Re: Definition of God

[Guest Virgil]

In article <tNudnXTjjcXOi5PYnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,

"Your illogic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

 

> > Such reference show you to be categorically mistaken when you say (see

> > above) that "Well, scores of academics and scientists disagree" is

> > "fallacious".

>

> Argument from popularity and argument from authority is no longer logical

> fallacy?

 

As evidence of lack of agreement, lack of agreement is evidence

If no one agrees on how the mind is related to the body then there is,

by definition, a mind body problem.

 

Septic does not have one, as whatever mind he once had has been replaced

by a 'bot.

[Guest wcb]

Gandalf Grey wrote:

> Actually, there's a big difference.

[Guest Gandalf Grey]

"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message

news:12gt1tnimf6v1d5@corp.supernews.com...

> Gandalf Grey wrote:

>

>> Actually, there's a big difference. Scientists know something more than

>> the usual person about their own subject. And if we don't listen to their

>> expertise, then we really have no way of measuring the validity of

>> evidence or of arguments.

>

> And if _I_do it

 

You do it all over your pants.

 

Yes, we know, Barney

[Guest John Jones]

DanWood wrote:

> "Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> news:s23ue29tmvo756hji9e7mcd5jtb1ute0k3@4ax.com...

> > On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:41:21 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>

> > wrote:

> >

> > >

> > >"Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> > >news:genre2ttjlsfegkq27vidfso7h2lsouho3@4ax.com...

> > >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:20:08 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>

> > >> wrote:

> > >>

> > >> >

> > >> ><jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message

> > >> >news:1156227178.495729.118180@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> > >> >>

> > >> >> Immortalist wrote:

> > >> >>

> > >> >> > God is a concept some humans use as a lever

> > >> >> > [crutch-lever?].

> > >> >>

> > >> >> Okay. But with some 6 billion people on the planet,

> > >> >> this isn't exactly going out on a limb.

> > >> >>

> > >> >> I mean, try to imagine if some aliens visited the

> > >> >> Earth from another planet, and not knowing a lot

> > >> >> about us they asked me about sex, what it is we

> > >> >> do. At this point I tell the aliens that some people

> > >> >> are masochistic, that they get a sexual thrill out

> > >> >> of having pain inflicted on them.

> > >> >>

> > >> >> I'd be leaving them with a pretty misleading view

> > >> >> of human sexuality, would I not?

> > >> >>

> > >> >> > If evolutionary theory is correct, people with

> > >> >> > particular religious instincts survived and the

> > >> >> > atheists died.

> > >> >>

> > >> >> There is absolutely no reason to believe this.

> > >> >>

> > >> >> None.

> > >> >>

> > >> >> How are you arriving at this claim?

> > >> >>

> > >> >There are people who go to their deaths completely

> > >> >assured that it's not the end. And are convinced they

> > >> >will live again a much better life. Atheist, however,

> > >> >have none of this assurance.

> > >> >

> > >>

> > >> Neither do Christians, Dan. They want to believe their fantasies, but

> > >> they don't really.

> > >>

> > >Do you speak for Christians?

> > >>

> >

> > Dan, I don't have to be the Christians designated spokesperson to

> > comment on my observations. You guys repeatedly prove to all

> > non-biased observers that you really don't believe what you say you

> > believe.

> >

> You are painting with a _very_broad_ brush. I do not deny that

> there are times when many perhaps most Christians have times

> of doubt and disbelief. Certainly, I do.

>

> Dan Wood, DDS

> > ------------------

> >

> > Gospel Bretts

> > a.a. Atheist #2262

> > Fundy Xian Atheist

[Guest 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

> > Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue

> > contrary to the facts in evidence:

> >

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

> >

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

> >

> > "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one

> > knows for certain." -- Dan Wood

 

In other words Wood argues _ad ignorantiam_ that consciousness might dwell

outside the brain because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be'

conjecture) is false, a form of logical fallacy for which theists are

FAMOUS, as Copi explains.

> Thanks for demonstrating that you're wrong.

 

Did you overlook the term, 'dwell' in Wood's argument _ad ignorantiam_ that

consciousness might dwell outside the brain because there is no proof that

hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false, logical fallacy for which

theists are FAMOUS, as Copi explains:

 

<quote>

Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in

criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the

mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.

Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect

sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against

Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the

moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities

are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,

which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove

false!

