Re: Definition of God

[Gandalf Grey]

"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:yIGdnZAH2KSLPoDYnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@comcast.com...

>
> Then why would Copi cite

Here's what Copi says:

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.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:V9SdnRPFA85OC4DYnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@comcast.com...

> You don't see it because it is UNSTATED

I don't see it because it isn't there, Septic.

 

[Virgil]

In article <3_-dnbQZLc-2FIDYnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Sepic" <ylt...@nospam.com> lied:

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

> > There is no argument in the claim: "scores of scientists and academics
> > think there is a mind-body problem". Ergo, no fallacy.
>
> Argument from popularity is argument which is logical fallacy. Google
> 'unstated premises, unstated conclusions'.
>
> Unstated premises, unstated conclusions

Not every statement implies unstated conclusions.

And Septic is not free to read whatever he wants into what is unstated.
if he were, he would have to deny that there are scores who think that
some god exists, as otherwise he is supporting theism.

By Septic's own logic, acknowledging the existence of theism is
fallaciously arguing that gods exist.

In which case Septic must deny that anyone can believe in any god, and
there is no point in being atheist as there cannot be any theists.

That is what Septic's logic leads to.

 

[Virgil]

In article <JOidndbia98aFoDYnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:


> Google 'unstated premises'.

Septic's (always unstated) premises are that he is always right and the
rest of the world is always wrong, and furthermore that he is atheist
and anyone who does not agree with him in everything is theist.

In Fact, Septic's success rate on being right is very nearly zero.

 

[Virgil]

In article <V72dnZmK4atzDYDYnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
>
> > ... Copi does not describe the hypothesis as a "might be" conjecture.
>
> He does not go into detail as to what the meaning of 'is' is.
Copi does cite the astronomers say saying ( in translation from the
Latin, of course)
"it is a fact that he moon is a perfect sphere."

That does not sound the least bit tentative or "might be-ish" to me.

 

[Virgil]

In article <o96dnQpG6vB2CYDYnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to point out
> some simple truths to the invinciply ignorant Septic:
>


> <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 IS 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

One does not hypothesize about what one is absolutely convinced of.

Or else all of Septic's claims are merely "might be"'s.

 

[Virgil]

In article <V9SdnRPFA85OC4DYnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> is again misrepresetned by Septic, the liar:
>
>
> >>> 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."
>
> You don't see it because it is UNSTATED, Mr. Hanson.

If it is unstated, by what authority does Septic, rather than Hanson
state it?

Hanson knows better than Septic what Hanson intended, so Septic has no
right to put words in Hanson's mouth.

If Septic claims the right to put words in Hanson's mouth, we all claim
equal rights to put whatever words we please in Septic's mouth.

 

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:38:29 -0600, in alt.atheism
Virgil <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in
<virgil-DA22C3.17382929092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>:
>In article <V9SdnRPFA85OC4DYnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> is again misrepresetned by Septic, the liar:
>>
>>
>> >>> 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."
>>
>> You don't see it because it is UNSTATED, Mr. Hanson.
>
>If it is unstated, by what authority does Septic, rather than Hanson
>state it?
>
>Hanson knows better than Septic what Hanson intended, so Septic has no
>right to put words in Hanson's mouth.
>
>If Septic claims the right to put words in Hanson's mouth, we all claim
>equal rights to put whatever words we please in Septic's mouth.

Septic is a master of mistaken understanding.

 

[Virgil]

In article <yIGdnZAH2KSLPoDYnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to get away with
> logical fallacies like argument from popularity and argument from ignorance:
>
> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
> >> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> argued contrary to the facts
> >> in evidence:
> >>> And since 'might be' has nothing to do with the argumentum ad
> >>> ignorantiam
> >>
> >> Yes it does;
> >
> > No it doesn't.
>
> Then why would Copi

If Absolute certainty in no more than "might be" hypothesizing, then
that applies equally well to all of Septic's absolute certainties, and
Septic can only hypthesize that Hanson 'might be' arguing ad
ignorantiam.

 

[Goober]

Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>
> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> and chums try to get away with arguing
> from popularity
>> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>>> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> and chums try to get away with arguing
>>> from popularity
>>>> 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),
>>
>> You said "So you argue fallaciously".
>
> It IS logical fallacy (not valid inference) to argue from popularity.

I have not argued or suggested anything to the contrary.

>
> Again, I am not dealing with the question of whether the premise is true
> or false,

And you couldn't even if you wanted to, because you responded only to a
claim, not to a premise of an argument.

just the fact that argument from popularity like that is
> logical fallacy, which you should know by now, so stop trying to build a
> straw man.

The claim is not a premise, not an argument, and (therefore) not a fallacy.

>
>>> Again, I am not questioning the truth of the premise ('lots and lots
>>> of people believe there might be a mind - body problem'), 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.
>
> Argument from popularity is argument which is logical fallacy.

