Re: Definition of God

['foolsrushin.']

In general (gwin) takes the form, p is unproved ergo not-p is true or
not-p is unproved ergot (sic) p is true. Very helpful to theologians
Try, 'The Sun will rise tomorrow'.
--
'foolsrushin.'

Virgil wrote:
> In article <ZOWdnW5Cy9M5d4jYnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to
> > the facts in evidence:
> > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:X9GdnZER8efzQ4zYnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > >> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.
> > > >
> > > > According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are
> > mistaken.
> > >
> > > Not ...
> >
> > You definitely are, old son
>
> Not about hypotheses in vacuo but about hypotheses(claims) of a certain
> type being supported by arguments of a certain type.
>
> For an argumentum ad ignorantiam to exist that claim is necessarily of
> form "it is a fact that" and that argument is necessarily of the form
> "because there is no contrary evidence".
>
>
> > <quote>
> ...the moon is in fact a perfect sphere...
> > </quote>
> > (Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

 

[MagicRub]

"Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ef6t0p$ca2$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
> Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
>>
>> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:eeqqed$7to$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca
>>
>>> ... When your interlocutor claimed that scores of academics and
>>> scientists think that there is a mind - body problem, you said that that
>>> was "fallacious".
>>
>> It IS logical fallacy.
>>
>> Argument from Popularity:
>>
>> P is believed by millions of people worldwide
>>
>> It is a fallacy because millions or billions of people can all believe in
>> something that is wrong. Large numbers believing P does not make P true.
>
> The claim :

You mean 'argument'.

> "scores of academics and scientists think that there is a mind - body
> problem" is NOT a fallacy, it is a fact.

The fact is that argument is logical fallacy, as you have been informed.

Argument from Popularity:

P is believed by millions of people worldwide

It is a fallacy because millions or billions of people can all believe
in something that is wrong. Large numbers believing P does not make P true.

 

[MagicRub]

"Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
> Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
>>
>> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
>>> By not challenging my claim
>>
>> You are challenged, and everybody knows it. 8^)
>>
>> Argument from popularity is logical fallacy.
>> Know what logical fallacy is?
>>
>> Argument from Popularity:
>>
>> P is believed by millions of people worldwide
>>
>> It is a fallacy because millions or billions of people can all believe in
>> something that is wrong. Large numbers believing P does not make P true.
>>
>
> You implicitly conceded

Nothing was conceded except that your argument that P is believed by scores
of people worldwide is logical fallacy. Read it again:

Argument from Popularity:

P is believed by millions of people worldwide.

It is a fallacy because millions or billions of people can all believe
in something that is wrong. Large numbers believing P does not make P true.

 

[MagicRub]

"Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ef718d$dkq$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps on trying to argue
>> contrary
>> to
>> the facts in evidence:
>>
>>> Copi does not include the notion of might be ...
>>
>> Are you blind? You are overlooking the term, 'hypothesis' ['might be'
>> conjecture] in the following example of the fallacy of arguing _ad
>> ignorantiam_ that there is no proof the hypothesis 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.]
>
> What 'hypothesis' means in this case is that P (i.e. the hypothesis) is
> the case.

Now you are just trying to get away with equivocation on the term,
'hypothesis' which clearly means 'might be' conjecture.

See http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus

Look for synonyms of 'conjecture'. You will find that 'hypothesis' is
included in the list.

It is not known to actually be the case that God filled all the valleys of
the moon with an invisible crystaline substance, making of it a perfect
sphere, that is just theist conjecture, the hypothesis, 'might be'
speculation with no basis in fact.

And the argument _ad ignorantiam_ is, 'And this hypothesis [this 'might be'
conjecture] Galileo could not prove false!'

Get tit now?

 

[Virgil]

In article <CdSdnb4-jthXiYrYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> >
> > > > Then why did ...
> > >
> > > Then why did you snip
> >
> > You are hardly in a position [unsnip]to complain about others
> > snipping when you have so obviously snipped so much.

>
> I am in perfect position to restore that which you are trying to ignore

As I am trying to ignore only Septic's lies, that would makes Septic
more of a liar. But I have saved him from that evil by resnipping those
lies.

 

[Virgil]

In article <CdSdnbk-jthRiYrYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:virgil-59705F.17045724092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

> > > Well let's just look at it and see, shall we? Oh yes, there it is right
> > > there where it says, "And this hypothesis Galileo could not prove
> false!"
> >
> > Who says it, the astronomers?
>
> Of course.

