Subject:
|
Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 7 Apr 2001 03:18:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
735 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Robert Bevens writes:
> 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.
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 on Warboards back in the early 80's. All you're doing is holding--or
pretending to hold--a position until someone challenges you on it, then you
claim that you don't really hold the view you've professed. Childish, at best,
and in any case boring and not particularly insightful.
> My logic? LOL, I have no set belief system, I'm simply taking sides
> here kitten, nothing more.
Are you hitting on me? Thanks, but I'm not interested. For that matter,
until we can resolve our rhetorical differences I don't think you have much
chance of engaging my interest on any real level.
> > 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.
If that's the game you care to play, I'm obliged to point out that you're
making assumptions about my assumptions. So far I've been reacting to the
character you've portrayed here on LUGNET. For all I care, in real life you
could be the guy who sat five rows away at the movies last week; irrelevant.
The character (such as it is) of Robert Bevens is a self-important, childish,
pseudo-intellectual and self-described social engineer. I don't find the
character to be well-developed, or engaging, or particularly interesting other
than as a discursive footnote in the larger debate. To that end, I decry once
again your Postmodernist bent, since it identifies you--the author--as little
more than a trend follower. And here you've fallen irretrievably into a trap,
because even if you deny that you hold the views you espouse, you're still
guilty of them; that's the nature of Postmodernist author/text/character
blurring. Bravo to you for landing squarely in the middle of a hackneyed and
trite rhetorical dead end!
> > 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.
Again, I must point out that you're assuming that we can't explain
ourselves. I understand Bruce's point, and James', yet it seems baffling to
you. If you are of such intellectual monument that we can't follow your
definition of logic, how is it that three such mental midgets can employ
reasoning that defies your professed intellectual prowess? Before you respond,
I must ask you to remain in character of Robert Bevens; I'm not interested in
the author Robert Bevens, since you've made it clear that you don't want us to
have access to him. That's fine; I just want to hear the character's response.
> > 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.
Previously you stated that because it's all meaningless (when you pointed out
that we might be brains in vats viewing computer simulations), we shouldn't
bother debating the subject. Are you contradicting yourself, or are you simply
testing me to see if I read your previous post? It was quite trying, I admit,
since your textual style is dry and juvenile, but through perserverance and in
the spirit of fair play I trughted through it despite its weakness.
> Maybe someone should just get you a mirror, then you can really have some
> fun.
And now you're making me an oblique offer of cocaine. Boy, this fictional
character named Robert Bevens really is a kook!
> > 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?
Obviously I see how easy it is; you've provided a sentence with no truth
value and therefore with nothing to contribute to the debate. Thank you for
agreeing with me and further illustrating my point!
> > 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.
If Robert could actually read and comprehend, Robert would have understood
that I did not assert that he had made any claims about science. I had pointed
out that his reasoning (for lack of a better word) was of the same sort
employed by those who claim to understand the nature of science while
simultaneously demonstrating their ignorance of it. Robert referred to false
logic, for which I must again remind him that logic is a system of examination
and analysis and in itself is not true or 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.
Yet another veiled drug reference! Are you seeking an intervention?
> Wait, wait, wait, did you just say "defend"? LOL, oh the irony, that
> one just went right over yer head, didn't it kitten.
Doese everyone see this? Robert's blatantly hitting on me here in front of
all LUGNET! I'm feeling disempowered!
> > 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".
I believe the phrase I'm looking for is "Robert can't read." I established a
basic if/then relationship: IF part of the literal word is false, THEN it is
not possible for all of the literal word to be true. I did not assert, to
answer your question, that I believe part of the literal word to be false. My
views on that matter are at this point known to you only through your
interpretation of what I've presented here.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic
|
| (...) Again simply accusing me of being equivocal, but this time doing it in a rather prolix over exasperated way, as if that somehow makes it any less transparent and laughable. In case you hadn't noticed I'm still "holding" the position I started (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
