Guest Goober Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 Sheikh Yapeter wrote: > > "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. > > > You implicitly conceded that scores of scientists and academics think there is a mind-body problem. Goober Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message news:virgil-E188EE.11030624092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > 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 ... Then why did you snip the following? [unnsnip] 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 "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > > > "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 ['might be' conjecture] > > Did they say that it is a hypothesis? Well let's just look at it and see, shall we? Oh yes, there it is right there where it says, "And this hypothesis (this 'might be' conjecture) Galileo could not prove false!" And where it says, "To expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, Galileo put forward the equally probable hypothesis ..." Is it that you have a little reading comprehension problem, old 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.] Now why are you still trying to argue contrary to the facts in evidence, old son? Quote
Guest Goober Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 Your Logic Tutor wrote: > Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps on 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 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.] What 'hypothesis' means in this case is that P (i.e. the hypothesis) is the case. That the famous astronomers meant by 'hypothesis' "IS" and not "might be" is completely obvious from the fact that they are quoted by Copi as putting forward the hypothesis that: "the moon IS IN FACT a perfect sphere" [emphasis added] Notice, also, that Galileo's caricature of their argument is also expressed as a hypothesis about what IS the case, not as a hypothesis about what MIGHT BE the case: "[Galileo] put forward the equally probable hypothesis that THERE WERE, rearing up from the invisible crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks". Hence, the word 'hypothesis' is manifestly NOT to be interpreted as the claim that P (the hypothesis) might be the case. If the famous astronomers had meant only to claim that the Moon might be a perfect crystalline sphere, Copi would have quoted them as putting forward the hypothesis that: "the moon MIGHT BE a perfect sphere" But Copi didn't, because to do so would be to misrepresent them as hypothesising only that the Moon might be a perfect crystalline sphere. And the simple reason why their hypothesis was about what IS, not merely about what might be, is that what might be - mere possibilities - cannot explain anything actual. The famous astronomers were interested in explaining away the actual evidence whilst retaining their claim that the Moon IS (not "might be") a perfect sphere. But the possibility of the Moon's valleys being filled with a transparent crystalline substance could not explain why the Moon actually appears to have mountains and valleys and at the same time actually be a perfect sphere. Hence, they were forced to argue that the valleys on the Moon IS filled with a transparent crystalline substance. Only if the valleys of the Moon were actually filled with such a substance could they hope to explain Galileo's observations whilst maintaining that the Moon IS a perfect sphere. In this case, 'hypothesis' does not mean "might be" - it means "is". Goober. 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.] Now why do you keep trying to argue contrary to the facts in evidence, old son? Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 In article <HOudnd45E60qmYrYnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septicr" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:virgil-E188EE.11030624092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > > Then why did ... > > Then why did you snip You are hardly in a position to bitch about snipping, Septic, when you have so obviously gutted my statement. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 In article <3ZWdnWng6LymlYrYnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@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 > > > > "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 they say that it is a hypothesis? > > Well let's just look at it and see, shall we? Oh yes, there it is right > there where it says, "And this hypothesis Galileo could not prove false!" Who says it, the astronomers or Copi? If Copi, it doesn't count as any part of the astronomers statement. And who says that any argumentum ad ignorantiam must include any hypothesis? Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 In article <3ZWdnWjg6LyglYrYnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@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. Accordng to Copi and every other logic textbook an argumentum ad ignorantiam is about the way in which a claim is being supported. It is totally irrelevant whether the claim is true or false, it is only the nature of the argument used to support the claim that is relevant. If the supporting argument is by way of saying the claim must be true because there is no evidence against it, then the argument is an argumentum ad ignorantiam. 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 > > > > Then why did ... > > > > Then why did you snip > > You are hardly in a position I am in perfect position to restore that which you are trying to ignore: [unnsnip] There's no doubt about it, that is why it says, " ... as theology had long taught ..." Theology => theologs. Now don't just snip this again, face up to the fact that it proves you wrong. Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 24, 2006 Posted September 24, 2006 "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message news:virgil-59705F.17045724092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > In article <3ZWdnWng6LymlYrYnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@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 > > > > > "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 they say that it is a hypothesis? > > > > Well let's just look at it and see, shall we? Oh yes, there it is right > > there where it says, "And this hypothesis Galileo could not prove false!" > > Who says it, the astronomers? Of course. do you have a little reading comprehension problem? It is those theologs. It is they who have provided the excellent example of arguing _ad ignorantiam_ for their hypothesis (their 'might be' conjecture) based on there not being any proof it 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.] Quote
