Re: [Mind's Eye] Complex argument

Actually Neil in a way it makes a great deal of sense, I think it was Gabby that brought up the correlation between the stock market and wealth with the 'Golden Calf' .  If you look at how the physical and emotional response (not at what is being said)  I think the reactions become that similar to those of american christian fundamentalism..   You see people studying every word on the stock market and those studying every word contained within the bible. The hanging on to every little change in the market and the passion generated by the preacher..  the list could easily go on  and you have to admit there are people whose religion and beliefs is the stock market.

The stock market can easily be related to the 'Church of the Golden Calf". It has many followers and those who worship every gain or lose. to the point it is broacast as part of the (religious?) news.

Allan

On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Don Johnson <dajohn@gmail.com> wrote:

Wish I had seen this earlier I'm getting off soon and don't have time to do any research until tonight. I'm not sure about a relationship between religion and economics but I definitely see one between religion and business. Historically we tend to trust those that share our beliefs over those that don't. So Jews favor Jews and protestants favor protestants and so on. I believe the Koran even stipulates giving favoritism to Muslims in owning land, slaves and paying taxes and so forth. Apostates are reviled. 

I'm pretty sure this is not what you're talking about though. I'm interested to see what others have to say.

dj

On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 4:00 AM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:

We have rules on ad hominem and such in here.  It's only one example
of an "ad" and in general such stuff is regarded as fallacy.  More
recent work on argument tends to say we need to recognise what kind of
argument we are in as the rules vary in different forms.  One form of
argument is called eristic and its aim is to reveal deep divisions. Ad
hom may be allowable in that.  I'm writing a paper for a conference
based on the notion that religion has a deep and generally malevolent
influence in human behaviour - which has an implicit ad hom - that
general religious stuff is the province of a kind of cowardice (there
are lots of examples from the other side of course - such as atheists
being immoral).
The main book I've been reading is by Walton (below) and a digest
might be as follows:

Dialogue types:
Dialogue Type   Initial Situation       Participant's Goal      Goal of Dialogue
Persuasion      Conflict of Opinion     Persuade Other Party    Resolve Issue
Inquiry Need to Have Proof      Verify Evidence Prove Hypothesis
Discovery       Need for Explanation    Find a Hypothesis       Support Hypothesis
Negotiation     Conflict of Interests   Secure Interests        Settle Issue
Information     Need Information        Acquire Information     Exchange Information
Deliberation    Practical Choice        Fit Goals and Actions   Decide What to Do
Eristic Personal Conflict       Attack an Opponent      Reveal Deep Conflict

What informal logic is seeking to explain and use:
1.an account of the principles of communication which argumentative
exchange depends upon;
2. a distinction between different kinds of dialogue in which argument
may occur, and the ways in which they determine 3.appropriate and
inappropriate moves in argumentation (e.g. the difference between
scientific discussion and negotiation);
4. an account of logical consequence, which explains when it can be
said (and what it means to say) that some claim (or attitude) is a
logical consequence of another;
5. a typology of argument which provides a framework of argument and
analysis by indentifying the basic types of argument that need to be
distinguished (deductivism is monistic, hence one of the simplest
typologies; others will distinguish between fundamentally different
kinds of argument);
6. an account of good argument which specifies general criteria for
deductive, inductive, and conductive arguments;
definitions of positive argument schema which define good patterns of
reasoning (reasonable appeals to authority, reasonable attacks against
the person; etc.);
7. some theoretical account of fallacies and the role they can (and
cannot) play in understanding and assessing informal arguments;
8. an account of the role that audience (pathos) and ethos and other
rhetorical notions should play in analysing and assessing argument;
9. an explanation of the dialectical obligations that attach to
arguments in particular kinds of contexts.


Walton, Douglas N., 2007. Dialog Theory for Critical Argumentation,
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

What I'm seeking to establish is that economics and economic behaviour
as we have it is a form of religious madness and uses religious
coercion to get us to play its games.  I actually believe this but
want to do more than just assert the position.  I'm not concerned to
dismiss religion but rather demonstrate the dangerous madness of
"economics" as a religious practice and threat to democracy

In a crude sense one must bow to religious madness to take part in its
fellowship.  My contention is that economics works in the same way -
under the maths belief in talking snakes is implied.  The driving
question is what a scientific economics might be and how this might be
a moral matter because truth dialogue in science is not value-free but
moral.  In the context of history, religion has often been concerned
with economics and particularly freedom from debt.  What I'm searching
for is something that breaks religion and politics from the dominance
of power-interests and perhaps rediscovers more reasonable
spirituality.

It would help if I could build a truth-pattern analyser!  Comments
appreciated.  Judging on the current draft I don't know what I'm
talking about yet!

--
 (

  )

|_D Allan

Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.