Except that Copi never says so, and Septic wasn't there.
In fact, historical accounts credit the Astronomers only with arguing
from authority, that of Aristoteles as supported by the church, which
is an entirely different problem.
>
> <quote>... the moon is in fact a perfect sphere... </quote>
> (Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

 

[Virgil]

In article <koKdnQVVhdZ1tIrYnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"MagicRub" <mr@nospam.net> wrote:

> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:ef6t0p$ca2$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
> > Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
> >>
> >> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >> news:eeqqed$7to$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca
> >>
> >>> ... When your interlocutor claimed that scores of academics and
> >>> scientists think that there is a mind - body problem, you said that that
> >>> was "fallacious".
> >>
> >> It IS logical fallacy.
> >>
> >> Argument from Popularity:
> >>
> >> P is believed by millions of people worldwide
> >>
> >> It is a fallacy because millions or billions of people can all believe in
> >> something that is wrong. Large numbers believing P does not make P true.
> >
> > The claim :
>
> You mean 'argument'.


He means what he says. Besides which, the statement that many people
believe that there is a mind body problem is entirely separate from
whether their belief is true.

Arguing otherwise, as Septic does, would require denying that theists
exist because there is no proof that gods exist.
And that is such a compounding of fallacies that no single name will
cover them all.
>
> > "scores of academics and scientists think that there is a mind - body
> > problem" is NOT a fallacy, it is a fact.
>
> The fact is that argument is logical fallacy, as you have been informed.

Does Septic claim that there are fewer than scores of academics and
scientists who think that there is a mind - body problem?

A Google search for "the mind body problem" came up with over a quarter
million hits, so somebody thinks there is one, even if Septic is to dim
to grasp it.

> Argument from Popularity:
>
> P is believed by millions of people worldwide

Which, if true, is evidence that millions of people worldwide believe P.
>
> It is a fallacy because millions or billions of people can all believe
> in something that is wrong. Large numbers believing P does not make P true.

But it does make large numbers believing it true. Which is the issue.

 

[Virgil]

In article <XOmdnUU6B7Ikt4rYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"MagicRub" <mr@nospam.net> wrote:


> > You implicitly conceded
>
> Nothing was conceded except that your argument that P is believed by scores
> of people worldwide is logical fallacy. Read it again:
>
> Argument from Popularity:
>
> P is believed by millions of people worldwide.
>
> It is a fallacy because millions or billions of people can all believe
> in something that is wrong. Large numbers believing P does not make P true.

Septic has this peculiar notion that when HE presents a fallacy, it must
have been someone else's argument, when actually Septic is its only
author.

What Septic seems unable to grasp is that when lots of people believe in
something and publicly say so, that is quite valid as evidence that lots
of people believe that thing and publicy say so.

Google "the mind body problem", Septic, and find out how wrong you are/

 

[Virgil]

In article <2qSdnRdSXtAisIrYnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic" <mr@nospam.net> wrote:

> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:ef718d$dkq$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
> > Septic wrote:
> >> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps on trying to argue
> >> the facts in evidence:
> >>
> >>> Copi does not include the notion of might be ...
> >>
> >> Are you blind?

A good deal less so than Septic, at all events.

But in addition to Septic's notorious inability to see those things
which are there, Septic has a considerable edge over everyone else in
being able to see those things which are not there.

 

[MagicRub]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

> The argument that many people
> believe that there is a mind body problem is ...

.... is logical fallacy, as you have been informed.

Argument from Popularity:

P is believed by millions of people worldwide

It is a fallacy because millions or billions of people can all believe
in something that is wrong. Large numbers believing P does not make P true.

The question is not are there people who believe there is a mind - body
problem, the question is isn't it the case that there is no mind - body
problem any more than there is a digestion - stomach problem, that is just
argument from ignorance from your side?

 

[MagicRub]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-65AEB1.23261224092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <CdSdnbk-jthRiYrYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:virgil-59705F.17045724092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>
>> > > Well let's just look at it and see, shall we? Oh yes, there it is
>> > > right
>> > > there where it says, "And this hypothesis Galileo could not prove
>> false!"
>> >
>> > Who says it, the astronomers?
>>
>> Of course.
>
> Except that Copi never says so

Yes he does, moron, right here:

<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.]

 

[MagicRub]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

> ... arguing from authority ...