 

Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the

same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the

transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the

equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible

crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made

of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not

prove false.

</quote>

(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

 

[in this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might

be' imagining with no basis in fact.]

 

Wood might as well be arguing _ad ignorantiam_, "Does God dwell exclusively

in the imagination of the believers? No one knows for certain."

 

Is there something about the term, 'dwell' that causes you to overlook it in

Wood's argument?

[Guest Gandalf Grey]

"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:lb-dndqHP5ZjupLYnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@comcast.com...

>

> <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to

> the facts in evidence:

>> "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote

>> > <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue

>> > contrary to the facts in evidence:

>> >

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

>> >

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

>> >

>> > "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one

>> > knows for certain." -- Dan Wood

>

> In other words

 

In other words he wasn't arguing at all. So he couldn't have been using the

argument from ignorance.

 

Which, by the way, you don't understand at all.

[Guest 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

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

to the facts in evidence:

> >

> >> You are completely ignorant on the subject of argumentum ad

ignorantiam

> >> We know this because you can't discuss the subject on your own, being

> >> reduced to pasting one author's out of context comment on the subject.

> >

> > This is in no way out of context

>

> Of course it is.

 

Of course it is not. What do you want me to do, reproduce the whole book

here so you won't say I am taking something out of context?

> It is most obviously NOT a definition.

 

Argument from ignorance is well defined, and you know it. Copi not only

presents that definition in _Introduction to Logic_, he presents a perfectly

clear example of those theists of Galileo's time trying to get away with the

fallacy of argument _ ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists are

famous. Is there something in this explanation to which you specifically

take exception? If so, please explain why. (Otherwise you are just blowing

smoke.)

[Guest Gandalf Grey]

"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:IdOdnbvD-qjIopLYnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@comcast.com...

>> >> You are completely ignorant on the subject of argumentum ad

> ignorantiam

>> >> We know this because you can't discuss the subject on your own, being

>> >> reduced to pasting one author's out of context comment on the subject.

>> >

>> > This is in no way out of context

>>

>> Of course it is.

>

> Of course it is not. What do you want me to do

 

Acting like you actually know the definition of an argument from ignorance

would be a nice start rather than ladeling out your single anecdote and

pretending that exhausts the subject.

[Guest Your Logic Tutor]

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

the facts in evidence:

> >> >> You are completely ignorant on the subject of argumentum ad

> > ignorantiam

> >> >> We know this because you can't discuss the subject on your own,

being

> >> >> reduced to pasting one author's out of context comment on the

subject.

> >> >

> >> > This is in no way out of context

> >>

> >> Of course it is.

> >

> > Of course it is not. What do you want me to do, reproduce the whole book

here so you won't say I am taking something out of context?

>

> Acting like you actually know the definition of an argument from ignorance

 

Evidently I know it better than YOU do seeing as how you don't seem to grasp

the fact that these theists of Galileo's time arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that

their hypothesis (their 'might be' conjecture) Galileo could not prove false

is a GREAT 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.]

 

You should study the above carefully before you make an even bigger fool of

yourself.

[Guest Your Logic Tutor]

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

the facts in evidence:

> In other words he wasn't arguing at all.

 

Argument from ignorance is not arguing? Since when?

Wood argues _ad ignorantiam_ that consciousness might dwell

outside the brain because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be'

conjecture) is false, a form of logical fallacy for which theists are

FAMOUS, as Copi explains.

[Guest Gandalf Grey]

"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:l7SdncLt2ME_-5LYnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@comcast.com...

>> >> >> You are completely ignorant on the subject of argumentum ad

>> > ignorantiam

>> >> >> We know this because you can't discuss the subject on your own,

> being

>> >> >> reduced to pasting one author's out of context comment on the

> subject.

>> >> >

>> >> > This is in no way out of context

>> >>

>> >> Of course it is.

>> >

>> > Of course it is not. What do you want me to do, reproduce the whole

>> > book

> here so you won't say I am taking something out of context?

 

Since you only seem to have access to the pasted remark, that's probably

pretty unlikely.

 

It might help if you had more than one source and if you posted an actual

definition rather than an anecdote.

 

Since you don't know what the hell you're talking about, that's probably not

going to happen anytime soon.

[Guest Gandalf Grey]

"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:l7Sdnf3t2ME1-5LYnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@comcast.com...

>> In other words he wasn't arguing at all.

