest, assuming that the basis of what we are discussing here is that initial premise in the OP.

The problem I have is that it appears to me that what you are saying is that the personal experience of the many - for marriage is a concrete event which is experienced, it's black and white, you are either married or you're not - is acceptable, but the individual personal experience of one person is not. The original premise is a principle deducted from many numerous personal experiences, is it not?

What's the difference? Quantity alone?

quote:

ORIGINAL: stellauk

Yes, but that factual, objective information is based on a principle gathered from many different instances of the same personal experience, i.e. getting married.
To me it doesn't matter if it is just one couple getting married or five million couples getting married, the fundamental experience is the same, i.e. getting married. Marriage involves the signing of some sort of licence and recording into public records. Therefore the information presented is indeed factual. But it is not possible for those statistics to exist without people going through the experience of marriage, correct?

quote:

ORIGINAL: stellauk

I'm struggling to understand here why you don't perceive the personal experience of someone as valid when it is the same experience which generated those statistics on which you base your original premise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stellauk

Also if you are personally involved in an experience, i.e. a wedding, it is not the same as an observation, even if you are one of the guests. It is an entirely different perspective from that of say, a passer by who witnesses the ceremony from across the street. The passer by is not involved in the ceremony, and therefore it is a case of personal observation. But to be one of the parties getting married or a guest requires involvement and in my opinion presenting that information as personal experience is entirely valid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stellauk

That saying I do agree with you that it is important to verify your generalities and to examine the logic and reasoning behind them before presenting them but the thinking involved in this process is entirely individual, based on individual perception and knowledge.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stellauk

On any given subject there is usually more than one argument and it is the process of finding that argument and being able to construct it in ethical and logical terms which makes it an intellectual discussion, not the acquisition of the knowledge itself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stellauk

I still say dismissing the individual personal experience in favour of the same experience compiled collectively to generate the same factual statistics on which you base your premise is the fallacy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stellauk

But then on the other hand it also illustrates the validity of drawing on personal experience as a basis for logical reasoning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stellauk

BTW, unconnected, you take brilliant photographs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

Please note:

Your anecdotal evidence of an exception to any generality offered up in a discussion is not a nullification of that generality. You cannot "disagree" with an accurate generality by offering your own personal exception.

Example:

Premise: "Most americans marry within their ethnicity."

Retort: "I disagree with the above! My sister is white and is married to a black man."

This type of reply is not just fallacious in terms of addressing the accuracy of the original point, but also in terms of the need to apply personal projection (for whatever reason) to a statement that is correct. Whatever reasons you may have... to point out the exceptions to the generality...do not constitute a correct rebuttal to the original generality)...

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

But... how many "personal anecdotes" do You think it takes to disprove a generalization?

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

What if most Americans really *don't* marry within their ethnicity? (although i suspect they do.) A single example would not disprove that premise, it's true. But enough examples *would*. If we gathered data, and the data showed that Americans marry outside their ethnicity over 50% of the time, the generalization would be proven false.

How do You expect posters to try to prove this, when they haven't done any scientific surveys, and neither have You? They will give examples from their own experience. If they can give enough examples, and the examples are credible, that will tend to *weaken* Your argument, although, obviously, not *disprove* it. This isn't math. i doubt if it's possible for anyone to *disprove* (or "nullify") any generalization about a large group of people, by making an argument on an internet forum. By the same token, it's also impossible for You to *prove* that the generalization is true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09


So... we find examples that support our own argument, and weaken our opponent's. The more examples we find, and the better they are, the more convincing our argument is. But nothing is ever "proven" or "disproven".

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

Even if we were to conduct an extensive statistical survey about the question, in the end, the math would still only indicate degrees of probability. And in the absence of math... assertion, backed up with "personal anecdotes" is really all there is left.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

(Which is not to say that people don't sometimes make illogical arguments on the forums, or that no one should bother even trying to be logical.)

pam

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

Well, yes. Generalities (e.g. "most", "typically", "generally", "in the greater amount of cases") refer to something that happens with a percentage that is, at least, larger than half of the sample size. Depending on how aggressively worded they are, a higher percentage can or cannot be implied, but a greater than 50% occurrence of something is enough to qualify it as being the norm.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

Well, it's factual once it's part of the public record. Just "feeling" like you're married, without legal documentation, while certainly nice is not technically "marriage".

