Re: Definition of God

[Your Logic Tutor]

Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to
the facts in evidence:


> And since 'might be' has nothing to do with the argumentum ad
> ignorantiam

Yes it does; 'might be' conjecture is what the term 'hypothesis'
[highlighted below] means. You need to study more carefully Copi's
explanation of this logical fallacy for which theists are FAMOUS:

<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]

"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:WoGdnS9l84U1wYDYnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@comcast.com...

>
> Why don't you stop trying to change the subject, son? Don't you know that
> is the logical fallacy of trying to evade the issue?

I haven't changed the issue. The issue is that you don't know what the
Argument from Popularity is.
>
>
> To return to the issue:
>
> Argument from Popularity:
>
> P is believed by millions of people worldwide

Is not an argument. It's a statement. As usual, YOU don't know what an
argument is.

In order to be an argument, it would have to be stated as

"P is believed by millions of people worldwide, therefore P is true."

Since this is not the form of the above statement, it is not the Argument
from Popularity.

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to
the facts in evidence:


> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
>> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
>>> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>>
>>> > Here are the facts in the case:
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> False. The conjecture/hypothesis put forward by the astronomers of the
>>> time was that the apparent valleys ARE filled with an invisible
>>> crystalline substance.
>>
>> That is what I said, it is theist hypothesis
>
> Then it has nothing to do with the Argument from Ignorance

Then why is Copi citing this incident as an excellent EXAMPLE of 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]

Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to
the facts in evidence:

> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
>> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>>
>>
>>> Does [ad hom deleted] deny that there are many who claim that there is a
>>> mind-body
>>> problem?
>>
>> If you are talking to me, no I do not,
>
> You're just trying to pretend that the statement is an argument when it's
> not.

Except that it is not pretense, it is actually an argument, it is the
logical fallacy of argument from popularity.

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 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

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to get away with
argument from popularity:

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

>> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote

>>> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>>>> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> tries to get away with argument from
>>>> popularity:
>>>>
>>>>> If lots and lots of people believe there IS (not merely might be) a
>>>>> mind
>>>>> body problem, that would prove what it says that lots and lots of
>>>>> people believe that there not only might be, but actually IS, a mind
>>>>> body problem.
>>>>
>>>> Lots and lots of people believe that there actually IS a mind - body
>>>> problem?
>>>
>>> Yes - scores of scientists and academics to be specific.
>>>
>>> So what?
>>>
>>> I'll tell you "so what": it means that you were mistaken in saying that
>>> the claim that scores of scientists and academics believe there to be a
>>> mind-body problem was "fallacious".
>>
>> Are you trying to build a straw man? I did not say it is false (not a
>> premise known to be true), knucklehead, I said it is logical fallacy
>
> No it's not. In order to be a logical fallacy, it would have to be an
> argument which it is not.

You are mistaken, it is argument from popularity, which is logical fallacy
(invalid inference).

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 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

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to get away with
logical fallacies like argument from popularity and argument from ignorance:


> "P is believed by millions of people worldwide, therefore P is true."

"P is true" [or just plain "P," it doesn't matter, it means the same] is the
proposition in question.

"P is true" means exactly the same as just arguing, "P" ("There might be a
mind - body problem" for example) alone. Adding "is true" does not change
anything, and "is true" stands as an unstated premise in your argument from
popularity, "P is believed by millions of people worldwide." There is
absolutely no difference in meaning between the following two statements:

"There might be a mind - body problem."

"It is true that there might be a mind - body problem."

The term, 'is true' simpy means that the argument ["P"] is known to be in
accord with the actual state of affairs.

The problem with such an an argument is that it is logical fallacy (bogus
argument), Mr. Hanson.
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 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

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to get away with
logical fallacies like argument from popularity and argument from ignorance:

> In order to be the Argument from Popularity, the premise would have to be
> linked to a conclusion.
>
> "P is believed by millions of people worldwide, THEREFORE P is true."