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

Google
> 'unstated premises, unstated conclusions'.

Progress!! You now appear to want to come clean and make it clear that
you are insisting that there are either implicit premises or an
implicit conclusion in addition to the explicit claim "Scores of
scientists and academics think there is a mind-body problem", which you
view as an explicit premise in an implicit argument.

In such cases, you must identify (as is suggested in your uncited quote
below) any other implicit premises or conclusions that you insist are
implicit.

When you've done that, you can then ask your interlocutor whether they
agree that that is their argument. If you interlocutor agrees that make
such an argument, then we can move to assess the legitimacy of your
suggestion that they commit a fallacy.

If your interlocutor denies making any such argument, even implicitly,
then to criticise that argument is to erect a straw man.

In any case, you would be mistaken to attack an explicit premise as
committing a fallacy when it does not, by itself, constitute an
argument. Only arguments can commit fallacies and "Scores of
scientists and academics think there is a mind-body problem" is not an
argument - at most (see above) it might be a premise of an argument.

Up to this point, all you've attacked is the explicit claim, not an
argument. For example, you have insisted that claims of the form

"P is believed by millions"

is a fallacious argument from popularity. It can be a premise in an
argument from popularity (whether that argument is implicit or
explicit), but the claim itself commits no fallacy because it is not an
argument - EVEN if it is a premise of an argument that does commit a
fallacy.

>
> 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)

Quite so. Go forth and do likewise.

Goober.

>
>
>
>>> Argument from popularity
>>> 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
>
>

 

[Goober]

Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>
> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:efiivf$dm7$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? So what? Does that prove that there actually is one?
>>>
>>> Here you are equivocating between that which is known to be real ('IS')
>>
>> "IS" here does not mean " known to be real". It means "exists".

I note that you do not reject my above claim.

>
> The terms, 'real', actual, and 'existing' are synonyms (words having the
> same or similar meanings).
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=real

Naturally.

> Can you name ten things that are known to exist that are not known to be
> real?
> How could we honestly say that we know that something exists unless it
> is something known to be actual, to be real?

Why do you ask?

"IS" does not mean " known to be real/exist/actual"; it is synonymous
with "exists" or "real" or "actual" (as the thesaurus might suggest).

Thus, to say of anything that it "is" is to say it exists, it is real,
or it is actual.

It is NOT to say anything to the effect that it is known to be real,
or known to exist or known to be actual.

Goober.

>
>>> Here you are equivocating between that which is known to be real
>>> ('IS') and
>>> that which is only hypothetical ('might be' conjecture). Lots and
>>> lots of
>>> people believing X might be real doesn't make X real. Let X be your
>>> hypothetical 'mind - body problem'. That remains purely hypothetical
>>> ('might
>>> be' conjecture) unless you can show something more probative than your
>>> logical fallacy of argument from popularity.
>>>
>>> Argument from popularity like that is logical fallacy, moron, as you
>>> have
>>> been informed.
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>

 

[Goober]

Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>
> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
>
>> ... Copi does not describe the hypothesis as a "might be" conjecture.
>
> He does not go into detail as to what the meaning of 'is' is either.

Correct.

> There is no need to explain the obvious,

Except to you, it seems.

and the obvious is that the
> term, 'hypothesis' means 'might be' conjecture.

Wrong. It may mean "conjecture", but not "might be".

What else would it mean?

Have you already forgotten? In this case, it means an "is" claim, not a
"might be" claim.

> If they were talking about a fact (as you seem to want to imply)

I do not imply that. Rather I make clear that the hypothesis is claimed
to be a fact (i.e. claimed to be true, actual, real). It is not claimed
to be a mere possibility (possibly true, possibly real, or possibly
actual), as you imagine.

Copi
> would have said fact.
>
> synonyms (words with the same or similar meaning): hypothesis, 'might
> be'

The last is a product of your invention - unless you'd care to cite a
source that presents "might be" as a synonym of "hypothesis" or
"conjecture". M-W certainly does not.

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

conjecture, guesswork, speculation, supposition, hunch, intuition,
> belief, faith

All of which can have as their content a claim that some proposition IS
the case (is true, is real is a fact, is actual). Which is precisely
what we have in the case in question.

>
>
> See here where Galileo puts forth an EQUALLY PROBABLE HYPOTHESIS ('might
> be' conjecture) to expose the theist argument _ad ignorantiam_?

On the contrary. What he presents as the parallel hypothesis is that
"there WERE rearing up from the invisible crystalline envelope on the
moon, even greater mountain peaks". "Were" is plural and FACTIVE.

>
> <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 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_)
>
> He refers to it as an 'equally probable hypothesis' because both of them
> are equally mere conjecture,

Sure.

speculative 'might be' supposition

Wrong.

with no
> basis in fact.
>
> Note the use of the term, 'supposedly'?

