Re: Definition of God

In article <1Y-dnR6_3bSxApbYnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
>
> <snip argument _ad hominem_ by "Gandalf Grey">
>
> Isn't it actually the case that there really is no such thing as a "mind -
> body problem," that is just argument from ignorance from your side?
>
> Here is how Wood phrases your not-too-cleverly-disguised argument _ad
> ignorantiam_:
>
> "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for
> certain." -- Dan Wood

Does Septic know for certain?
Does Septic know someone who knows for certain?

If it is the case no one knows for certain, wherein lies any fallacy in
asking the question.

So Septic is WRONG! AGAIN! AS USUAL!!!
 
In article <ncidnfLct8piPZbYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:virgil-A0C83A.01143615092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <SJCdnSaT3vcCq5fYnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:virgil-1B4F30.13191011092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > > > In article <9t6dneWi-INQ4pjYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote :
> > > > >
> > > > > > Copi quotes ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Copi quotes those theists of Galileo's time with an argument _ad
> > > > > ignorantiam_ of the same form as that of you and your friends
> > > >
> > > > The theists' hypothesis in the Copi quote says "It is a fact that"
> > >
> > > The hypothesis (the 'might be' theist conjecture with no basis in fact)
> is
> > > that all the moon's apparent irregularities are filled in by an
> invisible
> > > crystalline substance
> >
> > False!!!
>
> Don't be silly. It is true. Anybody can read it for himself. The hypothesis
> is
<quote>

Some scholars of that age... argued against Galileo that... THE MOON
IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance.


</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)
 
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:IuudnbeEf4NBgZ_YnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> news:12g21p4p3hsre8d@news.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4500fe60$0$24196$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>> >
>> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> > news:s-OdnfCFWJR7b53YnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> >>
>> >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>> >>> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
>> >>> >
>> >>> > > >> >> > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote
>> >>> >
>> >>> > > >> > > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness
>> >> dwell
>> >>> > > >> > > exclusively in the brain?
>> >>> > > >> > > No one knows for certain.
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > How does that turn into an argument?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument
>> >>>
>> >>> It does
>> >>
>> >> [unsnip]
>> >>
>> >> It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument, moron, that IS the
>> >> argument
>> >
>> > 1. If it's not an argument.
>> > 2. then it's not the argumentum ad ignorantiam.
>> > 3. And it is not an argument.
>> > 4. Therefore it is not the argumentum ad ignorantiam.
>>
>> It appears to be couched as a question.
>
> "No one knows for certain" is not a question, knucklehead,

The entire quote was "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No
one knows for certain."

That is a question, a proposal of possibility, not a statement of fact or
opinion. I find it a perfectly reasonable hypothesis that consciousness may
extend into the spinal cord, even into the nerve endings. It is almost
always reasonable to doubt established ideas.

> it is the
> argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be consciousness outside the
> brain because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be'
> conjecture)
> is false, logical fallacy for which you theists are famous, as Copi
> explains:

I'm not a theist, you conclusion-jumping twit.

> <quote>
> Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
> criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
> mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
> telescope.
> Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a
> perfect
> sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued
> against
> Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
> moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
> are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
> which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
> false!
>
> Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
> same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
> transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
> equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
> crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
> of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
> prove false.
> </quote>
> (Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)
>
> [In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative,
> 'might
> be' imagining with no basis in fact.]

Blah blah.. strawmen

If stating that an unproven hypothesis might be true is argument from
ignorance then the entirety of human knowledge owes it's existence to such
fallacies.

The sensible meaning of this fallacy is a making a statement that claims
something is_true because it has not been disproven, not that it might be
possible.
 
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:450a2e51$0$24202$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:57KdnW1E_L8CtJfYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> >
> >> ... the brain might need some help in
> >> maintaining consciousness
> >
> > Some help from what,
>
> Well, your brain obviously needs some help on the correct definition of
the
> argument from ignorance.

What's wrong with Copi's explanation that arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that
there might be X because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be'
conjecture) is false is argument from ignorance, logical fallacy for which
theists are FAMOUS, as Copi explains:

<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!

Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]
 
"Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:QMadnfyIGZCW6JHYnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:450a2e51$0$24202$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:57KdnW1E_L8CtJfYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com...
>> >
>> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>> >
>> >> ... the brain might need some help in
>> >> maintaining consciousness
>> >
>> > Some help from what,
>>
>> Well, your brain obviously needs some help on the correct definition of
> the
>> argument from ignorance.
>
> What's wrong with Copi's explanation

Not a thing. The problem is you don't understand it.
 
In article <QMadnfyIGZCW6JHYnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:450a2e51$0$24202$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> >
> > "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:57KdnW1E_L8CtJfYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> > >
> > >> ... the brain might need some help in
> > >> maintaining consciousness
> > >
> > > Some help from what,
> >
> > Well, your brain obviously needs some help on the correct definition of
> the
> > argument from ignorance.
>
> What's wrong with Copi's explanation that arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that
> there might be X because there is no proof that hypothesis

For one thing, Copi never"explains any such thing.

Copi does say
"It is a fact that the moon is a perfect sphere
because Galileo can't prove otherwise"
is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Copi is honest enough not to say
"It might be a fact that the moon is a perfect sphere
because Galileo can't prove otherwise"
is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Septic, on the other hand, is dishonest enough to say that
"It might be a fact that the moon is a perfect sphere
because Galileo can't prove otherwise"
is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Not only that, Septic says it repeatedly, in spite of having the his
lies repeatedly brought to his attention by any number of posters.
>
> <quote> ... Some scholars ...argued against Galileo that....THE MOON
> IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE... And this... Galileo could not prove
> false!
> <\quote>
 
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
>
> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>
>> ... one cannot reject any possibility
>> without proof of its impossibility.
>
> That is just like those theists of Galileo's time arguing _ad ignorantiam_
> that there might be an invisible crystalline substance filling all the
> valleys of the moon because that hypothesis [that 'might be' theist
> conjecture] Galileo could not prove false! That is logical fallacy for
> which
> you theists are FAMOUS, as Copi explains:

There is no proof necessary in order to say that something might be true
unless there is existing proof to the contrary. That's not a fallacy. That
does NOT mean that we take such hypotheses seriously, that WOULD be
fallacious.

<snip>
 
"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote


> Can a physical brain maintain consciousness when in physical isolation
> from it physical body?

Why don't you stop trying to change the subject? That's not the proposition
being discussed here. The proposition being discussed here is the theist
proposition that there might be consciousness without a brain (an immortal
soul, or something), as Woodie phrases the theist argument _ad ignorantiam_,
"Nobody can prove the negative, that there is no consciousness outside the
brain."
 
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote >
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> >
> >> ... one cannot reject any possibility
> >> without proof of its impossibility.
> >
> > That is just like those theists of Galileo's time arguing _ad
ignorantiam_
> > that there might be an invisible crystalline substance filling all the
> > valleys of the moon because that hypothesis [that 'might be' theist
> > conjecture] Galileo could not prove false! That is logical fallacy for
> > which
> > you theists are FAMOUS, as Copi explains:
>
> ... to say that something might be
> unless there is existing proof to the contrary. That's not a fallacy.

I don't buy that. According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_
you and Virgil and friends are mistaken, arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that there
might be something because there is no proof the hypothesis (the 'might be'
conjecture) is false is logical fallacy for which theists are FAMOUS, as
Copi explains:

<quote>
FAMOUS in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!

Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]
 
"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
> > > "Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
> > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> > > >
> > > >> ... the brain might need some help in
> > > >> maintaining consciousness
> > > >
> > > > Some help from what,
> > >
> > > Well, your brain obviously needs some help on the correct definition
of
> > the
> > > argument from ignorance.
> >
> > What's wrong with Copi's explanation that arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that
> > there might be X because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might
be'
conjecture) is false is argument from ignorance, logical fallacy for which
theists are FAMOUS, as Copi explains:

>
> For one thing, Copi never explains any such thing.

