Subject:
|
Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:05:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
705 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Robert Bevens writes:
> > > Not entirely true, it could all be literally true whilst parts could
> > > still be incorrect.
You're equivocating. James has done a good job of fielding your foul
balls while I've been away, but I'd like to point out a few additional flaws
in your logic.
> You might ask why, but then I'd have to start talking about all sorts of
> things that probably go over your head as well as mine. It's basically like
> Post Hoc, Ergo, Propter Hoc.
In fact, it is nothing at all like that. It is like this: "If all of The
Bible is literally true, then all of The Bible must be not-false.
Therefore, if some of The Bible is false, then not all of The Bible is
literally true."
> > > My point was that in all "reality" anything is possible, and that
> > > to say you are right and someone else is wrong is quite laughable at
> > > best.
First it must be pointed out that you are saying that you're right and I'm
(along with James) wrong; therefore you are falling victim to your own
doctrine. Further, arguments along the lines of "you can't know 'reality'
anyway" (of which type you're so very fond) have little rhetorical value and
amount to a sort of fillibuster. Ultimately they're not particularly
interesting, since they result in infinite regress and leave you no better
off than when you started, at which point the more desperate debaters will
say "see? I was right--it's all meaningless."
I don't blame you out of turn for this perspective, since it cuddles up to
the mysteriously pervasive and currently in vogue Postmodernist view of
things. Nor do I conclude arbitrarily that it is the view you profess
(whether or not you really believe it, you've allied yourself with Nihilism,
so for purposes of this debate your reasoning is clear).
> What I'm saying is that in some instances there can be anonamolous or unknown
> components which can occur that would effectively allow false logic to
> occur. Let's go ahead and make a premise out of the basic argument.
>
> A is true, but only when A is false.
**snip of a little hocus-pocus**
> Hmmm...I'm not sure if I can explain this better without delving too
> much in quotom theory.
You don't have to bother. You've cited the so-called Liar's Paradox,
which predates arguments about The New Testament's legitimacy by at least
several centuries. In any case, the statement "A is true, but only when A
is false" has no truth value and therefore doesn't enter in any meaningful
way into logical discourse.
> Basically I'm saying that false logic can occur, I can't really explain it
> any better for you, but if you want I can give you some references to some
> books and sites that might help you to understand.
Logic is not true or false. It is a system of rhetorical interrelation by
which the validity of arguments can be addressed, and by which conclusions
may be drawn given known or accepted assumptions. You're demonstrating a
type of misunderstanding along the lines of those who assert "science can't
prove x", when in fact science isn't about "proving" anything; it is a
system of reasoning and a method of understanding. So with logic.
> To understand things, the universe, how it works and why. In order to
> do that you need to make assumptions about things. For instance you
> need to make the base assumption that you actually exist.
Blah blah blah. Actually, you don't even need to assume that much. You're
playing the "I saw the Matrix and all of this is a simulation" game, but
I'll bite. Even if "reality" isn't "real," and even if "existence" doesn't
"exist," we can still formulate logical systems of reason and explanation
about the nature of what we perceive and infer--even if our perceptions are
not "real."
> So which one is correct? Easy, the one that's correct of the multiple
> interpretations.
Ah, the strength of tautology! "The correct one is the one that is correct."
> > > How, therefore, can we assert with any confidence that the literal word (as
> > > we interpret it) is true?
> > > How can you assert with any confidence that the literal word is false?
>
> > > > He isn't.
>
> > > So is [Dave!] like [James'] puppet or can [James] just read [Dave's!] mind?
James read my post as I intended it to be read, and you did not. I will
elaborate:
Ryan asserted confidently that The Bible is literally true, and I asked
how (ie, on what basis) was he able to make such an assertion. I didn't say
that I confidently assert that it is false. Your question (How can you
assert with any confidence that the literal word is false?) had nothing to
do with my post, with Ryan's post, or with James' post. Since I did not
make such an assertion, I don't see why I need to defend it.
> > Neither, but I can read what he wrote. "How, therefore, can we assert..." not
> > "I therefore assert with confidence that the literal word is false."
>
> That's great, but you still made an assumption and overlooked my
> question. I said, "How can you assert with any confidence that the
> literal word is false?"
I think James overlooked it because it was presented as a rebuttal to my
question as though it was in itself an answer. If it makes you feel any
better, my response to your question is "I cannot assert with confidence
that the literal word is false. However, I can and do assert with
confidence that if part of the literal word is false, then it is not
possible for all of the literal word to be true."
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic
|
| (...) Not at all. An entire text that I have written may represent the truth of what I believe, however when things are taken out of context, they do not represent the truth of what I believe. Therefore as a whole it is true, but not when broken (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
126 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
