Re: Definition of God

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.

September 21, 2006

Gandalf Grey wrote:

> "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.

Yeah, Septic. 60 bags full.

Jeff

September 21, 2006

In article <U8idnU8DHJbOQIzYnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@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:

>

> > The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.

>

> According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken.

According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ Septic is

mistaken.

An argumentum ad ignorantiam is about claims made and argued for

improper reasons.

September 21, 2006

In article <qKCdnQ_kk_QhQIzYnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@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:

>

> > The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.

>

> According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken.

On the matter of what constitutes an argumentum ad ignorantiam, Septic

is always the one mistaken.

Septic claims that the agnostic "X might to might not be true because it

has not been proven either way" is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

September 21, 2006

In article <X9GdnZER8efzQ4zYnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@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:

>

> > The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.

>

> According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken.

On the matter of what constitutes an argumentum ad ignorantiam, Septic

is always the one mistaken.

Septic claims that the agnostic "X might to might not be true because it

has not been proven either way" is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

September 21, 2006

In article <UJednWnkeK18Q4zYnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@comcast.com>,

"Liar, liar, pants on fire" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> 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.

On the matter of what constitutes an argumentum ad ignorantiam, Septic

is always the one mistaken.

Septic claims that the agnostic "X might to might not be true because it

has not been proven either way" is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

September 21, 2006

In article <DvidnVDr9sNBQozYnZ2dnUVZ_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:

>

> > The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.

>

> According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken.

On the matter of what constitutes an argumentum ad ignorantiam, Septic

is always the one mistaken.

Septic claims that the agnostic "X might to might not be true because it

has not been proven either way" is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

September 21, 2006

In article <SMGdnQH474z2fYzYnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@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:

>

> > The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.

>

> According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken.

On the matter of what constitutes an argumentum ad ignorantiam, Septic

is always the one mistaken.

Septic claims that the agnostic "X might to might not be true because it

has not been proven either way" is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

September 21, 2006

In article <i-qdnXbsLdVefYzYnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@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:

>

> > The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.

>

> According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken.

On the matter of what constitutes an argumentum ad ignorantiam, Septic

is always the one mistaken.

Septic claims that the agnostic "X might to might not be true because it

has not been proven either way" is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

September 21, 2006

In article <_sqdnUc2Q-4HfIzYnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@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:

>

> > The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.

>

> According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken.

It that were true, Septic would not have to post the identical false

argument 8 times in one day to establish it.

Nor post the same false argument hundred's of times over the years.

On the matter of what constitutes an argumentum ad ignorantiam, Septic

is always the one mistaken.

Septic claims that the agnostic "X might to might not be true because it

has not been proven either way" is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

September 21, 2006

Virgil wrote:

>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.

>

This must be a really obuse argument I cant tell who is for and who is

against.

josephus

September 21, 2006

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

news:eeqqed$7to$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca

> ... When your interlocutor claimed that scores of academics and scientists

> think that there is a mind - body problem, you said that that was

> "fallacious".

It IS logical fallacy.

Argument from Popularity:

P is believed by millions of people worldwide

It is a fallacy because millions or billions of people can all believe in

something that is wrong. Large numbers believing P does not make P true.

> 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?)

>>

September 21, 2006

"Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote

> By not challenging my claim

You are challenged, and everybody knows it. 8^)

Argument from popularity is logical fallacy.

Know what logical fallacy is?

Argument from Popularity:

P is believed by millions of people worldwide

It is a fallacy because millions or billions of people can all believe in

something that is wrong. Large numbers believing P does not make P true.

September 21, 2006

"Needs a Logic Tutor" <sy@comcast.com> wrote in message

news:O-KdnSYwo7lbhI7YnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@comcast.com...

>

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

>> By not challenging my claim

>

> You are challenged,

Hey, guess what, Septic. I've got a copy of Copi coming in the mail. I'm

betting he's got a definition of argumentum ad ignorantium in there and I

CAN'T WAIT to post it. Plus, it will make a nice addition to my logic

library.

It's exciting, isn't it?

September 22, 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.

> ... I've got a copy of Copi coming in the mail.

Good! It's about time you wake up and learn a few things about the

principles of valid argument. 8^)

> I'm

> betting he's got a definition of argumentum ad ignorantium in there

Well DUH, that's what I have been telling you about all this time, brother,

theist argument _ad ignorantiam_ (and you keeep trying to change the

subject).

Argument from ignorance, also known as _argumentum ad ignorantiam_ or as

Copi shows it in _Introduction to Logic_, "argument _ad ignorantiam_," is a

logical fallacy (a fallacy of relevance) in which one argues for some

hypothesis or another [some 'might be' conjecture] based on that hypothesis

not having been proven false. It is a form of trying to shift the burden of

proof.

It is logical fallacy for which theists have been FAMOUS since at least

Galileo's time, 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.]

September 22, 2006

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

news:DvqdnXDTOK3p4I7YnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com...

>> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.

>> ... I've got a copy of Copi coming in the mail.

>

> Good! It's about time you wake up and learn a few things about the

> principles of valid argument. 8^)

And, Guess What???? Copi says you're utterly wrong.

Copi [1953, 56] "Introduction to Logic"

"The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam is illustrated by the argument

that there must be ghosts because no one has ever been able to prove that

there aren't any. The argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed whenever it

is argued that a propostion is true simply on the basis that it has not been

proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true."

Several important points here that illustrate how off the beam your

viewpoint has been.

1. Note the use of the term "must" "...there MUST be ghosts because no one

has ever been able to prove that there aren't any." Copi is talking about

definitive conclusions of proof based on ignorance or lack of proof to the

contrary.