No, moron, this is about the theist argument _ad ignorantiam_ that God might
have filled all the valleys of the moon with an invisible crystalline
substance, making of it a perfect sphere as theology had long taught, and
this hypothesis (this 'might be' theist conjecture) Galileo could not prove
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]

In article <g9ednXHhHcNThYXYnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"MagicRub" <mr@nospam.net> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > The argument that many people
> > believe that there is a mind body problem is ...
>
> ... is logical fallacy, as you have been informed.

Being "informed" by Septic leads any sensible person to assume the
opposite.


Now there is a logical fallacy related to that statement, but it is of
Septic's creation, and no one else is claiming it valid.


>
> Argument from Popularity:

If one argues that X is the case because X is the case, wherein lies any
fallacy?

"If X then X" is always true.
>
> P is believed by millions of people worldwide
>
> It is a fallacy

The question is whether it is a true statement. Note that Septic avoids
that question, as any answer to that question he could make would reveal
the falseness of his arguments.
>
> The question is not are there people who believe there is a mind - body
> problem

That is the very question that Septic keeps avoiding.

Because he is afraid of the answer.

 

[Virgil]

In article <yuedncXqQ7iPtoXYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"MagicRub" <mr@nospam.net> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:virgil-65AEB1.23261224092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <CdSdnbk-jthRiYrYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> news:virgil-59705F.17045724092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> >
> >> > > Well let's just look at it and see, shall we? Oh yes, there it is
> >> > > right
> >> > > there where it says, "And this hypothesis Galileo could not prove
> >> false!"
> >> >
> >> > Who says it, the astronomers?
> >>
> >> Of course.
> >
> > Except that Copi never says so
>
> moron

it is imbecilic to argue as hominem as Septic alewys does.

 

[Virgil]

In article <99CdnQEuetsVtoXYnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"MagicRub" <mr@nospam.net> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > ... arguing from authority ...
>
> as Copi explains:

So Septic is arguing from authority (Copi) again.

 

[Goober]

MagicRub wrote:
> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:ef718d$dkq$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
>> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>>> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps on trying to argue
>>> contrary
>>> to
>>> the facts in evidence:
>>>
>>>> Copi does not include the notion of might be ...
>>> Are you blind? You are overlooking the term, 'hypothesis' ['might be'
>>> conjecture] in the following example of the fallacy of arguing _ad
>>> ignorantiam_ that there is no proof the hypothesis 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.]
>> What 'hypothesis' means in this case is that P (i.e. the hypothesis) is
>> the case.
>
> Now you are just trying to get away with equivocation on the term,
> 'hypothesis' which clearly means 'might be' conjecture.

In this case it clearly means "is" not "might be", for all the reasons I
cited and which you snipped without acknowledgement.

[unsnip conclusive reasons why, in this case, "hypothesis" clearly means
"is", not "might be"]

That the famous astronomers meant by 'hypothesis' "IS" and not "might
be" is completely obvious from the fact that they are quoted by Copi as
putting forward the hypothesis that:

"the moon IS IN FACT a perfect sphere" [emphasis added]

Notice, also, that Galileo's caricature of their argument is also
expressed as a hypothesis about what IS the case, not as a hypothesis
about what MIGHT BE the case:

"[Galileo] put forward the equally probable hypothesis that THERE WERE,
rearing up from the invisible crystalline envelope on the moon, even
greater mountain peaks".

Hence, the word 'hypothesis' is manifestly NOT to be interpreted as the
claim that P (the hypothesis) might be the case. If the famous
astronomers had meant only to claim that the Moon might be a perfect
crystalline sphere, Copi would have quoted them as putting forward the
hypothesis that:

"the moon MIGHT BE a perfect sphere"

But Copi didn't, because to do so would be to misrepresent them as
hypothesising only that the Moon might be a perfect crystalline sphere.

And the simple reason why their hypothesis was about what IS, not merely
about what might be, is that what might be - mere possibilities - cannot
explain anything actual.

The famous astronomers were interested in explaining away the actual
evidence whilst retaining their claim that the Moon IS (not "might be")
a perfect sphere. But the possibility of the Moon's valleys being
filled with a transparent crystalline substance could not explain why
the Moon actually appears to have mountains and valleys and at the
same time actually be a perfect sphere. Hence, they were forced to
argue that the valleys on the Moon IS filled with a transparent
crystalline substance. Only if the valleys of the Moon were actually
filled with such a substance could they hope to explain Galileo's
observations whilst maintaining that the Moon IS a perfect sphere.

In this case, 'hypothesis' does not mean "might be" - it means "is".

Goober.

