Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to the facts in evidence: > The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses. According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken. See the term, 'hypothesis' in the following explanation of famous theist argument _ad ingorantiam_? See where it says, "And this hypothesis [this 'might be' conjecture] Galileo could not prove false!" <quote> Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false! Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not prove false. </quote> (Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_) [in this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might be' imagining with no basis in fact.] Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > They said "THE MOON IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE AS THEOLOGY HAS LONG TAUGHT". That's part of the hypothesis [the 'might be' theist conjecture]. You are still trying to ignore the term, 'hypothesis' here. The hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture) is that there might be a God who might have filled all the valleys of the moon with an invisible crystalline substance, and the argument _ad ignorantiam_ is "And this hypothesis [this 'might be' conjecture], which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!" See below: <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.] Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > "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 > > because there is no proof the hypothesis > > [the 'might be' conjecture] is false. > > False! You are mistaken, Wood argues _ad ignorantiam_ that consciousness might dwell [live, exist] outside the brain because there is no proof the hypothesis [the 'might be' conjecture] is false. How else can you parse his argument? Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> wrote > "Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote > > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message > > news:eekatb$1f9$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... > >> Needs a Logic Tutor wrote: > >> > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote > >> >> Needs a Logic Tutor wrote: > >> >>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote > >> >>>> "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote > >> >>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> <snip argument _ad hominem_ by "Gandalf Grey"> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Isn't it actually the case that there really is no such thing as a > >> >>> "mind - > >> >>>>> body problem," > >> > >> >>>> Well, scores of academics and scientists disagree > >> > >> [separated for emphasis] > >> > >> >>> So you argue (fallaciously). > >> > >> [separated for emphasis] > >> > >> Isn't it actually the case that there > >> > really is > >> >>> no such thing as a mind - body problem any more than there is a > >> > digestion - > >> >>> gut problem, that is just argument from ignorance from your side? > >> >>> > >> >>> Here is now Wood phrases the not-too-cleverly-disguised argument _ad > >> >>> ignorantiam_: > >> >>> > >> >>> "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for > >> >>> certain." -- Dan Wood > >> >> Would you like references to some scientists and academics who think > >> >> there is such a thing as a mind-body problem? > >> > > >> > So what if lots and lots of people believe there might be a mind - body > >> > problem, > >> > >> Such reference show you to be categorically mistaken when you say (see > >> above) that "Well, scores of academics and scientists disagree" is > >> "fallacious". > > > > Argument from popularity and argument from authority is no longer logical > > fallacy? > > I see you don't understand the fallacy of appeal to authority and the > Argument from popularity anymore than you understand the argument from > ignorance. The fallacy of Appeal to Authority is caused by assuming that > authority alone is proof. In the case of the argument from popularity, > the fallacy occurs when we argue that popularity alone creates truth. So do you have any support for your hypothesis ('might be' conjecture) that there might really be a mind - body problem OTHER THAN your appeal to authority and your argument from popularity? 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 Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message news:virgil-B5BB91.23263917092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > In article <m-adnV7w8r43fJHYnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@comcast.com>, > "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > > > > > > > > > > > How long will any brain be able to maintain consciousness without such > > > > > things as the blood supply to keep the brain oxygenated and energized, > > > > > etc.? > > > > > > > > Wouldn't be a brain without that, would it, moron? > > > > > > Sure it would. Unless Septic is implying that there is something more > > > to a brain than its physical presence. > > > > What are you saying, that blood and oxygen are not physical? > > I am saying that blood and oxygen and the various other parts of a body, > other than the brain itself, are not a parts of the brain itself. It's all tied together. How do you think you get your fingers to wiggle to produce your drivel? Any notion you could still do that if you lost your head? Any notion any animal could still present with signs of of being conscious for very long after losing it's head? Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 In article <bKadnZSsvuSEH5LYnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for > certain." -- Dan Wood > > Are you and Goober saying there is documentation that some scientists > somewhere have produced solid evidence of consciousness outside the brain Septic equates a mere suggestion that a naked brain may not be sufficient to a definite claim that a brain is not neccessary. This form of lie is typical of Septic's inveterate dishonesty. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 In article <4_-dnVF2WrYsE5LYnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > > "Septic" <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'. Whatever the term is, it was a theist versus theist argument. The only ones who might have been "more" theist, the churchmen, did not get themselves involved in the issue of whether the moon was or was not IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 In article <4_-dnVN2WrYuE5LYnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > > > > > > > > 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 I understand that Copi cites the astronomers as saying "THE MOON IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE" against theist Galileo's objection. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 In article <4_-dnVB2WrYuE5LYnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@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: > > > It might help if you had more than one source > > Is there anything wrong with what Copi says? There is a good deal wrong with what Septic tries to read between the lines of what Copi says. Septic sides with the Christain theist Galileo against those astronomers who were following Aristotles cosmographics. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:YuqdnUCcnqxNApLYnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Isn't it actually the case that there really is no such thing as > a >> >> >>> "mind - >> >> >>>>> body problem," >> >> >> >> >>>> Well, scores of academics and scientists disagree >> >> >> >> [separated for emphasis] >> >> >> >> >>> So you argue (fallaciously). >> >> >> >> [separated for emphasis] >> >> >> >> Isn't it actually the case that there >> >> > really is >> >> >>> no such thing as a mind - body problem any more than there is a >> >> > digestion - >> >> >>> gut problem, that is just argument from ignorance from your side? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Here is now Wood phrases the not-too-cleverly-disguised argument > _ad >> >> >>> ignorantiam_: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows > for >> >> >>> certain." -- Dan Wood >> >> >> Would you like references to some scientists and academics who >> >> >> think >> >> >> there is such a thing as a mind-body problem? >> >> > >> >> > So what if lots and lots of people believe there might be a mind - > body >> >> > problem, >> >> >> >> Such reference show you to be categorically mistaken when you say (see >> >> above) that "Well, scores of academics and scientists disagree" is >> >> "fallacious". >> > >> > Argument from popularity and argument from authority is no longer > logical >> > fallacy? >> >> I see you don't understand the fallacy of appeal to authority and the >> Argument from popularity anymore than you understand the argument from >> ignorance. The fallacy of Appeal to Authority is caused by assuming that >> authority alone is proof. In the case of the argument from popularity, >> the fallacy occurs when we argue that popularity alone creates truth. > > So do you have any support....... BZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTT!!!!! Do you have any support for your claim that no one thinks there's a mind/body problem? Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:d-SdnU2zMY8qCpLYnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses. > > According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken. That's not true. You've presented an anecdote out of context. Not a definition. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:5eWdnYwaHojeCZLYnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > >> An argumentum ad ignorantiam requires a claim of certainty > > No, just an argument _ad ignorantiam_ See, this is why no one takes you seriously. What you're now saying is that an argumentum ad ingorantiam just requires an argumentum ad ignorantiam which is both obvious and redundant. You're saying nothing as usual. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:4_-dnVB2WrYuE5LYnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@comcast.com... > Is there anything wrong with what Copi says? Yes! It's not a definition. It's vague enough for you to ooze it into saying whatever you happen to want to say at the moment. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 In article <54WdnWVHuqDpD5LYnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Sewptic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message > news:12grckqnpplp41@news.supernews.com... > > > > "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:T_adnXanluQEQ5HYnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > > >> ... to say that something might be > > >> unless there is existing proof to the contrary. That's not a fallacy. > > > > > > I don't buy that. The list of things that Septic won't buy, unless they should happen to support his prejudices, includes all the forms of valid argument known to mankind. The list of things that Septic does buy, when they can be twisted to support his prejudices, includes every fallacy know to mankind. That is Septic in a nutshell. And in a nutshell is where Septic fits best. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 In article <5eWdnYwaHojeCZLYnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > > "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 ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM requires that the claim be a "must be". if one only says "might be" that includes " might not be" automatically. So Septic is claiming that it is a fallacy to say that something might or might not be the case when there is no proof in one or the other direction. Silly of his isn't it. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 In article <-7WdndTlPfIeCpLYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "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? if it had been the churchmen, instead of the astronomers who had confronted Galileo on that issue, Copi was really stupid for not saying so. wasn't he. And history has been remarkably silent on the issue. The truth is that the churchmen were quite aware that the astronomers were committing a fallacy against Christian Galileo, and wanted no part of it. > > 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: WRONG! The issue is whether a claim of "must be" claim and a suggestion of "might be" are logically equivalent, and the answer is NO! Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 In article <d-SdnU2zMY8qCpLYnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> wrote: > > > The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses. > > According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken. According to that text, Septic is wrong, and has been wrong for years. According to that text, argumentum ad ignorantiam is about claiming certainty based on absence of contradictory evidence. Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > If no one agrees on how the mind is related to the body We all agree on how digestion is related to the body. Why should what you are calling 'mind' be any different? Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:oMKdnXKmMroD3I3YnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > >> If no one agrees on how the mind is related to the body > > We all agree on how digestion is related to the body. Why should what you > are calling 'mind' be any different? Maybe because mind isn't digestion. > > > Quote
Guest John Jones Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 Cary Kittrell wrote: > Lizz Holmans <dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> > > > > On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:07:21 +0000 (UTC), cary@afone.as.arizona.edu > > (Cary Kittrell) wrote: > > > > > > > >Did Al say anything about the gain of a religion? Less than > > >a century after making Christianity its official religion, > > >Rome fell -- repeatedly -- to the barbarians. > > > > Except the Empire didn't fall when Rome did. The capital was moved to > > Ravenna, which was taken by the Arian Christian Ostrogoths. > > You're a nurse: isn't that some kind of bone cell? > > > And they > > weren't barbarians; they left some beautiful architecture that is > > still standing. Theodoric was no barbarian. > > > > And the Eastern Empire didn't fall till centuries later. And, again, > > it fell to the Roman Catholic Venetians. > > > > The Roman Empire fell apart because it was trying to occupy too much > > space with too few soldiers. Oh, and the economy. To imply that > > Christianity had anything to do with it is simply not true. Just cos > > something happens at about the same time (although a century is a > > pretty long time in human terms) doesn't mean it caused the original > > problem. > > Oh, I know, I know. Nothing is ever remotely that simple -- nor do > I even think that the official adoption of Christianity had much, if > anything, to do with subsequent events. > > What you saw is a knee-jerk reaction has arisen from years of > reading posts along the line of "FAGS WILL CAUSE GOD TO DESTROY > AMERICA JUST LIKE HE DID ROME". > > Which, of course, Whosis didn't actually say. But it was fun > anyhow. > > Interesting history lesson, by the way. Thank you. > > > -- cary Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to the facts in evidence: > Do you have any support for your claim that no one thinks there's a > mind/body problem? You are lying, Richard, I have NEVER claimed that nobody THINKS there is a mind - body problem, and you know it. Obviously YOU and Wood and others believe there is a mind - body problem in that there might be consciousness dwelling (living, existing)outside the body. But does your belief prove anything? I don't agree that it does. So I am not making any claims, all I am doing is asking you a fair question: 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 (And why do you keep trying to change the subject, Richard? Is it that you do not have the courage of your convictions?) Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:mY6dnagVgtsh243YnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> Do you have any support for your claim that no one thinks there's a >> mind/body problem? > > I have NEVER claimed that nobody THINKS there is a > mind - body problem Then what's your problem, little man...beyond a penchant for using double negatives....? Quote
Guest wcb Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 Gandalf Grey wrote: > > "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. What would you know about logic? GANDY's STUPIDEST STUPIDITIES WBARWELL Something cannot come from nothing. Therefore something must have always existed far back into infinity. There was never a time when nothing did not exist. Parmenides nailed this one. Something always existed. GANDY Another unsupported assertion WBARWELL Really, you are NOT going to actually think, are you? Something always existed, as Parmenides pointed out, there must have been. Why? Well if you cannot figure it out, your ability to reason is impaired. I can't help you here. GANDY Prove it, Poser. -- You are a fluke of the Universe You have no right to be here, and whether you can hear it or not, the Universe is laughing behind your back. Cheerful Charlie Quote
Guest wcb Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 Gandalf Grey wrote: > > "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. > September 11 - Gandy Grey: > As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's > philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science. What about your bad arguments you can't prove? What do you know about arguments? -- You are a fluke of the Universe You have no right to be here, and whether you can hear it or not, the Universe is laughing behind your back. Cheerful Charlie Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:12h0mb7jsl525b5@corp.supernews.com... > Gandalf Grey wrote: > >> >> "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. > > What would you know about logic? I know that you're stupid enough to think that an appeal to logic is a fallacy. LOL!!!! > > > BARNEY's STUPIDEST STUPIDITIES > Barwell actually asserts that appeal to logic is a logical fallacy. >>> WBARWELL >>> >>> Something cannot come from nothing. >>> Therefore something must have always existed >>> far back into infinity. There was never a >>> time when nothing did not exist. >>> >>> Parmenides nailed this one. >>> >>> Something always existed. >>> >>> GANDY >>> Another unsupported assertion >> > > Appeal to logic Cite where an appeal to logic is a fallacy in a logical argument. Do it right here, right now----------> Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.