Subject:
|
Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 7 Apr 2001 02:18:42 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
q_harlequin_p@hotmail.com%SayNoToSpam%
|
Viewed:
|
719 times
|
| |
|
|
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:05:17 GMT, "Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com>
wrote:
> > > > Not entirely true, it could all be literally true whilst parts could
> > > > still be incorrect.
> You're equivocating.
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 into parts. Now how much more
straight forward can you get than that? I mean perhaps the real
problem is that you spend all your time trying to find equivocation
that you don't bother to see what's actually there.
> 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.
My logic? LOL, I have no set belief system, I'm simply taking sides
here kitten, nothing more.
> > 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.
You failed to see the relevancy. I didn't say it was directly related
to his questions regarding logic, I gave it because as with anything
in logic there can be paradox's which can screw it up, Post Hoc, Ergo,
Propter Hoc, being one of the best and easiest to understand of those
examples.
> > > > 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;
And tell me again how you know that I think I'm right? Did I ever say
"I'm right"? I don't think so. That is your INTERPRETATION, son, not
what actually occurred.
> therefore you are falling victim to your own
> doctrine.
Again assuming that the opinions I express are not only mine, but ones
that I truly believe in. Just as I've said on numerous occasions, I
could be arguing the other side just as well tomorrow, and I probably
will....in fact now that I think about it I was. I'm now actually
arguing the complete opposite side of what I was arguing about 4 days
ago.
> 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.
Really, how so? See that's what I keep asking, and yet you and others
just can't seem to be able to explain yourselves. Your entire method
of arguing is to simply say, "You're wrong, nothing you say is of
relevance", but then to fail to explain why. I mean have you nothing
to support your theories, other than you just don't like my style of
debating?
> 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."
Well of course it's all meaningless, but that doesn't mean we can't
debate the subject. In most instances all an argument or debate
proves is that two people are present. Aside from that it's really
about the experience of debating. The point I was trying to make
earlier was that while YOU and HIM might actually care if someone is
right or wrong, or might be looking to place that label on something,
I am not.
> 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).
Oh I love it when people backpedal onto their own stupidity, it's just
so entertaining. It's like you say one thing, and then two paragraphs
later completely disagree with yourself and then state why. Maybe
someone should just get you a mirror, then you can really have some
fun.
> > 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.
This six word sentence is false.
Oops, there goes the Liar's Paradox, see how easy that is?
> > 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.
That's a wonderful cut and pathetic, want to try again in your own
words?
> 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.
Robert goes through his posts and tries to find where he said anything
about science or trying to prove things, but alas, can find nothing.
> > 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."
I agree, what's yer point?
> > 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."
Well given his premises it IS the correct explanation. If he didn't
want the logistic breakdown he should have worded himself differently.
> > > > 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.
Funny, I never said you didn't confidently assert that it is false,
seems you're the one with the reading comprehension problems there,
bud.
> 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.
That's a real keen observation, now point out where I said it did have
something to do with it.
> Since I did not
> make such an assertion, I don't see why I need to defend it.
Wait, wait, wait, did you just say "defend"? LOL, oh the irony, that
one just went right over yer head, didn't it kitten. Want me to
explain? Why sure, I will. See I never said "You assert this", or
"This is your opinion". No, not at all, I merely restated the
question you already asked. What's funny, is how you're so agog over
it and desperately trying to say that you didn't say it. Basically I
think thou dost protest too much. It's like me saying, "Do you think
they'll ever make purple ice cream" and then you going off on a rant
about how you've never made purple ice cream, never will make purple
ice cream, you don't even like purple ice cream, etc, etc, etc.
> > > 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."
Let me prove you wrong. Here's a quote from your passage:
"part of the literal word is false"
Now if that paragraph you just wrote does indeed represent your true
beliefs than by your own logic any part of the passage also reflects
your true beliefs, does it not? Therefore you believe that part of
the literal word is false, regardless of anything else. I believe the
phrase you're looking to find here is "out of context".
Robert
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic
|
| (...) Trying to find equivocation in your arguments is like trying to find grass in a meadow. I don't have all that much experience on Usenet, as you so proudly proclaim yourself to have, but your style of argument (about which, see below) was old (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic
|
| (...) 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. (...) In fact, it is nothing at all like that. It is like this: "If all of The (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