Guest 'foolsrushin.' Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 In general (gwin) takes the form, p is unproved ergo not-p is true or not-p is unproved ergot (sic) p is true. Very helpful to theologians Try, 'The Sun will rise tomorrow'. -- 'foolsrushin.' Virgil wrote: > 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 MagicRub Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:ef6t0p$ca2$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... > 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 : You mean 'argument'. > "scores of academics and scientists think that there is a mind - body > problem" is NOT a fallacy, it is a fact. The fact is that argument is logical fallacy, as you have been informed. 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. Quote
Guest MagicRub Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote > Sheikh Yapeter wrote: >> >> "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. >> > > You implicitly conceded Nothing was conceded except that your argument that P is believed by scores of people worldwide is logical fallacy. Read it again: 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. Quote
Guest MagicRub Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:ef718d$dkq$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... > Your Logic Tutor wrote: >> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps on 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 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.] > > What 'hypothesis' means in this case is that P (i.e. the hypothesis) is > the case. Now you are just trying to get away with equivocation on the term, 'hypothesis' which clearly means 'might be' conjecture. See http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus Look for synonyms of 'conjecture'. You will find that 'hypothesis' is included in the list. It is not known to actually be the case that God filled all the valleys of the moon with an invisible crystaline substance, making of it a perfect sphere, that is just theist conjecture, the hypothesis, 'might be' speculation with no basis in fact. And the argument _ad ignorantiam_ is, 'And this hypothesis [this 'might be' conjecture] Galileo could not prove false!' Get tit now? Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 In article <CdSdnb4-jthXiYrYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@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 > > > > > > Then why did ... > > > > > > Then why did you snip > > > > You are hardly in a position [unsnip]to complain about others > > snipping when you have so obviously snipped so much. > > I am in perfect position to restore that which you are trying to ignore As I am trying to ignore only Septic's lies, that would makes Septic more of a liar. But I have saved him from that evil by resnipping those lies. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 In article <CdSdnbk-jthRiYrYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:virgil-59705F.17045724092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > > > Well let's just look at it and see, shall we? Oh yes, there it is right > > > there where it says, "And this hypothesis Galileo could not prove > false!" > > > > Who says it, the astronomers? > > Of course. Except that Copi never says so, and Septic wasn't there. In fact, historical accounts credit the Astronomers only with arguing from authority, that of Aristoteles as supported by the church, which is an entirely different problem. > > <quote>... the moon is in fact a perfect sphere... </quote> > (Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_) Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 In article <koKdnQVVhdZ1tIrYnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "MagicRub" <mr@nospam.net> wrote: > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:ef6t0p$ca2$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... > > 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 : > > You mean 'argument'. He means what he says. Besides which, the statement that many people believe that there is a mind body problem is entirely separate from whether their belief is true. Arguing otherwise, as Septic does, would require denying that theists exist because there is no proof that gods exist. And that is such a compounding of fallacies that no single name will cover them all. > > > "scores of academics and scientists think that there is a mind - body > > problem" is NOT a fallacy, it is a fact. > > The fact is that argument is logical fallacy, as you have been informed. Does Septic claim that there are fewer than scores of academics and scientists who think that there is a mind - body problem? A Google search for "the mind body problem" came up with over a quarter million hits, so somebody thinks there is one, even if Septic is to dim to grasp it. > Argument from Popularity: > > P is believed by millions of people worldwide Which, if true, is evidence that millions of people worldwide believe P. > > 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. But it does make large numbers believing it true. Which is the issue. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 In article <XOmdnUU6B7Ikt4rYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "MagicRub" <mr@nospam.net> wrote: > > You implicitly conceded > > Nothing was conceded except that your argument that P is believed by scores > of people worldwide is logical fallacy. Read it again: > > 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. Septic has this peculiar notion that when HE presents a fallacy, it must have been someone else's argument, when actually Septic is its only author. What Septic seems unable to grasp is that when lots of people believe in something and publicly say so, that is quite valid as evidence that lots of people believe that thing and publicy say so. Google "the mind body problem", Septic, and find out how wrong you are/ Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 In article <2qSdnRdSXtAisIrYnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septic" <mr@nospam.net> wrote: > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:ef718d$dkq$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... > > Septic wrote: > >> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps on trying to argue > >> the facts in evidence: > >> > >>> Copi does not include the notion of might be ... > >> > >> Are you blind? A good deal less so than Septic, at all events. But in addition to Septic's notorious inability to see those things which are there, Septic has a considerable edge over everyone else in being able to see those things which are not there. Quote
Guest MagicRub Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > The argument that many people > believe that there is a mind body problem is ... .... is logical fallacy, as you have been informed. 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 question is not are there people who believe there is a mind - body problem, the question is isn't it the case that there is no mind - body problem any more than there is a digestion - stomach problem, that is just argument from ignorance from your side? Quote
Guest MagicRub Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message news:virgil-65AEB1.23261224092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > In article <CdSdnbk-jthRiYrYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com>, > "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:virgil-59705F.17045724092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > >> > > Well let's just look at it and see, shall we? Oh yes, there it is >> > > right >> > > there where it says, "And this hypothesis Galileo could not prove >> false!" >> > >> > Who says it, the astronomers? >> >> Of course. > > Except that Copi never says so Yes he does, moron, right here: <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 MagicRub Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > ... arguing from authority ... No, moron, this is about the theist argument _ad ignorantiam_ that God might have filled all the valleys of the moon with an invisible crystalline substance, making of it a perfect sphere as theology had long taught, and this hypothesis (this 'might be' theist conjecture) Galileo could not prove 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.] Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 In article <g9ednXHhHcNThYXYnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com>, "MagicRub" <mr@nospam.net> wrote: > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > > > The argument that many people > > believe that there is a mind body problem is ... > > ... is logical fallacy, as you have been informed. Being "informed" by Septic leads any sensible person to assume the opposite. Now there is a logical fallacy related to that statement, but it is of Septic's creation, and no one else is claiming it valid. > > Argument from Popularity: If one argues that X is the case because X is the case, wherein lies any fallacy? "If X then X" is always true. > > P is believed by millions of people worldwide > > It is a fallacy The question is whether it is a true statement. Note that Septic avoids that question, as any answer to that question he could make would reveal the falseness of his arguments. > > The question is not are there people who believe there is a mind - body > problem That is the very question that Septic keeps avoiding. Because he is afraid of the answer. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 In article <yuedncXqQ7iPtoXYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "MagicRub" <mr@nospam.net> wrote: > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:virgil-65AEB1.23261224092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > > In article <CdSdnbk-jthRiYrYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com>, > > "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > > > >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message > >> news:virgil-59705F.17045724092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > > > >> > > Well let's just look at it and see, shall we? Oh yes, there it is > >> > > right > >> > > there where it says, "And this hypothesis Galileo could not prove > >> false!" > >> > > >> > Who says it, the astronomers? > >> > >> Of course. > > > > Except that Copi never says so > > moron it is imbecilic to argue as hominem as Septic alewys does. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 25, 2006 Posted September 25, 2006 In article <99CdnQEuetsVtoXYnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "MagicRub" <mr@nospam.net> wrote: > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > > > ... arguing from authority ... > > as Copi explains: So Septic is arguing from authority (Copi) again. 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.