Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 23, 2006 Posted September 23, 2006 "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message news:450d9ec1$0$24196$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Sr2dnahoo7HzDpDYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > "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. > > I doubt that's true and I KNOW that you're ignoring every other Logic > textbook put out in the last fifty years. Can you show ANY logic textbook that says it is okay to argue _ad ignorantiam_ as you want to do, to argue that there might be X because there is no proof the hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture) is false. Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 23, 2006 Posted September 23, 2006 "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message news:virgil-6765A3.11514119092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > 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. Scientist (Galileo) versus theolog. See the part where it says "Famous in the history of science"?? > 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. You mean hypothetically ('might be' conjecture) a perfect sphere, "as theology had long taught." You are ignoring the use of the term, 'hypothesis' (meaning 'might be' conjecture), and you are ignoring the part where it says, 'as theology had long taught'. Galileo is acting as a scientist in this case, questioning the theologs' argument _ad ignorantiam_, which is logical fallacy for which theologs are FAMOUS, as Copi explains. Get it now, son? <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 23, 2006 Posted September 23, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Rq-dnSy12_Q8x4jYnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:450d9ec1$0$24196$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> >> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Sr2dnahoo7HzDpDYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> > >> > "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. >> >> I doubt that's true and I KNOW that you're ignoring every other Logic >> textbook put out in the last fifty years. > > Can you show ANY logic textbook that says it is okay to argue _ad > ignorantiam_ as you want to do, to argue that there might be X because > there > is no proof the hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture) is false. 1. I reject the premise of your question. Your asserting that I'm employing an Argument from ignorance, when in fact I'm not making an argument at all. Your question therefore contains an unsupported assertion. 2. I have personal access to about a dozen texts on logic. Not ONE of them, including Copi, accepts a 'might be/might not be' case for the argumentum ad ignorantiam Each one of them defines the Argument from Ignorance at the argument that X MUST be false because it has not been proven to be true or X MUST be true because it has not been proven to be false. A summary of definitions from John Locke to the present day is provided in Walton's "Arguments from Ignorance" 1996. Again, no logician cited by Walton ever suggested that the argument was to be used in matters of 'might be' conjecture. > > > Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 23, 2006 Posted September 23, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:e-adnbNBcopJxYjYnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@comcast.com... > 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 1. The argument from ignorance is a fallacious form of logical argument. 2. In order to be an argument from ignorance, an actual argument is required. 3. Wood's comments above do not constitute a logical argument. 4. Therefore, there is no argumentum ad ignorantiam quoted above. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 23, 2006 Posted September 23, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:-4ednQmFEbEVwIjYnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@comcast.com... > You mean hypothetically ('might be' conjecture) a perfect sphere, "as > theology had long taught." Sorry, 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. 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. 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. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 23, 2006 Posted September 23, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:-4ednQmFEbEVwIjYnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@comcast.com... > You are ignoring the use of the term, 'hypothesis' (meaning 'might be' > conjecture), Which is NOT a part of the definition of The Argument from Ignorance. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 23, 2006 Posted September 23, 2006 In article <e-adnbNBcopJxYjYnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Emmanual Kann" <kann@keinspam.de> wrote in message > news:pan.2006.09.20.05.24.21.395112@keinspam.de... > > 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. > > Isn't it actually the case Whenever Septic asks this, he is only leading into another fallacy. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 23, 2006 Posted September 23, 2006 In article <e-adnbNBcopJxYjYnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Emmanual Kann" <kann@keinspam.de> wrote in message > news:pan.2006.09.20.05.24.21.395112@keinspam.de... > > 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. > > Isn't it actually the case That Septic is a liar and a cheat? Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 23, 2006 Posted September 23, 2006 In article <Rq-dnSy12_Q8x4jYnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:450d9ec1$0$24196$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > > > "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:Sr2dnahoo7HzDpDYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > > > "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. > > > > I doubt that's true and I KNOW that you're ignoring every other Logic > > textbook put out in the last fifty years. > > Can you show ANY logic textbook that says it is okay to > argue that there might be X because there is no proof the hypothesis > is false. Septic cannot show any logic text book which says otherwise, since logic text books do not bar legitimate arguments. On the other hand, almost all logic texts point out that it is improper to argue that there MUST be an X because there is no proof to the contrary. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 23, 2006 Posted September 23, 2006 In article <-4ednQmFEbEVwIjYnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:virgil-6765A3.11514119092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > > 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 those astronomers > > > > > > The term is 'exposed'. Does Septic claim that Galileo did NOT oppose the astronomer's claim? > > > > Whatever the term is, it was a theist versus theist argument. > > Scientist (Galileo) versus theolog. Theist(Galileo) versus theists(astronomers). Does Septic claim an argument against theism by a theist? The dispute was between relying on observation versus authority. See the part where it says "Famous in > the history of science"?? That means it was a dispute on how science works. > > > 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. > > You mean hypothetically The astronomers did not say "hypothetically", they said "IS IN FACT". > > You are ignoring the use of the term, 'hypothesis' Septic is being irrelevant again. When those astronomers said "is in fact", they were NOT saying "might be", they were saying "is in fact". > > > <quote> > the moon is in fact a perfect sphere > </quote> > (Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_) Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to the facts in evidence: > "Your 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 ... You definitely are, old son, otherwise Copi would never have used the term, 'hypothesis' [TWICE!!] in connection with his explanation of argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists are FAMOUS, as Copi clearly explains. 