2. Note the use of the term "argued." "....The argumentum ad ignorantiam

is committed whenever it is ARGUED that a proposition is true simply on the

basis that it has not been proved false..."

Copi does not include the notion of "might be/might not be" in his

definition. And he wisely notes that the Argument from ignorance must be an

ARGUMENT. It is not a statement, it is not a question. It is an argument.

Since your entire spew is based on the idea of "maybe's and might be's" and

since you presume that even a question or a statement can be an Argument

from ignorance, you're clearly WRONG.

Now, don't you feel better?

September 22, 2006

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

the facts in evidence:

> Copi does not include the notion of might be ...

Are you blind? You are overlooking the term, 'hypothesis' ['might be'

conjecture] in the following example of the fallacy of arguing _ad

ignorantiam_ that there is no proof the hypothesis is false, logical fallacy

for which you 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.]

September 22, 2006

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

the facts in evidence:

> Copi [1953, 56] "Introduction to Logic"

1953??? Your library is in dire need of an update, old son. 8^)

http://tinylink.com/?Z4BURs8itE

September 22, 2006

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

the facts in evidence:

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

> >> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.

Liar. I did not write that, that is YOUR argument (which is contrary to the

facts in evidence), not mine. Please try to keep your attributions straight.

You seem to be purposefully trying to ignore the term, 'hypothesis' ['might

be' conjecture] in Copi's explanation of the fallacy of arguing from

ignorance that there is no proof the hypothesis 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.]

September 22, 2006

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

news:YMudnXl-d8PfZY7YnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@comcast.com...

> You seem to be purposefully trying to ignore the term, 'hypothesis'

> ['might

> be' conjecture] in Copi's explanation

Copi does not include a 'might be' conjecture in his definition of the

argumentum ad ingnorantiam .

>> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.

>> ... I've got a copy of Copi coming in the mail.

>

> Good! It's about time you wake up and learn a few things about the

> principles of valid argument. 8^)

And, Guess What???? Copi says you're utterly wrong.

Copi [1953, 56] "Introduction to Logic"

"The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam is illustrated by the argument

that there must be ghosts because no one has ever been able to prove that

there aren't any. The argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed whenever it

is argued that a propostion is true simply on the basis that it has not been

proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true."

Several important points here that illustrate how off the beam your

viewpoint has been.

1. Note the use of the term "must" "...there MUST be ghosts because no one

has ever been able to prove that there aren't any." Copi is talking about

definitive conclusions of proof based on ignorance or lack of proof to the

contrary.

2. Note the use of the term "argued." "....The argumentum ad ignorantiam

is committed whenever it is ARGUED that a proposition is true simply on the

basis that it has not been proved false..."

Copi does not include the notion of "might be/might not be" in his

definition. And he wisely notes that the Argument from ignorance must be an

ARGUMENT. It is not a statement, it is not a question. It is an argument.

Since your entire spew is based on the idea of "maybe's and might be's" and

since you presume that even a question or a statement can be an Argument

from ignorance, you're clearly WRONG.

Now, don't you feel better?

September 22, 2006

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

news:DvqdnXDTOK3p4I7YnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com...

>> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.

>> ... I've got a copy of Copi coming in the mail.

>

> Good! It's about time you wake up and learn a few things about the

> principles of valid argument. 8^)

And, Guess What???? Copi says you're utterly wrong.

Copi [1953, 56] "Introduction to Logic"

"The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam is illustrated by the argument

that there must be ghosts because no one has ever been able to prove that

there aren't any. The argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed whenever it

is argued that a propostion is true simply on the basis that it has not been

proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true."

Several important points here that illustrate how off the beam your

viewpoint has been.

1. Note the use of the term "must" "...there MUST be ghosts because no one

has ever been able to prove that there aren't any." Copi is talking about

definitive conclusions of proof based on ignorance or lack of proof to the

contrary.

2. Note the use of the term "argued." "....The argumentum ad ignorantiam

is committed whenever it is ARGUED that a proposition is true simply on the

basis that it has not been proved false..."

Copi does not include the notion of "might be/might not be" in his

definition. And he wisely notes that the Argument from ignorance must be an

ARGUMENT. It is not a statement, it is not a question. It is an argument.

Since your entire spew is based on the idea of "maybe's and might be's" and

since you presume that even a question or a statement can be an Argument

from ignorance, you're clearly WRONG.

Now, don't you feel better?

September 22, 2006

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

news:DvqdnXDTOK3p4I7YnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com...

>> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.

>> ... I've got a copy of Copi coming in the mail.

>

> Good! It's about time you wake up and learn a few things about the

> principles of valid argument. 8^)

And, Guess What???? Copi says you're utterly wrong.

Copi [1953, 56] "Introduction to Logic"

"The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam is illustrated by the argument

that there must be ghosts because no one has ever been able to prove that

there aren't any. The argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed whenever it

is argued that a propostion is true simply on the basis that it has not been

proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true."

Several important points here that illustrate how off the beam your

viewpoint has been.

1. Note the use of the term "must" "...there MUST be ghosts because no one

has ever been able to prove that there aren't any." Copi is talking about

definitive conclusions of proof based on ignorance or lack of proof to the

contrary.

2. Note the use of the term "argued." "....The argumentum ad ignorantiam

is committed whenever it is ARGUED that a proposition is true simply on the

basis that it has not been proved false..."

Copi does not include the notion of "might be/might not be" in his

definition. And he wisely notes that the Argument from ignorance must be an

ARGUMENT. It is not a statement, it is not a question. It is an argument.

Since your entire spew is based on the idea of "maybe's and might be's" and

since you presume that even a question or a statement can be an Argument

from ignorance, you're clearly WRONG.

Now, don't you feel better?

September 22, 2006

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

to