On 01/07/2014 09:34 AM, John Kennison wrote: > > I think one example might be "I oppose gay marriage because it would > undermine my own (straight) marriage". > One could interpret the reason given as a false premise (you could always do > that whenever someone gives a reason for a belief) but here it looks more > like a rationalization.
I think that's a great example. Even _if_ we reformulate it to something like this: Making it _easier_ to marry (unrelated to gay marriage, e.g. prenups) undermines the value of current marriages. If we reformulate it to that, then it's fairly easy to argue for the truth of the premise. (More of any given thing devalues the prior instances of that thing.) But the problem with the argument comes from leaving out externally imposing factors, for example, population increase or decrease. If you _fail_ to make marriage easier, yet the population increases, then you are artificially increasing the value of extant marriages. And, while doing that may increase the value of your own marriage, it will make it more difficult to spread your perspective (memetically). E.g. your children will have a more difficult time getting married. Your married friends will die or get divorced and you will see your clique dwindle over time. So, while the premise could be true, the reasoning is still flawed because it's closed reasoning. -- ⇒⇐ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
