Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:12h0mg43f0jh83e@corp.supernews.com... > 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. >> 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
Guest Virgil Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 In article <HdOdnTySZLVxA5LYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "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]. Versus the conjecture of theist Galileo that the moon is not a perfect sphere because telescopes show us irregularities. This is a theist versus theist arguement, so the theism is irrelevant. The conflict is between whether a pagan authority, Aristoteles, or current observation by galileo and others through the telescope determines truth. Septic is so hung up on theism that he sees it in everything, even where it is not. 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 <HdOdnT-SZLVzA5LYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "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 Septic reads what isn't there again. Septic is the only one who is claiming that consciousness might dwell outside the brain because there is no proof the hypothesis is false. Everyone else is merely wondering if a naked brain is enough by its naked self to maintain consciousness. Since for most of its operations the brain needs at least some parts of its usual environment of a body, might not the maintaining of consciousness require something too? Septic seems to think that a brain in vacuum can continue to maintain consciousness, but that seems doubtful. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 In article <YuqdnUCcnqxNApLYnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > 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? For one thing there is Septic's repeated claims that the brain absolutely without any support at all can maintain consciousness. But no one has ever shown that a brain outside of its body can be conscious. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 In article <UtKdnSFc2qApO5LYnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "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? But Septic is saying that the body doesn't need to be all tied together, that the brain can function in isolation from its body.. > > 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 <oMKdnXKmMroD3I3YnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "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? Without minds there can be no such agreement, without digestion there could be. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 19, 2006 Posted September 19, 2006 In article <mY6dnagVgtsh243YnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@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: > > > 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. Septic claims Septic does not think there is a mind-body problem, which only goes to show how little mind he has. Quote
Guest Emmanual Kann Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 An Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:02:51 -0600, Virgil hat geschreibt: > In article <Sr2dnahoo7HzDpDYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote >> >> >> > But there has to be a declaration of certainty in order to have an >> > argumentum ad ignorantiam. >> >> Not according to Copi's explanation. > > Then how does Septic declare that "THE MOON IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE" > is somehow a declaration of uncertainty? He's not. He's claiming that the hypothesis offered to prove the assertion is an argument from ignorance as is Galelleo's counter hypothesis. Both arguments are ad ignorantiam. I suppose this makes there be a crystalline substance - moon problem. Quote
Guest Goober Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Your Logic Tutor wrote: > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:eekatb$1f9$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... >> Your Logic Tutor wrote: >>> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote >>>> Your Logic Tutor wrote: >>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote >>>>>> "Your 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 didn't get the memo on that revision to the principles of logic. > > 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 > By not challenging my claim that you are mistaken when you say that "Well, scores of academics and scientists disagree" is "fallacious", you implicitly concede my claim that you spoke falsely. You implicitly concede that your interlocutor is entirely correct to suggest that scores of academics and scientists think there is a mind-body problem. Goober. Quote
Guest Goober Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Your Logic Tutor wrote: > 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. The point I challenged you on concerns whether scores of academics and scientists think there is a mind-body problem. When your interlocutor claimed that scores of academics and scientists think that there is such a problem, you said that that was "fallacious". I offered you evidence to prove the interlocutor's claim, but you ignored that offer. Hence, you've implicitly conceded that you were wrong to say that the interlocutor's claim was fallacious. Goober. 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 Your Logic Tutor Posted September 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 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 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 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 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 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 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 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 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 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 Gandalf Grey Posted September 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:U8idnU8DHJbOQIzYnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses. > > According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken. Provide Copi's definition. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:qKCdnQ_kk_QhQIzYnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@comcast.com... >> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses. > > According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken. Provide Copi's explicit definition of the fallacy. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:X9GdnZER8efzQ4zYnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses. > > According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken. Not unless you can come up with Copi's explicit definition. Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 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 Gandalf Grey Posted September 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:UJednWnkeK18Q4zYnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@comcast.com... >> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses. > > According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken. Spamming won't help you, Septic. Provide Copi's specific definition of the term or take a hike. Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 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 Gandalf Grey Posted September 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:DvidnVDr9sNBQozYnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses. > > According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken. According to Usenet guidelines, you're spamming. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:UJednWnkeK18Q4zYnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@comcast.com... >> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses. > > According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken. Spamming won't help you, Septic. Provide Copi's specific definition of the term or take a hike. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:UJednWnkeK18Q4zYnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@comcast.com... >> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses. > > According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken. Spamming won't help you, Septic. Provide Copi's specific definition of the term or take a hike. Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 21, 2006 Posted September 21, 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
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.