Google 'unstated premises' and 'unstated conclusions', Mr. Hanson, quickly,
before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

Unstated premises, unstated conclusions:
Often arguments have unstated premise(s), that is, premise(s) that need to
be added for the premises to support the conclusion. It's always instructive
to try to state all the premises necessary to support one's conclusion.
Example:
1. If it snows, then it's cold
2. If it's cold, Jim is at home
3. Hence, Jim is at home.

Here, there is an unstated premise (it snows) and an unstated sub-conclusion
(it's cold)

 

[Goober]

Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>
> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
>
>
>> It clearly was not a hypothesis/conjecture that the valleys might be
>> filled with a crystalline substance.
>
> That is what the term, 'hypothesis' MEANS in this case,

Wrong, and obviously so.

moron, it means
> guesswork, 'might be' conjecture with no basis in fact.

Wrong again. Not in this case.

>
> Check the thesaurus:
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=conjecture

The thesaurus does not determine what the word "hypothesis" means in
this case (or any particular case). A thesaurus does one thing only: it
identifies various words or phrases that have a meaning similar to or
related to one of the meanings of the target word.

>
> Arguing that there might be something magically invisible because there
> is no proof the hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture) is false is
> logical fallacy for which theists are FAMOUS, as Copi explains:

Wrong again. Copi (correctly) does not describe the hypothesis as a
"might be" conjecture.

>
> <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_)

Care to put the page reference and publication year?

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

It does not mean "might be". Wrong again.

Your test results are getting worse by the hour.

Goober.

>

 

[Goober]

Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>
> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
>> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>
>> > Here are the facts in the case:
>>> 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
>>
>> False. The conjecture/hypothesis put forward by the astronomers of the
>> time was that the apparent valleys ARE filled with an invisible
>> crystalline substance.
>
> That is what I said,

Wrong. The word "God" does not appear in the hypothesis - Read Copi
below. Neither does "it is not known actually to be the case". Those are
you additions and not part of the hypothesis.

it is theist hypothesis, conjecture (guesswork,
> 'might be' speculation with no basis in fact), 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. And the
> argument from ignorance Copi is pointing out is, "And this hypothesis
> [this 'might be' conjecture] Galileo could not prove false!"

False again. See me above and Copi below for the actual hypothesis.

>
> Check the thesaurus:
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=conjecture
>
>
> Arguing that thee might be something magically invisible because there
> is no proof the hypothesis is false is logical fallacy for which theists
> are FAMOUS, as Copi explains:

What Copi explains and what you say he explains are two different
things. The astronomers of the time argued that there IS such a
crystalline substance. That was their hypothesis.

>
> <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.]

It means no such thing as "might be" in this case.

Goober.

>

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:c9OdnSeFo44Q8YDYnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com...

>
The real Argument from popularity.

>> "P is believed by millions of people worldwide, therefore P is true."

Septic's Phony Argument from Popularity:

> P is believed by millions of people worldwide

Wrong again. The above is merely a statement, not an argument.

Thanks for juxtaposing them. It clearly demonstrates that you have no idea
what you're talking about.

 

[Goober]

Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>
> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:efiiam$dgb$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
>> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>>> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> tries to get away with argument from
>>> popularity:
>>>
>>>> If lots and lots of people believe there IS (not merely might be) a
>>>> mind
>>>> body problem, that would prove what it says that lots and lots of
>>>> people believe that there not only might be, but actually IS, a mind
>>>> body problem.
>>>
>>> Lots and lots of people believe that there actually IS a mind - body
>>> problem?
>>
>> Yes - scores of scientists and academics to be specific.
>>
>> So what?
>>
>> I'll tell you "so what": it means that you were mistaken in saying
>> that the claim that scores of scientists and academics believe there
>> to be a mind-body problem was "fallacious".
>
> Are you trying to build a straw man?

One one encounters claims and arguments there is a pragmatic principle -
the principle of charity - which says that one should interpret one's
opponents arguments and claims in a way that maximises their coherence
and rationality. With you, satisfying that principle poses truly unique
challenges.

The most rational and coherent interpretation of the reference of
"argue" in your response "so you argue fallaciously" to your
interlocutor's claim "Scores of scientists and academics think there is
a mind-body problem", is to some supposed putative argument for the
interlocutor's claim, since that was the only visible claim. I offered
you references to support that claim.

