Subject:
|
Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:04:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1054 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
<snip>
> > >
> > > > 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.
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 same inference", I know what I said, and
I'll quote it again--
Quoteth Dave:
"
Having a debate where one side says, "This, this, this, this and this proves
my point" (of course, all 'this''s are backed up by link and/or citations)
and someone comes along and says, 'well, this one point of yours is
erronous, therefore the entire arguement is erronous' is, imho, wrong.
"
It does *not* say "this, which then leads us to this, which then leads us to
this, which then leads us to this... which proves my point"
So I correctly attributed my point to one of your examples. It's like
having a grocery list and going to the store--"Oh, they don't have guacamole
here, we have to not buy *anything* here and go get everything on the list
at a different store."
> > >
> > > > 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.
A list can never be a web, nor can it be a 'chain if inferences'--they're
different, they describe different things--hence the different words to
describe them. If we can't even agree on what words mean, how can we hope
to debate the issues?
> It's just a list. You have to identify more about it before you know.
It *is* just a list--what more do you have to identify?
> > 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.
I don't think I'm being insufficiently precise, I think we're just not
reading one another. I used everyday parlance with the dictionary def'n,
*intended* and well-understood meaning of the word 'list'--and we're just
being a little bit 'niggly' here.
>
> > 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.
Yes, but I didn't say the restaurant was 'Red Lobster'. Given the only
facts in evidence, there's a menu that has those items on the list. If I
were to then say "I don't like burgers, therefore this restaurant is not for
me" is erronous--there's like 5 other items on the list. Nowhere does it
say in the hypothesis that I have a political aversion to institutions that
serve the byproducts of once living creatures, nor does it say I'm allegic
to being in the same room with hamburgers.
It's like the problem in math class--a train leaves California at 4 p.m. and
travels east at 50 kph, and a similar train leaves Maine at the same time
travelling west at 60 kph... When will they meet?
You would say that they would never meet, for going due east from California
a train would never hit Maine--but that would, in everyday usage and
understandability, be wrong. Further, you may argue the semantics of Time
Zones and what is meant by "the same time"--is that 4 p.m. in both
instances, which means the train from California leaves 3 (or is it 4-don't
have the timezones in my head--sorry) hours later than the one from Maine...
The problem with elitism is that we lose sight of how Joe Average does and
understands things. This isn't John Travolta in Phenomena, arguing how old
a person would be if he (or she) was born in 1967. Joe average rounds
things off, Joe Average knows that if someone was born in 1967, they would
probably be 35 today, and Joe Average accepts the idea that it might be +-1
year either way, but it's in the ball park. Niggling.
> 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.
We don't have to know--the hypothesis *as presented* is what we have to work
with--I always remember the quote from Gary Sinise in Apollo 13 about the
flashlight--they don't have one up on the module, so he won't use one in the
mock-up--and wouldn't it have been nice if the carbon scrubbers were of the
same make and size in the lander as well as in the module--but it wasn't an
option, so therefore we can't factor it into the equation.
>
> 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.
Very true, I shall endeavour to do so.
> > 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?
I want people to understand the point, and I was wrong by choosing a bad
example. My original point still stands--that refuting one item in a *list*
of points supporting a conclusion does not make the conclusion erronous, it
just makes that one point erronous.
>
> 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.
Thanks for the edification Larry. Besides my first run-in with you what
seems to be many years ago about the 'CP' issue, I have appreciated your
POV and your calm demeanor for "gently guiding" inappropriate postings, and
the appreciation you have for LUGNET and the LEGO community in general.
I have endeavoured to read cites posted and my reading comprehension is
pretty good. If I come away with a different conclusion than other people,
it doesn't mean I misunderstood, it could mean we have differing opinions.
Not from you, but the 'refutations' I have received for some of my posts in
the past are, 'He's Canadian, his opinion does not matter', 'He's trolling,
his opinion does not matter', 'He's sounding like so 'n so, his opinion does
not matter', 'He believes in God, his opinion does not matter.'
I will be the first to admit I'm wrong--this very thread bears that out.
That said, When I refute every single 'niggly' point made by someone with
what I consider to be a very logical framework and understanding of the
issue, and then the entire thread gets deleted and in its place I'm told I'm
wrong, with absolutely no points refuted *at all* (and this has happened
numerous times), I begin to wonder about the ability to compromise, the
ability to see a 'bigger picture', the ability to see things 'outside the
box', the ability to debate the points and issues without attacking the
person, in others.
Yes I'm sloppy--it's my passionate idealism bursting to get out! :)
But that's just me.
>
> Hope that helps.
It does--I'm a big believer in improving myself. Thanks.
It's one of the many reasons I'm not at all actively involved in the
Israel/World Mandate thread--I don't have enough info to make a Just
opinion. I hear many people, here as well as on all the media outlets, and
others elsewhere, going on about one side or the other--so I still don't
know what to think--my personal jury is still out on the matter.
Dave K.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| (...) Just for reference, I don't think "quoteth" is a word (TIMBW). Are you thinking of "quoth" perhaps? (...) Since you're on a laudable anti-postmodernist kick, I'll throw a PM word at you for your arsenal: Rhizome. In its basic meaning it (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| (...) I would claim that the most correct answer to this problem in a math class is "I can't answer that question because insufficient information is given." A teacher who did give this problem though should award credit to anyone who provides an (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| (...) I totally agree with the above two paragraphs, whether they're applied to you, or to someone else, anyone doing these things is doing off-topic.debate a significant disservice in my view, and really ought not to do that. What I would question (...) (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| (...) Thank you for the clarification, on rereading I see that they are your words, my apologies. Point still stands though. (...) A list neither IS nor ISN'T a sequence (or chain of inferences, note the difference). Further it neither IS nor ISN'T (...) (22 years ago, 3-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
|
|
|
|
