Subject:
|
Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 3 Oct 2002 00:05:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
990 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > > Very nicely put, Larry...
> >
> > David please do not mark up my words as you did in the next paragraph. It is
> > confusing to the readership and extremely poor form.
> >
> > > However, my point was outlined with the second reasoning you made--that
> > > given a list of claims, (FEF1 (blood), FEF2 (DNA), FEF3 (motive), FEF4
> > > (whatever)... FEFn) and one of those claims was refuted, it does not mean
> > > that the hypothesis E -> F (OJ did it) is untrue.
> >
> > Everything in parenthesis was added by David, and is incorrectly associated
> > with the same inference.
>
> Everything in the *paragraph* was written by me and was *exactly* what I
> wanted to say with my first post about refuting an arguement by refuting one
> point--that by disputing one point of the list of evidence does not make
> *all* points null and void. It was an *example*. I just thought you worded
> it better. I shall endeavour to make my own examples from now on.
Thank you for the clarification, on rereading I see that they are your
words, my apologies. Point still stands though.
> >
> > > Now if *all* claims are refuted, then the hypothesis needs to be
> > > re-examined. A list of claims is not a logical sequence of events,
> >
> > It may or may not be. It depends on exactly what is being claimed. You need
> > to perform analysis on the claims and assertions to determine that. But
> > sequence and inference are different things. Again, perhaps a failure to
> > understand logic.
>
>
> Perhaps it's the failure of understanding english--a list is a list, like a
> menu, not one menu item being connected directly to another--just a list,
> and a sequence is a series of points like "connect the dots".
A list neither IS nor ISN'T a sequence (or chain of inferences, note the
difference). Further it neither IS nor ISN'T a web.
It's just a list. You have to identify more about it before you know.
> To be specific, if you dispute one point in a series of events, then you can
> dispute the hypothesis. However, you would have to dispute all points in a
> list to dispute the hypothesis, and I thought that you phrased it nicely.
No. You are being insufficently precise. If you wish to debate the finer
points of logic you are going to have to get your terms right.
> Menu:
>
> -hot dog
> -hamburger
> -home fries
> -caesar salad
> -B.L.T.
> -Sout of the day
>
> Someone may say "I don't like burgers, therefore this restaurant is not for
> me" That person would be erronous.
Again, a flawed or incomplete example. A "liking" is not a conclusion or a
proof or a production, it's merely an opinion. But further, you can argue
whether a liking is "reasonable" or not, and I would make the case that
since I detest all seafood... despite the fact that Red Lobster does have
non fish items on its menu, I can perfectly well say "I don't like lobster,
therefore this Red Lobster is not for me" and be correct in my opinion for
valid reasons. Seafood permeates the place.
In your example perhaps the person detests hamburgers to the point of not
even wanting to be near them, or to see them, or to smell them. Or maybe
not. We just don't know. So your conclusion that the person is "erroneous"
is unsupportable as the example is presented.
You would be well served when selecting examples to make them concise,
complete and unambiguous, and to have done the research behind them to make
sure that they actually support the conclusion that you think they do.
> K, as admitted, it wasn't the best example, but I couldn't think of another
> example right off the top of my head. To be sure, tuning out the OJ trial
> was like tuning out the sun--it was everywhere and I got the gist.
As I've demonstrated, I'm not sure you did.
> Since it
> really didn't matter to me personally, I didn't 'get into it'.
This just makes my point. If you want people to take you seriously, choose
your cites carefully, choose your examples carefully, choose your arguments
carefully... Using an example that you already knew you didn't know the
details of is not the sort of behaviour that ought to be fostered, don't you
agree?
Dave, you're a really nice guy, and generally a positive influence on things
at LUGNET and elsewhere, (unlike some much more well read but nonetheless
mean spirited rabble rousing trouble makers who just happen to have tighter
arguments) but much of what you say here goes in one ear and out the other,
for me, anyway... it's just too sloppy. Cites from TV, poorly chosen or
incorrect examples, fallacious logic, no research behind your statements,
refusal to read or understand cites posted by others, etc etc.
Hope that helps.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) If the point that still stands is "Everything in parenthesis was added by David", that is correct. If, however, the point that still stands is "and is incorrectly associated with the (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| (...) Everything in the *paragraph* was written by me and was *exactly* what I wanted to say with my first post about refuting an arguement by refuting one point--that by disputing one point of the list of evidence does not make *all* points null (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
