#4 - Generally, it is important that people practice what they preach

[jackieb]

I liked A because I thought it was descriptively accurate- I understand how the analogy is flawed. But I don’t understand how failing to take this dissimilarity into account affects the argument. Even if the analogy is flawed (logicians need to be logical), you still have physicians as an exception. The conclusion isn’t that logicians don’t need to be logical.

I also liked B because if physicians stood as the exception and they are not, the analogy comparing logicians to physicians would fall apart, meaning there are no exceptions. This would mean the conclusion would fail and would make the reasoning questionable.

[Dana D]

Hey Jackieb,

The author's flaw here is saying that it is no more important for logicians to use logic when discussing logic than it is for physicians to be healthy themselves to help others. The difference is the logician example is refering to them using reason to do their job, whereas the physician example is refering to how a physician lives in their personal life and whether that makes them less capable at their job.

Imagine a slightly different example - if a scientist is preaching science, you want them to use science to draw their conclusions - that's how we feel we can trust what they say. On the other hand, you could imagine seeing an OBGYN who is themselves not a mother - they can preach about how to have a healthy pregnancy without having been pregnant themselves.

Does that make sense?

[jackieb]

Hey Jackieb,

The author's flaw here is saying that it is no more important for logicians to use logic when discussing logic than it is for physicians to be healthy themselves to help others. The difference is the logician example is refering to them using reason to do their job, whereas the physician example is refering to how a physician lives in their personal life and whether that makes them less capable at their job.

Imagine a slightly different example - if a scientist is preaching science, you want them to use science to draw their conclusions - that's how we feel we can trust what they say. On the other hand, you could imagine seeing an OBGYN who is themselves not a mother - they can preach about how to have a healthy pregnancy without having been pregnant themselves.

Does that make sense?

Hi Dana,

I understand why the analogy is flawed. But I don't understand how that makes the argument flawed. The conclusion is there are exceptions to the rule and the premise still cites physicians as an exception.

[Luke Haqq]

Hi jackieb!

You mention that "there are exceptions to the rule and the premise still cites physicians as an exception." I don't read this stimulus as saying that physicians alone are the exception. Rather, I read it as saying that both logicians and physicians are exceptions.