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

Because a generality is an incorporation of a sufficiently large enough sample size to merit substantial credibility. Or are you saying that if, in my life, I have had the experience of parental abuse from just one set of parents, that I somehow have the objective druthers to declare that most parents are physically abusive or (more to the point) to argue that most parents are not physically abusive (based on liberal interpretations of "abuse" here, for the examples' sake)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

Not to argue generalities. It involves the presumption to be able to speak on behalf of thousands, if not millions of people, based solely on what you alone have experienced. It makes no sense when discussing generalities at all/

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

It shouldn't be. Generalities should be based on verifiably high-percentage occurrences.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

If camaraderie, rather than fact, is more important. Arguments are not valuable merely on the grounds that they can be concocted. Arguments are valuable to the degree that they impart accurate information. We're arguing in favor of lies (intentional or not) otherwise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

That is the definition of a generality, you realize, yes? One individual alone is worthless (in terms of information) when a discussion of generalities is happening.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

Logic isn't based on personal experience, though (perhaps I'm reading that phrase in the sense that "personal experience" is really just a subjective interpretative version of things that have objectively happened).

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

Thank you. And, it would be nice, based on this sole personal experience, to now be able to say: "Most people think I take brilliant photographs."...but you see the problem, yes?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

Please note:

Your anecdotal evidence of an exception to any generality offered up in a discussion is not a nullification of that generality. You cannot "disagree" with an accurate generality by offering your own personal exception.

Example:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Premise: "Most americans marry within their ethnicity."

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09
But... how many "personal anecdotes" do You think it takes to disprove a generalization?

...a poll of as many people as possible would be necessary...

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
Personally, though, i don't think generalities would/should be getting tossed out if the numbers are close to arguable in the first place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09
So... we find examples that support our own argument, and weaken our opponent's. The more examples we find, and the better they are, the more convincing our argument is. But nothing is ever "proven" or "disproven".

That's an incredibly Pyrrhonian argument. But this is where I see the common mistake of equating generalities with universalities. Well, that and the fact that people can get emotionally worked up if they feel a generality minimizes them, or attacks something of metaphysical value that they hold dear...so they feel compelled to voice an exception because they mistake a commentary of clinical fact for an ethical imposition or declaration.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance
However If several people are posting from personal experience saying your wrong. It means that by god golly you can be wrong...because they are offering that your opinion is wrong and they have proof of it.

Generalizations by themselves are wrong because they do not fit the majority they are simply opinions.. Its only assumed that they do. To generalize is to form an opinion, that is based on personal experience from the person generalizing...

Meaning that opinion is only by that person wither 10 people or 50 thousand people agree with that generalization its still only an opinion... Not a fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
The OP is correct that a specific exception does NOT invalidate a known generality.

First of all, i love that an illogical argument just bugs some people this much. Getting worked up over bad logic is WAY better than getting worked up over bad spelling.

A specific exeption does NOT invalidate a known generality, that's true.

However, enough specific exemptions, if they are well chosen, might weaken one person's claim that a generalization is true. Or, in other words, who decides what is a *known generality*? The fact that one poster *says so* isn't enough to prove that it's either true or common knowledge (even if it really is both!).

For example:

Men are taller than women. That statment is a generality and it is true (take a large enough sampling of men and women, average out their heights, and you will find that the men average taller than the women).

If you've used statistical data as part of your argument, and your opponent retorts, "men CAN'T be taller than women on average, because this one particular man is taller than this one particular woman..."; if THAT is the rebuttal, then the person simply doesn't understand logic. And that would be frustrating.

But how often is that the case here? How often do posters offer mathematical support for an assertion, only to have the math disregarded by people who don't understand it? From what i've seen in the forums, that doesn't happen very often. Posters don't usually bother to offer scientific evidence that a generalization is true. More often, they just assume that everyone knows that it's true.

The point is that everyone does NOT know that it's true (even if it really is). If a poster thinks a generalization isn't true, it's natural for them to name examples to try to weaken their opponent's argument, especially if they don't have any harder data to use. Most people do NOT conduct an extensive scientific study on a question before they post, and many arguments here can't be proven deductively.

For example:

You can go out and find the tallest woman you know and stand her next to the shortest man you know and say, "see... men are not taller than women because this woman is taller than this man."