>

> Argument from ignorance is not arguing?

 

No. Not arguing is not arguing from ignorance. Making a statement or

asking a question is not arguing.

 

If you knew anything about logic, you'd know that.

[Guest Your Logic Tutor]

Richard Hanson keeps trying to smokescreen theist argument from ignorance:

> Scientists know something more than the

> usual person about their own subject.

 

Are you and Goober saying there is documentation that some scientists

somewhere have produced solid evidence of consciousness outside the brain,

and thus there really is a mind - body problem? I don't believe that.

 

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

 

Any reasonable man can recognize that for what it is: argument from

ignorance => the fallacy of taking it for granted there might be

consciousness 'dwelling' (existing) somewhere other than in the brain

because there is no proof the hypothesis is false.

[Guest Virgil]

In article <lb-dndqHP5ZjupLYnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,

"Your Illogic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

>

> > > "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one

> > > knows for certain." -- Dan Wood

>

> In other words Wood argues _ad ignorantiam_ that consciousness might dwell

> outside the brain

 

False! Dan argues nothing except ignorance.

Septic's only possible objection would be if Septic claims that he, or

at least someone, really does know whether consciousness dwells

exclusively in the brain.

 

Well, does anyone know that , punk?

 

if so, who? and how?

[Guest Virgil]

In article <IdOdnbvD-qjIopLYnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@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

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

> to the facts in evidence:

> > >

> > >> You are completely ignorant on the subject of argumentum ad

> ignorantiam

> > >> We know this because you can't discuss the subject on your own, being

> > >> reduced to pasting one author's out of context comment on the subject.

> > >

> > > This is in no way out of context

> >

> > Of course it is.

>

> Of course it is not.

> Argument from ignorance is well defined, and you know it. Copi not only

> presents that definition in _Introduction to Logic_, he presents a perfectly

> clear example of those theists of Galileo's time trying to get away with the

> fallacy of argument _ ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists are

> famous.

 

Actually Galileo was as much a theist as any of the astronomers who

argued against him, and the only professional theists anywhere around,

the churchmen, did not commit themselves on the issue.

 

So for Septic to say theists are famous for it is deliberately

misleading, as a theist, Galileo, is even more famous for opposing it.

 

Also, the non-theist argumentum ad ignorantiam Copi refers to, involves

a claim of form "it is a fact that" which Septic tries to equate with a

statement of form " as far as we know it might be the case that".

 

Anyone who will not see the difference is being willfully blind and

deliberately misrepresenting the case, which is the fallacy of the STRAW

MAN.

 

Thus Septic is totally wrong, and delibertely wrong, on at least two

counts.

 

So Septic is once more WRONG! AGAIN!

 

AS USUAL!!!

[Guest Virgil]

In article <l7SdncLt2ME_-5LYnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@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:

>

> > >> >> You are completely ignorant on the subject of argumentum ad

> > > ignorantiam

> > >> >> We know this because you can't discuss the subject on your own,

> being

> > >> >> reduced to pasting one author's out of context comment on the

> subject.

> > >> >

> > >> > This is in no way out of context

> > >>

> > >> Of course it is.

> > >

> > > Of course it is not. What do you want me to do, reproduce the whole book

> here so you won't say I am taking something out of context?

>

> >

> > Acting like you actually know the definition of an argument from ignorance

>

> Evidently I know it better than YOU do

 

Then why do you keep lying about what it is, Septic?

 

 

> seeing as how you don't seem to grasp

> the fact that these theists of Galileo's time arguing _ad ignorantiam_

 

It was equally a theist of Galileo's time who opposed that argumentum

ad ignorantiam, namely Galileo himself.

 

Why does Septic keep misrepresenting a dispute between theists as being

theist versus non-theist?

 

Only because Septic is a compulsive and habitual liar, and because

Septic cannot, or at least will not, give a fair representation of

anything.

 

http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html

 

argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

 

The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring

when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been

proved false, or that something is false only because it has not been

proved true. A claim's truth or falsity depends upon supporting or

refuting evidence to the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary

or contradictory claim. (Contrary claims can't both be true but both can

be false, unlike contradictory claims. "Jones was in Chicago at the time

of the robbery" and "Jones was in Miami at the time of the robbery" are

contrary claims--assuming there is no equivocation with 'Jones' or

'robbery'. "Jones was in Chicago at the time of the robbery" and "Jones

was not in Chicago at the time of the robbery" are contradictory. A

claim is proved true if its contradictory is proved false, and

vice-versa.)