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.] Now why are you still trying to argue contrary to the facts in evidence, old son? Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:ZOWdnW5Cy9M5d4jYnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com... > You definitely are, old Old enough to recognize a liar and a conman, sonny. 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? Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 In article <ZOWdnW5Cy9M5d4jYnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Silly Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue > the facts in evidence: > > "Silly Septic" <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_ It is about supporting "it is a fact that" claims by arguing that the contrary has not been proved. > <quote> > Some scholars argued the moon is in fact a perfect sphere Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 In article <ZOWdnW5Cy9M5d4jYnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@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 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 ... > > You definitely are, old son Not about hypotheses in vacuo but about hypotheses(claims) of a certain type being supported by arguments of a certain type. For an argumentum ad ignorantiam to exist that claim is necessarily of form "it is a fact that" and that argument is necessarily of the form "because there is no contrary evidence". > <quote> ....the moon is in fact a perfect sphere... > </quote> > (Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_) Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message news:virgil-3836B8.00025118092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > 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? That is part of the HYPOTHESIS (the 'might be' conjecture), old son, and the argument _ad ignorantiam_ is in arguing that there is no proof the hypothesis (the conjecture) is false. Get it now? Look again for the term, 'hypothesis' ('might be' conjecture). You might see it this time. <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 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > "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 ..." > > > > if it had been the churchmen There's no doubt about it, that is why it says, " ... as theology had long taught ..." Theology => theologs. Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 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. Would Copi clearly explain that the argument, 'And this hypothesis Galileo could not prove false' is argument _ad ignorantiam_ if, as you insist, 'Argument from ignorance is not about hypotheses'? Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 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'? See where it says, 'Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, put forward the equally probable hypothesis...'? <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 Virgil Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 In article <9o2dnaJdafncP4vYnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:virgil-3836B8.00025118092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > > 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? > > That is part of the HYPOTHESIS Did the astronomers say that it is a hypothesis or did they say that it is a fact? If does not matter whether the claim is hypothetical or factual, what is important is that it is a claim of certainty supported by a claim that it has not been disproven. That makes the argument fallacious even if the original claim is true. The argument "The Gregorian calendar has a 12 month year because no one has proved otherwise" is an argumentum ad ignorantiam because of the "no one has proved otherwise", despite the truth of "The Gregorian calendar has a 12 month year." So Septic is WRONG! AGAIN! AS USUAL!!! Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 In article <z9idnS_FqroeP4vYnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@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 churchmen, did not commit themselves on the issue. > > > > > > If that were true, then what would the following passage mean? > > > > > > " ... as theology had long taught ..." > > > > > > > if it had been the churchmen > > There's no doubt about it Then why did Copi not specifically mention churchmen along with scientists? Because the churchmen were not parties to the dispute. And as far as the whole bruhaha, the only one deliberately to indulge in an argumentum ad ignorantiam was Galileo himself. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 In article <j5mdnQrzTIUTN4vYnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@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. > > Would Copi clearly explain that the argument, 'And this hypothesis Galileo > could not prove false' is argument _ad ignorantiam_ if, as you insist, > 'Argument from ignorance is not about hypotheses'? Unless the Astronomers specifically claimed their theory was true because it had not been proved false, which Copi does not say, they were not guilty of the particular fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam. On the Other hand Galileo's counter argument was a deliberate and conscious argumentum ad ignorantiam. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 In article <oY-dnYqw46aXMYvYnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@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. Oh that Septic would finally learn to read what is actually there and not what he merely wants to see. ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM occurs when any claim of fact, whether true, false, or of unknown verity, is justified by saying that it has not been proved false. And in the Copi example, the only one guilty of it was Galileo, at least according to Copi's account. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:j5mdnQrzTIUTN4vYnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses. > > Would Copi clearly explain Sure. 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? Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:oY-dnYqw46aXMYvYnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses. > > According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken. According to that textbook, you are mistaken. 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? Quote
Guest Goober Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 Sheikh Yapeter wrote: > > "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. The claim : "scores of academics and scientists think that there is a mind - body problem" is NOT a fallacy, it is a fact. I can give you numerous references to establish its truth, if you are at all interested. FYI, an argument from popularity occurs when one argues that P is true merely because P is believed to be true. You are confusing the claim (which is neither fallacious nor a fallacy): P: "scores of academics and scientists think that there is a mind - body problem" with the argument : Q: "P, therefore, there is a mind-body problem". In the case of Q, the issue of ad populum arguments might arise, but I am not addressing the fallaciousness or otherwise of argument Q, only the truth of P. So, whilst your claim that "large numbers of people believing P does not P true" is, in general, entirely correct (the exceptions concern certain subjectively or intersubjectively determined facts, such as those that arise from conventions), it is all beside the point that I am making. The point that I am making is this: Skeptic said of claim P that it was "fallacious" - he's dead wrong, it is a fact that scores of scientists and academics believe that there is a mind-body problem. Whether or not that fact can be used to argue that there is a mind-body problem is completely beside the point that I was making, which is that the claim P itself is true and Skeptic was mistaken to say it is fallacious. He's since implicitly conceded that the claim P is not 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
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.