Indeed - in this case, it is supposed that there were, rearing up from
the invisible crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain
peaks -- but made of crystal and thus invisible.

It is not supposition that the above merely "might be" the case.

Goober.

>
> Get tit now, Mr. Goober?
>
>

 

[Goober]

Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>
> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
>> 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
>
> Google 'unstated premises'.

That won't show you or anyone how you misstated the hypothesis.

Who do you think hypothetically might have
> installed the hypothetical invisible crystalline substance in all the
> valleys of the moon, Zeus maybe? Maybe Oden?

The answer to that question won't change the fact that the hypothesis in
question does not mention "God" and is not as you stated it.

>
> I don't believe so. These theists trying to get away with arguing _ad
> ignorantiam_ in this case are followers of God, Mr. Goober.

That is irrelevant to the content of the hypothesis in question.

Goober.

>
>
>
>

 

[Goober]

Your Logic Tutor wrote:
> 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,

Firstly, "is true" is a predicate (commonly called, for obvious
reasons, the truth predicate) and hence cannot be a premise. For "is
true" to be a premise it would have to express a proposition, and it
doesn't. It has no truth-value. It is, as Gottlob Frege, a founder of
modern logic put it: "unsaturated".

Secondly, if what you are trying to say is that "P is true" is an
unstated premise then, your position is self-defeating. If "P" is
identical in meaning to "P is true" (i.e. if the deflationary theory of
truth is correct) then, since "P" is explicit, "P is true" is also
explicit since it expresses the very same proposition as "P".

Your position is like saying "John likes Sally" is an unstated premise
of an argument where "Sally is liked by John" is an explicit premise.

You are completely incoherent.

"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"]

BZZZZZZ. "P" is not an argument.

is known to be
> in accord with the actual state of affairs.

BZZZZZ. It does not mean that. It means that P is actual, real, etc. It
does not mean that it is known to be anything.

>
> The problem with such an an argument

BZZZZZ. Ain't 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.

BZZZZZ. Wrong - that they could all be wrong does not make it a fallacy,
even if it were an argument (which it isn't).

Large numbers believing P does not make P true.

Generally true, we know.

Goober.

>
> 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
>
>
>

 

[Goober]

Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>
> 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,

Yes it is.

Goober.

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
>

 

['foolsrushin.']

It is quite unimportant whether the exstential predicate can be
validated, though it will lead to non-sense, anyway. Kant, though a
theist, knew this to be so, since the proposition 'God exists' is
antinomially on no better footing than 'Not-God exists', where
existential predicates are concerned - or, of course you can turn it
round! What matters is only testable predicates of the entity 'God',
which strike me as being numerous and sometimes contadictory.

As regards the so--called mind-body problem, everything becomes much
easier when you give up the God-stuff, too. A good case for Occham's
razor!
--
'foolsrushin'.


Goober wrote:
> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
> >
> > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:efiivf$dm7$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? So what? Does that prove that there actually is one?
> >>>
> >>> Here you are equivocating between that which is known to be real ('IS')
> >>
> >> "IS" here does not mean " known to be real". It means "exists".
>
> I note that you do not reject my above claim.
>
> >
> > The terms, 'real', actual, and 'existing' are synonyms (words having the
> > same or similar meanings).
> > http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=real
>
> Naturally.
>
> > Can you name ten things that are known to exist that are not known to be
> > real?
> > How could we honestly say that we know that something exists unless it
> > is something known to be actual, to be real?
>
> Why do you ask?
>
> "IS" does not mean " known to be real/exist/actual"; it is synonymous
> with "exists" or "real" or "actual" (as the thesaurus might suggest).
>
> Thus, to say of anything that it "is" is to say it exists, it is real,
> or it is actual.
>
> It is NOT to say anything to the effect that it is known to be real,
> or known to exist or known to be actual.
>
> Goober.
>
> >
> >>> Here you are equivocating between that which is known to be real
> >>> ('IS') and
> >>> that which is only hypothetical ('might be' conjecture). Lots and
> >>> lots of
> >>> people believing X might be real doesn't make X real. Let X be your
> >>> hypothetical 'mind - body problem'. That remains purely hypothetical
> >>> ('might
> >>> be' conjecture) unless you can show something more probative than your
> >>> logical fallacy of argument from popularity.
> >>>
> >>> Argument from popularity like that is logical fallacy, moron, as you
> >>> have
> >>> been informed.
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>

 

['foolsrushin.']

The Astronomer, Patrick Moore, said that a lady whom he invited to look
through his telescope said, 'You astronomers must be awfully clever.'
'Why?' he asked. ' The way you find out the names of all those
planets,' came the reply.
--
'foolsrushin'.