One tall woman standing next to one short man doesn't prove anything.

But this in no way invalidates the generality.

Of course not. But finding many examples of women that are taller than men would weaken the claim that the generalization is true, especially when you haven't provided any hard evidence that it IS, other than your say so. Be careful of saying that something is a "known generality" unless you're able to back that up. It's possible you only *think* a generalization is true. And if it IS true, it's possible you only *think* it's well known.

It may be (although i doubt) that men really aren't taller than women on average. If so, the only way to prove that would be by finding enough examples.

Whether the specific in question applies to a respondant is not relevant as far as the logic goes.

Yes, but enough specific examples *would be* relevant. If we took a big enough sample, and it showed that a significant number of women were taller than men, it would throw serious doubt on whether the original statement was true to begin with, although it wouldn't "disprove it".

Usually (in my experience) a person will use an exception to "disprove" a known generality they dislike on philosophical grounds. I once got into a debate with a poster... we were arguing on whether or not women have a mothering instinct. I contended yes. She cited examples of women who have murdered their children but these exceptions did not disprove the generality as far as I was concerned, nor more than a person born without legs is "proof" that humans have no legs.

People do often use exceptions to "disprove" a known generality they dislike on philosophical grounds, that's true. But the fact that women have a mothering instinct is NOT a "known generality", but rather, an assertion that you're making. It could be true or false. You believe it's true. She believes it's false. i'm sure i don't know whose right.

But how else could she possibly have supported her own claim, and tried to weaken yours, if not by giving examples? How do you expect her to try to "prove" that? This isn't math. A person can't deduce the answer to this question. All they can do in a case like that is offer evidence that supports their own argument, or weakens their opponent's.

When a person sites their own experience as an exception, it is often driven by a sense of being insulted or disrespected (perhaps in combination with a philosophical disagreement). The respondant is reacting emotionally...

It's true that people often make illogical arguments. Some people who site their experiences are only reacting emotionally. But others do it to provide evidence to support an argument that cannot be proven or disproven by logic alone. The question of whether most women have a mothering instinct is a case in point.

This is why I belive that the practise of humilty... CM posters are dumber than stumps... myself excepted, of course.

That is NOT an example of humility. *smiles impishly* But i take your point. i think all of us would do well to be more patient, and try harder to understand what others are saying, before getting pissed off about it. Also, when posting i take it for granted that i may be called upon to offer proof of anything i say, even if i think it's obvious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Premise: "Most americans marry within their ethnicity."

Retort: "I disagree with the above! My sister is white and is married to a black man."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

First of all, i love that an illogical argument just bugs some people this much. Getting worked up over bad logic is WAY better than getting worked up over bad spelling.

A specific exception does NOT invalidate a known generality, that's true.

However, enough specific exemptions, if they are well chosen, might weaken one person's claim that a generalization is true. Or, in other words, who decides what is a *known generality*? The fact that one poster *says so* isn't enough to prove that it's either true or common knowledge (even if it really is both!).

quote:

If you've used statistical data as part of your argument, and your opponent retorts, "men CAN'T be taller than women on average, because this one particular man is taller than this one particular woman..."; if THAT is the rebuttal, then the person simply doesn't understand logic. And that would be frustrating.

quote:

But how often is that the case here? How often do posters offer mathematical support for an assertion, only to have the math disregarded by people who don't understand it? From what i've seen in the forums, that doesn't happen very often. Posters don't usually bother to offer scientific evidence that a generalization is true. More often, they just assume that everyone knows that it's true.

quote:

The point is that everyone does NOT know that it's true (even if it really is). If a poster thinks a generalization isn't true, it's natural for them to name examples to try to weaken their opponent's argument, especially if they don't have any harder data to use. Most people do NOT conduct an extensive scientific study on a question before they post, and many arguments here can't be proven deductively.

quote:

One tall woman standing next to one short man doesn't prove anything.

quote:

Of course not. But finding many examples of women that are taller than men would weaken the claim that the generalization is true, especially when you haven't provided any hard evidence that it IS, other than your say so. Be careful of saying that something is a "known generality" unless you're able to back that up. It's possible you only *think* a generalization is true. And if it IS true, it's possible you only *think* it's well known.

quote:

Yes, but enough specific examples *would be* relevant. If we took a big enough sample, and it showed that a significant number of women were taller than men, it would throw serious doubt on whether the original statement was true to begin with, although it wouldn't "disprove it".