>
> See http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus
>
> Look for synonyms of 'conjecture'. You will find that 'hypothesis' is
> included in the list.
>
> It is not known to actually be the case that God filled all the valleys of
> the moon with an invisible crystaline substance, making of it a perfect
> sphere, that is just theist conjecture, the hypothesis, 'might be'
> speculation with no basis in fact.
>
> And the argument _ad ignorantiam_ is, 'And this hypothesis [this 'might be'
> conjecture] Galileo could not prove false!'
>
> Get tit now?
>
>
>
>

 

[Goober]

MagicRub wrote:
> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
>> Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
>>> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
>>>> By not challenging my claim
>>> You are challenged, and everybody knows it. 8^)
>>>
>>> Argument from popularity is logical fallacy.
>>> Know what logical fallacy is?
>>>
>>> Argument from Popularity:
>>>
>>> P is believed by millions of people worldwide
>>>
>>> It is a fallacy because millions or billions of people can all believe in
>>> something that is wrong. Large numbers believing P does not make P true.
>>>
>> You implicitly conceded
>
> Nothing was conceded

It sure sure was.

Goober.


except that your argument that P is believed by scores
> of people worldwide is logical fallacy. Read it again:
>
> Argument from Popularity:
>
> P is believed by millions of people worldwide.
>
> It is a fallacy because millions or billions of people can all believe
> in something that is wrong. Large numbers believing P does not make P true.
>
>
>
>

 

[Goober]

MagicRub wrote:
> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:ef6t0p$ca2$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
>> Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
>>> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:eeqqed$7to$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca
>>>
>>>> ... When your interlocutor claimed that scores of academics and
>>>> scientists think that there is a mind - body problem, you said that that
>>>> was "fallacious".
>>> It IS logical fallacy.
>>>
>>> Argument from Popularity:
>>>
>>> P is believed by millions of people worldwide
>>>
>>> It is a fallacy because millions or billions of people can all believe in
>>> something that is wrong. Large numbers believing P does not make P true.
>> The claim :
>
> You mean 'argument'.

Wrong.

>
>> "scores of academics and scientists think that there is a mind - body
>> problem" is NOT a fallacy, it is a fact.
>
> The fact is that argument is logical fallacy,

Wrong. The quote is neither an argument nor, therefore, a fallacy.

as you have been informed.

>
> Argument from Popularity:
>
> P is believed by millions of people worldwide

Wrong again. That's not even an argument, let alone one from popularity.

>
> It is a fallacy because millions or billions of people can all believe
> in something that is wrong.

Your above sentence is wrong, yet again.

Large numbers believing P does not make P true.

At last, you repeat something that is (generally) true. But one out of
five is hardly very impressive.

Goober.


>
>

 

[Goober]

MagicRub wrote:
> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>
>> The argument that many people
>> believe that there is a mind body problem is ...
>
> ... is logical fallacy, as you have been informed.

You have deliberately and misleadingly deleted your interlocuter's word
"statement" and replaced it with the word "argument" in the above. Your
interlocuter never said any such thing, as you well know. Your
transparently mendacious attempt to misrepresent your opponent is
dishonesty exemplified and you are dishonesty personified.

Goober.


>
> Argument from Popularity:
>
> P is believed by millions of people worldwide
>
> It is a fallacy because millions or billions of people can all believe
> in something that is wrong. Large numbers believing P does not make P true.
>
> The question is not are there people who believe there is a mind - body
> problem, the question is isn't it the case that there is no mind - body
> problem any more than there is a digestion - stomach problem, that is just
> argument from ignorance from your side?
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:efcjcc$b9u$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
> MagicRub wrote:
> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> >
> >> The argument that many people
> >> believe that there is a mind body problem is ...
> >
> > ... is logical fallacy, as you have been informed.
>
> You have deliberately and misleadingly deleted your interlocuter's word
> "statement" and replaced it with the word "argument" in the above. Your
> interlocuter never said any such thing, as you well know. Your
> transparently mendacious attempt to misrepresent your opponent is
> dishonesty exemplified and you are dishonesty personified.
>
> Goober.

Look, Goober, here is the deal: Argument _ad hominem_ like that will not
help you establish that there is a mind - body problem any more than your
argument from popularity will, that's all logical fallacy, as you should
know by now.


The question remains, so what if lots and lots of people believe there might
be a mind - body problem, does that prove that there is, or is that just a
fallacious appeal to popularity? Lots of people think there might be a god,
too; does that prove 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