The debate "If you want to assert some applicable value you ought firstly be right" was started by
May 1, 2015, 8:39 am.
22 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 10 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Getmurked posted 1 argument, I_Voyager posted 2 arguments, Shahmir posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
I_Voyager, Getmurked, jonatron5, Shahmir, Seraphim, Violet, DarkAngelAnarchist, skyfrancois_97, soullesschicken and 13 visitors agree.
invincible_01, Asa and 8 visitors disagree.
Yes, I agree.
If you can't prove your premise, you should have the courage not to assert it as "true". You can still argue for it. But you should be honest in where you stand. If I assert the sky is red, but I have no evidence, I should have the courage to say "I think the sky is red." and not just say "It's true that the sky is red! I read it somewhere! I feel very strongly! After all, every perception is questionable. Since you can't trust your perception, the sky MUST be red!"
Probably every field of thought fails at this from time to time. But in general, it's better to assert things as they are and not rely on fallacies to help you. And the worst one is to play on the ignorance of your opponent. If your opponent takes a premise, but you know more about the premise, then you should have the courage to enlighten the person about the more educated arguments made by adherents of that premise (or point them to sources of education if you know of them).
If I meet a theist who wants to debate against my atheist position, but doesn't know a lot about where the "Theology vs Atheology" conversation is at, I won't step back and use bad atheist arguments I know they don't have the education to refute. I'll enhance their arguments with the arguments I've heard from more knowledgeable theists, suggest certain references they don't know about, and then continue the conversation hopefully from a more stimulating place.
So you're trying to say that the scholars should not use well crafted rhetoric but with tons of fallacies, much like a beautifully decorated cake on the outside but nothing on the inside.
Well, if that is the case, I agree. You can't say the sky is red and use that idea in scientific research without first being sure it's right.
I was just reflecting on some arguments I've been hearing from the Muslim community when engaging in debates with atheists or scientists. Especially when those Muslims are trained philosophers engaging with students less educated in philosophy, but perhaps familiar with scientific methods. Because of the position the Muslim philosophers have in being more educated on philosophy, they make stimulating, but ultimately fallacious or rhetorical arguments to position the person they're discussing with into a position of unmeritous uncertainty. They may conclude "you can't trust logic, so how can you trust science? But we Muslims trust our Quran, therefore we are correct in trusting our Quran."
I can counter their philosophical arguments well enough... But the Quran itself is not a very good substitute for scientific reasoning and materialistic philosophy. Unlike Christians, whose bible is allegorical and whose mistakes are forgivable within their own theology, Muslims put forth the notion that the Quran is a literal truth, and perfect. But the book isn't really all that good, nor perfect. There are faulty ideas throughout, borrowed ideas especially... The debate never gets to go that far though. And it just occurred to me, if you're going to question a very valid system (like science), and then posit an irrational system (Islam), you ought be right first, and not rely on fallacious arguments to seem right before people less educated than yourself.