You are mistaken. You just can't seem to make yourself face the fact that
hypothesis means 'might be' conjecture in this case.

[unsnip]

What's wrong with Copi's explanation that arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that
there might be X because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be'
conjecture) is false is argument from ignorance, logical fallacy for which
theists are FAMOUS, as Copi explains:

<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!

Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]
 
"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > ... the brain might need some help in
> > > > > maintaining consciousness
> > > >
> > > > Some help from what, the theists' hypothetical metaphysical
'immortal
> > soul'
> > > > thingy?
> > >
> > > How long will any brain be able to maintain consciousness without such
> > > things as the blood supply to keep the brain oxygenated and energized,
> > > etc.?
> >
> > Wouldn't be a brain without that, would it, moron?
>
> Sure it would. Unless Tutor is implying that there is something more
> to a brain than its physical presence.

What are you saying, that blood and oxygen are not physical?
 
"Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:T_adnXanluQEQ5HYnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote >
>> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
>> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>> >
>> >> ... one cannot reject any possibility
>> >> without proof of its impossibility.
>> >
>> > That is just like those theists of Galileo's time arguing _ad
> ignorantiam_
>> > that there might be an invisible crystalline substance filling all the
>> > valleys of the moon because that hypothesis [that 'might be' theist
>> > conjecture] Galileo could not prove false! That is logical fallacy for
>> > which
>> > you theists are FAMOUS, as Copi explains:
>>
>> ... to say that something might be
>> unless there is existing proof to the contrary. That's not a fallacy.
>
> I don't buy that.

Then you're wrong. Textbook logic from at least a dozen sources is outlined
and discussed at length in the text "Arguments from Ignorance" and your
"might be" variation isn't accepted by ANY of them INCLUDING Copi.
 
"Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:RIidnb2E64MKfZHYnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
>> > > "Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
>> > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>> > > >
>> > > >> ... the brain might need some help in
>> > > >> maintaining consciousness
>> > > >
>> > > > Some help from what,
>> > >
>> > > Well, your brain obviously needs some help on the correct definition
> of
>> > the
>> > > argument from ignorance.
>> >
>> > What's wrong with Copi's explanation that arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that
>> > there might be X because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might
> be'
> conjecture) is false is argument from ignorance, logical fallacy for which
> theists are FAMOUS, as Copi explains:
>
>>
>> For one thing, Copi never explains any such thing.
>
> You are mistaken.

No he's not. And you're obviously aware of the truth because you've never
dared to post the form of the Argument from Ignorance in your own words.
You won't do that because you know I can find at least a dozen cites that
will prove you're wrong.
 
"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

> No one on "our side" has said anything about where
> consciousness dwells

You are a liar. "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one
knows for certain." -- Dan Wood

Wood is arguing from ignorance that there might be consciousness without a
brain because there is no proof that hypothesis ('might be' conjecture) is
false, logical fallacy for which you theists are FAMOUS, as Copi explains:

<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!

Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]
 
"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

> > The hypothesis is THE MOON
> IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE

Evidently you still do not understand the term, 'hypothesis' ('might be'
conjecture).

In this case the hypothesis (the 'might be' theist conjecture with no basis
in fact) is that all the moon's apparent irregularities are filled in by an
invisible crystalline substance, and the argument _ad ignorantiam_ is, "And
this hypothesis (this 'might be' conjecture) Galileo could not prove false!"

<quote>
Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly [hypothetically] filling the valleys, he put
forward the equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the
invisible crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks --
but made of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics
could not prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.] When will you get this essential
understanding through your thick skull, son?
 
"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

> > The hypothesis is THE MOON
> IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE

Evidently you still do not understand the term, 'hypothesis' ('might be'
conjecture). http://tinylink.com/?fTUv6vcIWg

In this case the hypothesis (the 'might be' theist conjecture with no basis
in fact) is that all the moon's apparent irregularities are filled in by an
invisible crystalline substance, and the argument _ad ignorantiam_ is, "And
this hypothesis (this 'might be' conjecture) Galileo could not prove false!"