Goober wrote:
> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
> >
> > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:efiivf$dm7$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? So what? Does that prove that there actually is one?
> >>>
> >>> Here you are equivocating between that which is known to be real ('IS')
> >>
> >> "IS" here does not mean " known to be real". It means "exists".
>
> I note that you do not reject my above claim.
>
> >
> > The terms, 'real', actual, and 'existing' are synonyms (words having the
> > same or similar meanings).
> > http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=real
>
> Naturally.
>
> > Can you name ten things that are known to exist that are not known to be
> > real?
> > How could we honestly say that we know that something exists unless it
> > is something known to be actual, to be real?
>
> Why do you ask?
>
> "IS" does not mean " known to be real/exist/actual"; it is synonymous
> with "exists" or "real" or "actual" (as the thesaurus might suggest).
>
> Thus, to say of anything that it "is" is to say it exists, it is real,
> or it is actual.
>
> It is NOT to say anything to the effect that it is known to be real,
> or known to exist or known to be actual.
>
> Goober.
>
> >
> >>> Here you are equivocating between that which is known to be real
> >>> ('IS') and
> >>> that which is only hypothetical ('might be' conjecture). Lots and
> >>> lots of
> >>> people believing X might be real doesn't make X real. Let X be your
> >>> hypothetical 'mind - body problem'. That remains purely hypothetical
> >>> ('might
> >>> be' conjecture) unless you can show something more probative than your
> >>> logical fallacy of argument from popularity.
> >>>
> >>> Argument from popularity like that is logical fallacy, moron, as you
> >>> have
> >>> been informed.
> >>>
> >>> 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]

"Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
> Your Logic Tutor wrote:

>> ...
>> Large numbers believing P does not make P true.
>
> Generally true, we know.
>
> Goober.

Thanks for conceding, Mr. Goober.

>>
>> The question remains, so what if lots and lots of people believe there
>> might actually 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? No.
>>
>> 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 <6OudnRRMlfECZILYnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
> > Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>
> >> ...
> >> Large numbers believing P does not make P true.
> >
> > Generally true, we know.
> >
> > Goober.
>
> Thanks for conceding, Mr. Goober.

What Goober said before Septic said it is hardly a concession.

So that Septic lies again.
>
> >>
> >> The question remains, so what if lots and lots of people believe there
> >> might actually be
> >> a mind - body problem, does that prove that there is, or is that just a
> >> fallacious appeal to popularity?

Or is it merely a statement of fact that lots of people do believe it.

Does admitting that lots of people believe in gods require one to
suppose that belief to be well founded?

If that were the case then Septic would have to believe in gods.

So when Septic argues that allowing that lots of people believe there is
a mind body problem is an argument that the problem is exists, then
Septic;s arguments that anyone is a theist is equally an argument that
gods exist.

The parallelism is perfect. So either Septic is a theist or he is lying
about Goober's statement.

Which is it, Sepotic, old sot?

 

[Goober]

Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>
> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
>> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>
>>> ...
>>> Large numbers believing P does not make P true.
>>
>> Generally true, we know.
>>
>> Goober.
>
> Thanks for conceding, Mr. Goober.

You presuppose a falsity: that I maintained something to the contrary.

Returning now to your numerous other errors... (apparently, judging from
you snipping all your errors out, you're getting tired of being beaten
up on these issues) ... here they are again:

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

[Sceptic]
> "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,

[Goober]
Firstly, "is true" is a predicate (commonly called, for obvious
reasons, the truth predicate) and hence cannot be a premise. For "is
true" to be a premise it would have to express a proposition, and it
doesn't. It has no truth-value. It is, as Gottlob Frege, a founder of
modern logic put it: "unsaturated".

Secondly, if what you are trying to say is that "P is true" is an
unstated premise then, your position is self-defeating. If "P" is
identical in meaning to "P is true" (i.e. if the redundancy theory of
truth is correct) then, since "P" is explicit, "P is true" is also
explicit since it expresses the very same proposition as "P".

Your position is like saying "John likes Sally" is an unstated premise
of an argument where "Sally is liked by John" is an explicit premise.

You are completely incoherent.

[Sceptic]
"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"]

[Goober]
BZZZZZZ. "P" is not an argument.

[Sceptic]
is known to be
> in accord with the actual state of affairs.

[Goober]
BZZZZZ. It does not mean that. It means that P is actual, real, etc. It
does not mean that it is known to be anything.

[Sceptic]
>
> The problem with such an an argument

[Goober]
BZZZZZ. Ain't an argument.

[Sceptic]
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.

[Goober]
BZZZZZ. Wrong - that they could all be wrong does not make it a fallacy,
even if it were an argument (which it isn't).

Goober.

>
>>>
>>> The question remains, so what if lots and lots of people believe
>>> there might actually 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? No.
>>>
>>> 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
>