Re: Definition of God

"Grand Oaf" wrote
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
> > "Grand Oaf" 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,
> >>
> >> 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.

I understand that the term, 'hypothesis' in this case means 'might be'
conjecture. Why do you have trouble grasping that simple fact? Study up, old
boy:
http://tinylink.com/?fTUv6vcIWg

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.]
 
Your Logic Tutor wrote:
> "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
>
>
>

Would you like references to some scientists and academics who think
there is such a thing as a mind-body problem?

Goober.
 
"Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:xOmdnW1wNdfUeZHYnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "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

Mr. Wood never said anything about WHERE consciousness dwells. He asked a
question and made a comment on the state of knowledge concerning
consciousness.

You're very confused, Septic.
 
"Desperately Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:f6OdndssU8_MdpHYnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
>> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
>> > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote >
>> >> "Needs 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'........

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTT!!!!!

Hypothesis has NOTHING to do with the Argument from Ignorance, my pathetic
little buddy. The Argument from Ignorance is about absolute conclusions and
the burden of proof.

But then, you don't really understand the Argument from Ignorance, do you?
 
"Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jOCdnUvpF6b6cZHYnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
>> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
>> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>> >> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
>> >> > > "Needs 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 are completely ignorant on the subject of argumentum ad ignorantiam
We know this because you can't discuss the subject on your own, being
reduced to pasting one author's out of context comment on the subject.
 
"Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:QvWdnY6-Ct-pc5HYnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "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 Septic's inability to argue the point">
>> >
>> > 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).

An obvious lie on your part since the statement "scores of academics and
scientists disagree" is NOT an argument.

> Isn't it actually the case........

BZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!!!!!!!!!!

You wouldn't know what the case is because you're only capable of pasting
out-of context quotes from Copi.
 
"Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
> >> "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,"
> >> 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
>
> Would you like references to some scientists and academics who think
> there is such a thing as a mind-body problem?

So what if lots and lots of people believe there might be a mind - body
problem, do you believe that proves there is, or is that just a fallacious
appeal to popularity? Lots of people think there might be a god, too; do you
believe that proves that there is?

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 how 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


> But there has to be a declaration of certainty in order to have an
> argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Not according to Copi's explanation. The term, 'hypothesis' means 'might be'
conjecture [the invisible crystalline substance is an hypothesis ('might be'
conjecture), not something known to be real], and the theist argument _ad
ignorantiam_ is, "And this HYPOTHESIS [this 'might be' conjecture] Galileo
could not prove false!"

<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:2LmdnTuE9cxNDZDYnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
>> Needs Logic Tutor wrote:
>> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
>> >> "Needs 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,"
>> >> 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
>>
>> Would you like references to some scientists and academics who think
>> there is such a thing as a mind-body problem?
>
> So what if lots and lots of people believe there might be a mind - body
> problem,

Not just 'people.' Scientists who are directly involved in the search for
the neurological corellate of consciousness. In our society, yes, that does
mean that there's a question that might be worth looking into.

In the meantime, unless you can prove precisely what consciousness is and
precisely where it is located, you're indulging in the argument from
ignorance.
 
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> argues:

> Hypothesis has NOTHING to do with the Argument from Ignorance

How do you figure that? '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> trys to argue contrary to the
facts:

> Mr. Wood never said anything about where consciousness dwells.

The facts in evidence in this case indicate that you are mistaken.

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

Wood (and by association everyone on your side) is arguing from ignorance
that there might be consciousness without a brain (that it might dwell in
some realm other than the physical) 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.]
 
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> argues _ad hominem_:

> You are completely ignorant on the subject of argumentum ad ignorantiam
> We know this because you can't discuss the subject on your own, being
> reduced to pasting one author's out of context comment on the subject.

This is in no way out of context, as you try to argue, it is Copi's clear,
cogent textbook explanation of the logical fallacy of argument _ad
ignorantiam_ that there might be something because there is no proof the
hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture) is false, logical fallacy for which
theists are FAMOUS, as Copi explains. Why is this simple explanation so
difficult for you and Virgil and friends to grasp?

<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:Sr2dnahoo7HzDpDYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>
>
>> But there has to be a declaration of certainty in order to have an
>> argumentum ad ignorantiam.
>
> Not according to Copi's explanation.

I doubt that's true and I KNOW that you're ignoring every other Logic
textbook put out in the last fifty years.
 
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 12:22:02 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in
<450d9ec1$0$24196$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>:
>
>"Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:Sr2dnahoo7HzDpDYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>>
>>
>>> But there has to be a declaration of certainty in order to have an
>>> argumentum ad ignorantiam.
>>
>> Not according to Copi's explanation.
>
>I doubt that's true and I KNOW that you're ignoring every other Logic
>textbook put out in the last fifty years.

Septic's post from Copi proves little more than Septic's inability to
read and understand anything about logic.
 
"Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:huidnYYVpaRnCpDYnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> argues:
>
>> Hypothesis has NOTHING to do with the Argument from Ignorance
>
> How do you figure that?

Unlike you, I go by the statement of the rule rather than lying about it.
The Argument from Ignorance is about conclusions not about hypotheses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or
argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed
that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a
premise is false only because it has not been proven true.
 
"Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Hc6dnRfupq_cAJDYnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> trys to argue contrary to
> the
> facts:
>
>> Mr. Wood never said anything about where consciousness dwells.
>
> The facts in evidence in this case indicate that you are mistaken.
>
> "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one
> knows for certain." -- Dan Wood

Thanks for demonstrating that you're wrong.

Wood asked a question and made a statement about the current state of
knowledge. Wood said nothing about specifically where consciousness dwells.
Asking a question is NOT making a statement.

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or
argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed
that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a
premise is false only because it has not been proven true.
 
"Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:FbudnTP3O4JFAJDYnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> argues _ad hominem_:
>
>> You are completely ignorant on the subject of argumentum ad ignorantiam
>> We know this because you can't discuss the subject on your own, being
>> reduced to pasting one author's out of context comment on the subject.
>
> This is in no way out of context

Of course it is. It is most obviously NOT a definition. It's an anecdote.

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or
argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed
that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a
premise is false only because it has not been proven true.
 
Your Logic Tutor wrote:
> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
>> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
>>>> "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,"

>>>> Well, scores of academics and scientists disagree

[separated for emphasis]

>>> So you argue (fallaciously).

[separated for emphasis]

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
>> Would you like references to some scientists and academics who think
>> there is such a thing as a mind-body problem?
>
> So what if lots and lots of people believe there might be a mind - body
> problem,

Such reference show you to be categorically mistaken when you say (see
above) that "Well, scores of academics and scientists disagree" is
"fallacious".

That's "so what".

Goober.

do you believe that proves there is, or is that just a fallacious
> appeal to popularity? Lots of people think there might be a god, too; do you
> believe that proves that there is?
>
> 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 how Wood phrases the not-too-cleverly-disguised argument _ad
> ignorantiam_:
>
> "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for
> certain." -- Dan Wood
>
>
>
>
>
 
"Your 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. 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

The "there might be" conjecture is the basis for scientific advancement.
You're blowing smoke.
 
In article <3Z6dnbyJFJ_IdZHYnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "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'

Evidently Septic does not understand Copi.

Copi states directly and unambiguously that The hypothesis is that
THE MOON IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE
 

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