You now concede that that claim is true.

If it turns out that you mean an "argument" for some other claim that
does not appear in the quote nor is entailed by the quote, I can hardly
be held accountable for not being able to spot it.

I did not say it is false (not a
> premise known to be true),

You said "So you argue fallaciously". The only claim mentioned to which
that was a response was that scores of scientists and academics believe
that there is a mind-body problem. Hence, any putatively fallacious
argument must presumably refer to an argument for that claim. Since
there is no other claim.

You now (and previously) implicitly concede that scores of scientists
and academics believe there is such a mind-body problem. QED.

But you apparently suppose that that claim constitutes an argument for a
different claim: that there is a mind-body problem.

It doesn't. To use that claim to argue for the second claim would
require your interlocutor to make that argument. They did not in the quote.

knucklehead, I said it is logical fallacy
> (fallacious, invalid inference, bogus argument, argument from
> popularity). Please learn the difference.

It is not an argument - it is just a (true) claim. Please learn the
difference.

>
> Again, I am not questioning the truth of the premise ('lots and lots of
> people believe there might be a mind - body problem')

Therefore, you've conceded it. QED.

, I am questioning
> the validity of the argument from popularity.

There is no argument in the claim: "scores of scientists and academics
think there is a mind-body problem". Ergo, no fallacy.

Goober.


Argument from poopularity
> is logical fallacy (invalid argument).
>
> 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
>
>
>
>

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:xZKdnQUHZ_n28oDYnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@comcast.com...

>> In order to be the Argument from Popularity, the premise would have to be
>> linked to a conclusion.
>>
>> "P is believed by millions of people worldwide, THEREFORE P is true."
>
> Unstated premises, unstated conclusions:

No unstated conclusion is made in "P is believed by millions of people
worldwide."

Since you've proved again and again that have a problem with understanding
what a logical argument actually is, you should avoid trying to read
people's minds. In other words, when you can't even deal with basic logical
forms, you're not ready to deal with unstated implications.

 

[Goober]

Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>
> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to get away with
> argument from popularity:
>
>> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
>
>>> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
>
>>>> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>>>>> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> tries to get away with argument from
>>>>> popularity:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If lots and lots of people believe there IS (not merely might be)
>>>>>> a mind
>>>>>> body problem, that would prove what it says that lots and lots of
>>>>>> people believe that there not only might be, but actually IS, a mind
>>>>>> body problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lots and lots of people believe that there actually IS a mind - body
>>>>> problem?
>>>>
>>>> Yes - scores of scientists and academics to be specific.
>>>>
>>>> So what?
>>>>
>>>> I'll tell you "so what": it means that you were mistaken in saying
>>>> that the claim that scores of scientists and academics believe there
>>>> to be a mind-body problem was "fallacious".
>>>
>>> Are you trying to build a straw man? I did not say it is false (not a
>>> premise known to be true), knucklehead, I said it is logical fallacy
>>
>> No it's not. In order to be a logical fallacy, it would have to be an
>> argument which it is not.
>
> You are mistaken, it is argument from popularity,

Wrong.

Goober

which is logical
> fallacy (invalid inference).
>
> 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 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
>

 

[Virgil]

In article <Z4adndzKd92Yp4DYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:451c8ffe$0$24210$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> >
> > "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > newsoSdneF7AbRWHYHYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> >> Argument from Popularity:
> >>
> >> P is believed by millions of people worldwide
> >
> > Is not an argument.
>
> Yes it is, moron.

It is Septic who is the moron, or even worse, if he claims it is not an
argument for anything except what it says.

 

[Virgil]

In article <0sGdnYeyq5EV24DYnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
>
>
> > It clearly was not a hypothesis/conjecture that the valleys might be
> > filled with a crystalline substance.
>
> That is what the term, 'hypothesis' MEANS in this case, moron, it means
> guesswork, 'might be' conjecture with no basis in fact.

So Septic is saying that the astronomers said it might be that it might
be ?
That's not what Copi says.