 

The fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is not designed by

an Intelligent Creator does not prove that it is. Nor does the fact that

it cannot be proved that the universe is designed by an Intelligent

Creator prove that it isn't.

 

The argument to ignorance seems to be more seductive when it can play

upon wishful thinking. People who want to believe in immortality, for

example, may be more prone to think that the lack of proof to the

contrary of their desired belief is somehow relevant to supporting it.

[Guest Virgil]

In article <l7Sdnf3t2ME1-5LYnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@comcast.com>,

"Your illogic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

 

> > In other words he wasn't arguing at all.

>

> Argument from ignorance is not arguing?

 

As there was no argumentum ad ignorantiam, there need not have been any

argument.

> Since when?

 

How does Septic fit the circumstances to the following definition of

argumentum ad ignorantiam?

 

Septic can't? What a surprise!

 

http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html

argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

[Guest Your Logic Tutor]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

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

>

> > Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue

contrary to

> > the facts in evidence:

> >

> > > >> >> You are completely ignorant on the subject of argumentum ad

> > > > ignorantiam

> > > >> >> We know this because you can't discuss the subject on your own,

> > being

> > > >> >> reduced to pasting one author's out of context comment on the

> > subject.

> > > >> >

> > > >> > This is in no way out of context

> > > >>

> > > >> Of course it is.

> > > >

> > > > Of course it is not. What do you want me to do, reproduce the whole

book

> > here so you won't say I am taking something out of context?

> >

> > >

> > > Acting like you actually know the definition of an argument from

ignorance

> >

> > Evidently I know it better than YOU do

> > seeing as how you don't seem to grasp

> > the fact that these theists of Galileo's time arguing _ad ignorantiam_

>

> It was equally a theist of Galileo's time who opposed

 

The term is 'exposed'. See below.

> that argumentum

> ad ignorantiam, namely Galileo himself.

 

Galileo was at this point a scientist in trouble with the church for

discovering new things that challenged what theology had long taught, wasn't

he? But no matter, just let me say HURRAH, now you have finally come around

to agreeing with Copi that to argue _ad ignorantiam_ that there is no proof

one's hypothesis (one's 'might be' conjecture) is false is argument from

ignorance, logical fallacy for which theists are FAMOUS, as Copi explains:

 

<quote>

FAMOUS in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in

criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the

mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.

Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect

sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against

Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the

moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities

are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,

which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove

false!

 

Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the

same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the

transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the

equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible

crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made

of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not

prove false.

</quote>

(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

 

[in this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might

be' imagining with no basis in fact.]

[Guest Gandalf Grey]

"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:bKadnZSsvuSEH5LYnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com...

>

>> Scientists know something more than the

>> usual person about their own subject.

>

> Are you and Goober saying

 

that scientists usually know more about their own subject than the average

person?

 

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

 

Now go learn something about logic.

[Guest Gandalf Grey]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:virgil-50C2DA.23114418092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

> In article <l7Sdnf3t2ME1-5LYnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@comcast.com>,

> "Your illogic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

>

>

>> > In other words he wasn't arguing at all.

>>

>> Argument from ignorance is not arguing?

>

> As there was no argumentum ad ignorantiam, there need not have been any

> argument.

 

And as there was no argument, there could be no argumentum ad ignorantiam.

 

There's a nice symmetry there.

 

>

>> Since when?

>

> How does Septic fit the circumstances to the following definition of

> argumentum ad ignorantiam?

>

> Septic can't? What a surprise!

>

> http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html

> argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

>

> The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring

> when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been

> proved false, or that something is false only because it has not been

> proved true. A claim's truth or falsity depends upon supporting or

> refuting evidence to the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary

> or contradictory claim. (Contrary claims can't both be true but both can

> be false, unlike contradictory claims. "Jones was in Chicago at the time

> of the robbery" and "Jones was in Miami at the time of the robbery" are

> contrary claims--assuming there is no equivocation with 'Jones' or

> 'robbery'. "Jones was in Chicago at the time of the robbery" and "Jones

> was not in Chicago at the time of the robbery" are contradictory. A

> claim is proved true if its contradictory is proved false, and

> vice-versa.)