quote:

People do often use exceptions to "disprove" a known generality they dislike on philosophical grounds, that's true. But the fact that women have a mothering instinct is NOT a "known generality", but rather, an assertion that you're making. It could be true or false. You believe it's true. She believes it's false. i'm sure i don't know whose right.

quote:

But how else could she possibly have supported her own claim, and tried to weaken yours, if not by giving examples? How do you expect her to try to "prove" that? This isn't math. A person can't deduce the answer to this question. All they can do in a case like that is offer evidence that supports their own argument, or weakens their opponent's.

quote:

It's true that people often make illogical arguments.

quote:

Some people who site their experiences are only reacting emotionally. But others do it to provide evidence to support an argument that cannot be proven or disproven by logic alone. The question of whether most women have a mothering instinct is a case in point.

quote:

That is NOT an example of humility. *smiles impishly* But i take your point. i think all of us would do well to be more patient, and try harder to understand what others are saying, before getting pissed off about it. Also, when posting i take it for granted that i may be called upon to offer proof of anything i say, even if i think it's obvious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09
Of course not. But finding many examples of women that are taller than men would weaken the claim that the generalization is true, especially when you haven't provided any hard evidence that it IS, other than your say so. Be careful of saying that something is a "known generality" unless you're able to back that up. It's possible you only *think* a generalization is true. And if it IS true, it's possible you only *think* it's well known.

True, but in this case I stand by it. One need only look around (unless you’re at a convention for Amazons) to see that the male of the human species is taller than the female, despite the exceptions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09
Yes, but enough specific examples *would be* relevant. If we took a big enough sample, and it showed that a significant number of women were taller than men, it would throw serious doubt on whether the original statement was true to begin with, although it wouldn't "disprove it".

True, but the point is exactly that you need a great many “exceptions,” to disprove a generality, enough to demonstrate that the exceptions are, in fact, the generality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09
People do often use exceptions to "disprove" a known generality they dislike on philosophical grounds, that's true. But the fact that women have a mothering instinct is NOT a "known generality", but rather, an assertion that you're making. It could be true or false. You believe it's true. She believes it's false. i'm sure i don't know whose right.

My point exactly. The point is, and remains that an exception is not proof, in and of itself, of disproof of a generality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09
But how else could she possibly have supported her own claim, and tried to weaken yours, if not by giving examples? How do you expect her to try to "prove" that? This isn't math. A person can't deduce the answer to this question. All they can do in a case like that is offer evidence that supports their own argument, or weakens their opponent's.

True… but the question isn’t how they can support their own claim but whether or not citing one (or even a few) exceptions is sufficient to disprove a generality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09
Some people who site their experiences are only reacting emotionally. But others do it to provide evidence to support an argument that cannot be proven or disproven by logic alone. The question of whether most women have a mothering instinct is a case in point.

That is, and remains, my point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

I understand the spirit of the OP but the entire reason I come here is to hear (read) about the personal experiences of others and generalities aren't exactly the best way to gather information which I may wish to apply to the life I lead. I am American.. my ethnicity is American. I live in America and most of my pool choices also live in America so what does the generality do for *me*? It certainly doesn't educate me. It doesn't validate me. It doesn't feed me, clothe me or dom me, so what use are they *here*? I see very little purpose in using generalities on a discussion group of this nature. This is a people place full of rich and diverse individuals and, personally, I look forward to the exceptions much more than the rules.


Where is the flavor in a generality? What is the purpose of posting what *most* folks think, do or say when, by my very nature, I don't fall into that *most* folks catagory?

Most folks don't enjoy bleeding.. well, no offense but if I am in the mood to talk blood sports, I don't want to talk to most folks who don't partake.. I want to talk to the few who do.

Its not that I think that personal ancedotes or experiences nullify generalities.. it's that specifics from actual people rather than a stack of papers with oodles of statistics are much more interesting on the whole and damn if generalities don't tend to shut doors rather than open them. Cold hard facts? I'll go take a math class if I am looking for facts. I want the feelings, the emotions, to share the tears and joys of others and to share my own with them.

If you don't want people to attempt to nullify generalties with their personal experiences.. well, you can quit posting generalities and just post NZ. You are so much more than the sum of your statistics.

Bita Causin' Truble