The Septic can only be hypothesizing that what Goober said MIGHT BE a
fallacy.

 

[Virgil]

In article <AOqdnfB3T9ho1YDYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> That is what I said

No its not.

What Septic said is "is a fact" means "might be".

 

[Virgil]

In article <Sa6dnZAsfZkS0YDYnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> equivocated:

> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:efiivf$dm7$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
> > Septic equivocated:
> >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> tries to get away with argument from
> >> popularity:
> >>
> >>> If lots and lots of people believe there IS (not merely might be) a mind
> >>> body problem, that would prove what it says that lots and lots of
> >>> people believe that there not only might be, but actually IS, a mind
> >>> body problem.

Not at all, That is entirely Septic's lie and Septic's own argument.
If Septic wishes to make that argument he should be willing to
acknowledge it as his, no try to palm it off on others, like the coward
he is.


What everyone else, besides Septic, is saying is that there are lots of
people who think that there is a mind-body problem.
Which, at most, proves the lots of people think so.
Whether that thought is warranted is an entirely different question.

Septic claims to know that it is not warranted, but from what arcane
source Septic claims to come by such knowledge, he has not informed us.

 

[Virgil]

In article <duqdnWePoO5czYDYnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic, the evil one" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:efiiam$dgb$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
> > Septic, the evil one wrote:
> >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> tries to get away with argument from
> >> popularity:
> >>
> >>> If lots and lots of people believe there IS (not merely might be)
> >>> a mind body problem, that would prove what it says that lots
> >>> and lots of people believe that there not only might be, but
> >>> actually IS, a mind body problem.
> >>
> >> Lots and lots of people believe that there actually IS a mind -
> >> body problem?
> >
> > Yes - scores of scientists and academics to be specific.
> >
> > So what?
> >
> > I'll tell you "so what": it means that you were mistaken in saying
> > that the claim that scores of scientists and academics believe
> > there to be a mind-body problem was "fallacious".
>
> Are you trying to build a straw man?

No But Septic is!

> I did not say it is false , knucklehead,

No one accused you of that, knucklehead!

> I said it is logical fallacy

That is indeed false, as it is not an argument at all.

It is only Septic's warped mind that produces any argument from what is
patently not an argument. So that if there is any fallacy here it is
an artifact of Septic's thought processes, and not in Goober's words.


>
> Again, I am not questioning the truth of the premise ('lots and lots
> of people believe there might be a mind - body problem')

It is a premise from which no one but Septic is drawing any conclusion
(other than the premise itself).

So if any fallacy exists, it is Septic who is arguing it.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:apqdnY4j1cxc-4DYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@comcast.com...

> Septic's Phony Argument from Popularity:
>
> P is believed by millions of people worldwide

Wrong. The above is not an argument let alone an argument from popularity.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:1qudnRIqlYn__oDYnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>
>> And since 'might be' has nothing to do with the argumentum ad
>> ignorantiam
>
> Yes it does;

No it doesn't. Read Copi and stop trying to rape Copi's definition.

Copi [1953, 56] "Introduction to Logic"

"The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam is illustrated by the argument
that there must be ghosts because no one has ever been able to prove that
there aren't any. The argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed whenever it
is argued that a propostion is true simply on the basis that it has not been
proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true."

Several important points here that illustrate how off the beam your
viewpoint has been.

1. Note the use of the term "must" "...there MUST be ghosts because no one
has ever been able to prove that there aren't any." Copi is talking about
definitive conclusions of proof based on ignorance or lack of proof to the
contrary.

2. Note the use of the term "argued." "....The argumentum ad ignorantiam
is committed whenever it is ARGUED that a proposition is true simply on the
basis that it has not been proved false..."

Copi does not include the notion of "might be/might not be" in his
definition. And he wisely notes that the Argument from ignorance must be an
ARGUMENT. It is not a statement, it is not a question. It is an argument.

Since your entire spew is based on the idea of "maybe's and might be's" and
since you presume that even a question or a statement can be an Argument
from ignorance, you're clearly WRONG.

Now, don't you feel better?