>

> The fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is not designed by

> an Intelligent Creator does not prove that it is. Nor does the fact that

> it cannot be proved that the universe is designed by an Intelligent

> Creator prove that it isn't.

>

> The argument to ignorance seems to be more seductive when it can play

> upon wishful thinking. People who want to believe in immortality, for

> example, may be more prone to think that the lack of proof to the

> contrary of their desired belief is somehow relevant to supporting it.

[Guest Your Logic Tutor]

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

the facts in evidence:

> It might help if you had more than one source

 

Is there anything wrong with what Copi says? Be specific. Are you taking

exception to anything specific in Copi's explanation that arguing _ad

ignorantiam_ that there is no proof one's hypothesis (one's 'might be'

conjecture) is false is logical fallacy for which theists (in contrast to

scientists like Galileo) 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.]

[Guest Your Logic Tutor]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

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

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

> >

> > > > The hypothesis is THE MOON

> > > IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE

> >

> > Evidently you still do not understand the term, 'hypothesis'

>

> I understand that Copi cites the astronomers as saying "THE MOON

> IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE"

 

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

conjecture). http://tinylink.com/?fTUv6vcIWg

 

In this case the hypothesis (the 'might be' theist conjecture with no basis

in fact) is that all the moon's apparent irregularities are filled in by an

invisible crystalline substance, and the argument _ad ignorantiam_ is, "And

this hypothesis (this 'might be' conjecture) Galileo could not prove false!"

 

<quote>

Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the

same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the

transparent crystal supposedly [hypothetically] filling the valleys, he put

forward the equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the

invisible crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks --

but made of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics

could not prove false.

</quote>

(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

 

[in this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might

be' imagining with no basis in fact.] When will you get this essential

understanding through your thick skull, son?

[Guest Your Logic Tutor]

"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message

news:12grckqnpplp41@news.supernews.com...

>

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

> news:T_adnXanluQEQ5HYnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com...

> >

> > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote >

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

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

> >> >

> >> >> ... one cannot reject any possibility

> >> >> without proof of its impossibility.

> >> >

> >> > That is just like those theists of Galileo's time arguing _ad

> > ignorantiam_

> >> > that there might be an invisible crystalline substance filling all

the

> >> > valleys of the moon because that hypothesis [that 'might be' theist

> >> > conjecture] Galileo could not prove false! That is logical fallacy

for

> >> > which

> >> > you theists are FAMOUS, as Copi explains:

> >>

> >> ... to say that something might be

> >> unless there is existing proof to the contrary. That's not a fallacy.

> >

> > I don't buy that. According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to

Logic_

> > you and Virgil and friends are mistaken, arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that

> > there

> > might be something because there is no proof the hypothesis (the 'might

> > be'

> > conjecture) is false is logical fallacy for which theists are FAMOUS

>

> The "there might be" conjecture is the basis for scientific advancement.

 

According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_

you and Virgil and friends are mistaken, arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that there

might be something because there is no proof the hypothesis (the 'might be'

conjecture) is false is logical fallacy for which theists are FAMOUS, as

Copi explains:

 

<quote>

FAMOUS in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in

criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the

mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.

Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect

sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against

Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the

moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities

are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,

which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove

false!

 

Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the

same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the

transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the

equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible

crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made

of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not

prove false.

</quote>

(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

 

[in this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might

be' imagining with no basis in fact.]

[Guest Your Logic Tutor]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

> An argumentum ad ignorantiam requires a claim of certainty

 

No, just an argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be something because

there is no proof the HYPOTHESIS (the 'might be' conjecture) is false, 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_)

 

Emphasis on HYPOTHESIS added for Virgil's benefit, since he can't seem to

see it in lower case.

 

In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might

be' imagining with no basis in fact.

[Guest Your Logic Tutor]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

 

> the churchmen, did not commit themselves on the issue.

 

If that were true, then what would the following passage mean?

 

" ... as theology had long taught ..."

 

Isn't theology that to which the churchmen commit themselves?

 

Anyway the issue is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be

something because there is no proof the hypothesis (the 'might be'

conjecture) is false:

 

<quote>

Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in

criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the

mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.

Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect

sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against

Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the

moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities

are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,

which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove

false!

 

Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the

same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the

transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the

equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible

crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made

of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not

prove false.

</quote>

(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

 

[in this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might

be' imagining with no basis in fact.]