<quote>
Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly [hypothetically] filling the valleys, he put
forward the equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the
invisible crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks --
but made of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics
could not prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.] When will you get this essential
understanding through your thick skull, son?
 
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
> > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote >
> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
> >> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> >> >
> >> >> ... one cannot reject any possibility
> >> >> without proof of its impossibility.
> >> >
> >> > That is just like those theists of Galileo's time arguing _ad
> > ignorantiam_
> >> > that there might be an invisible crystalline substance filling all
the
> >> > valleys of the moon because that hypothesis [that 'might be' theist
> >> > conjecture] Galileo could not prove false! That is logical fallacy
for
> >> > which
> >> > you theists are FAMOUS, as Copi explains:
> >>
> >> ... to say that something might be
> >> unless there is existing proof to the contrary. That's not a fallacy.
> >
> > I don't buy that.
>
> Then you're wrong. Textbook logic from at least a dozen sources is
outlined
> and discussed at length in the text "Arguments from Ignorance" and your
> "might be" variation isn't accepted by ANY of them INCLUDING Copi.

Don't be stupid. 'Hypothesis' means 'might be' conjecture, old boy, and you
know it, you just don't like anybody pointing it out.

According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_
you and Virgil and friends are mistaken, arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that there
might be something because there is no proof the hypothesis (the 'might be'
conjecture) is false is logical fallacy for which theists are FAMOUS, as
Copi explains:

<quote>
FAMOUS in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!

Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]
 
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
> >> > > "Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
> >> > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> ... the brain might need some help in
> >> > > >> maintaining consciousness
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Some help from what,
> >> > >
> >> > > Well, your brain obviously needs some help on the correct
definition
> > of
> >> > the
> >> > > argument from ignorance.
> >> >
> >> > What's wrong with Copi's explanation that arguing _ad ignorantiam_
that
> >> > there might be X because there is no proof that hypothesis (that
'might
> > be'
> > conjecture) is false is argument from ignorance, logical fallacy for
which
> > theists are FAMOUS, as Copi explains:
> >
> >>
> >> For one thing, Copi never explains any such thing.
> >
> > You are mistaken.
>
> No he's not.

You are mistaken. You just can't seem to make yourself face the fact that
hypothesis means 'might be' conjecture in this case.
http://tinylink.com/?fTUv6vcIWg

[unsnip]

What's wrong with Copi's explanation that arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that
there might be X because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be'
conjecture) is false is argument from ignorance, logical fallacy for which
theists are FAMOUS, as Copi explains:

<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!

Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]
 
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:450b9c0e$0$24206$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:R-WdnfTgRb57BpbYnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
> >
> > <snip argument _ad hominem_ by "Gandalf Grey">
> >
> > Isn't it actually the case that there really is no such thing as a
"mind -
> > body problem,"
>
> Well, scores of academics and scientists disagree

So you argue (fallaciously). Isn't it actually the case that there really is
no such thing as a mind - body problem any more than there is a digestion -
gut problem, that is just argument from ignorance from your side?

Here is now Wood phrases the not-too-cleverly-disguised argument _ad
ignorantiam_:

"Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for
certain." -- Dan Wood
 
"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

Wood wrote:
> > "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for
> > certain." -- Dan Wood

> ... wherein lies any fallacy in
> asking the question?

Wood's argument is that consciousness might be able to survive death because
there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false,
logical fallacy for which theists are FAMOUS as Copi explains:

<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!

Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]
 

Similar threads

A
Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts, theories etc.
Replies
0
Views
343
avyea
A
A
The Higher-Self Alignment 2024 Calendar
Replies
0
Views
63
Andrewimmix
A
A
The Higher-Self Alignment 2024 Calendar
Replies
0
Views
25
Andrewimmix
A
B
Backlink Hut Backlink Review
Replies
0
Views
126
Backlink Hut
B
Cloaked
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Terms of Service and Disclaimer
Replies
0
Views
2K
Cloaked
Cloaked
Back
Top