Guest Goober Posted September 26, 2006 Posted September 26, 2006 MagicRub wrote: > "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. In this case it clearly means "is" not "might be", for all the reasons I cited and which you snipped without acknowledgement. [unsnip conclusive reasons why, in this case, "hypothesis" clearly means "is", not "might be"] 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. > > 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 Goober Posted September 26, 2006 Posted September 26, 2006 MagicRub wrote: > "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 It sure sure was. Goober. 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 Goober Posted September 26, 2006 Posted September 26, 2006 MagicRub 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'. Wrong. > >> "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, Wrong. The quote is neither an argument nor, therefore, a fallacy. as you have been informed. > > Argument from Popularity: > > P is believed by millions of people worldwide Wrong again. That's not even an argument, let alone one from popularity. > > It is a fallacy because millions or billions of people can all believe > in something that is wrong. Your above sentence is wrong, yet again. Large numbers believing P does not make P true. At last, you repeat something that is (generally) true. But one out of five is hardly very impressive. Goober. > > Quote
Guest Goober Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 MagicRub 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. You have deliberately and misleadingly deleted your interlocuter's word "statement" and replaced it with the word "argument" in the above. Your interlocuter never said any such thing, as you well know. Your transparently mendacious attempt to misrepresent your opponent is dishonesty exemplified and you are dishonesty personified. Goober. > > 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 Your Logic Tutor Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:efcjcc$b9u$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... > MagicRub 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. > > You have deliberately and misleadingly deleted your interlocuter's word > "statement" and replaced it with the word "argument" in the above. Your > interlocuter never said any such thing, as you well know. Your > transparently mendacious attempt to misrepresent your opponent is > dishonesty exemplified and you are dishonesty personified. > > Goober. Look, Goober, here is the deal: Argument _ad hominem_ like that will not help you establish that there is a mind - body problem any more than your argument from popularity will, that's all logical fallacy, as you should know by now. The question remains, so what if lots and lots of people believe there might be a mind - body problem, does that prove that there is, or is that just a fallacious appeal to popularity? Lots of people think there might be a god, too; does that prove that there is? Isn't it actually the case that there really is no such thing as a mind - body problem any more than there is a digestion - gut problem, that is just argument from ignorance from your side? Here is how Wood phrases the not-too-cleverly-disguised argument _ad ignorantiam_: "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for certain." -- Dan Wood Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote > MagicRub wrote: > > Argument from Popularity: > > > > P is believed by millions of people worldwide > > That's not even an argument ... Yes it is, son, it is the logical fallacy of argument from popularity. 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 Your Logic Tutor Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:efai4l$kf3$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... > MagicRub wrote: > > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message > > news:ef718d$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. > > In this case it clearly means "is" not "might be" 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 Your Logic Tutor Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:efaill$kl1$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... > MagicRub wrote: > > "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 > > It sure sure was. Don't act so childish, Goober. 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. > 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 Your Logic Tutor Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > > > > > If no one agrees on how the mind is related to the body > > > > We all agree on how digestion is related to the body. Why should what you > > are calling 'mind' be any different? > > Without minds there can be no such agreement, without digestion there > could be. What? Humans could live long enough to learn a language and participate in coming to an agreement without digesting their food? How you gonna arrange that, son, short of setting everybody up on an IV drip?? Aren't you just trying to evade the issue? Isn't it actually the case that there is no such thing as a mind - body problem any more than there is a digestion - gut problem, that is just argument from ignorance and argument from popularity promulgated by your side? Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 In article <9YKdnZScIo66eYTYnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:efcjcc$b9u$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... > > MagicRub wrote: > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > > > > > >> The argument that many people > > >> believe that there is a mind body problem is ... > > > > > > ... is logical fallacy, as you have been informed. > > > > You have deliberately and misleadingly deleted your interlocuter's word > > "statement" and replaced it with the word "argument" in the above. Your > > interlocuter never said any such thing, as you well know. Your > > transparently mendacious attempt to misrepresent your opponent is > > dishonesty exemplified and you are dishonesty personified. > > > > Goober. > > Look, Goober, here is the deal: Argument _ad hominem_ like that What Goober is saying is that Septic has be caught in another lie, that Septic is dishonest and without honor. That does not constitute anything but the truth about a liar. > > The question remains, so what if lots and lots of people believe there might > be a mind - body problem, does that prove It proves that there are a lot of people who think there is such a problem. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 In article <fL6dnaX_6aDOe4TYnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote > > MagicRub wrote: > > > > Argument from Popularity: > > > > > > P is believed by millions of people worldwide > > > > That's not even an argument ... > > Yes it is So what else, besides what it says, does Septic argue that "P is believed by millions of people worldwide" argues? Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 In article <q8CdnQLA9qvxeoTYnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:efai4l$kf3$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... > > Septic wrote: > > > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message > > > news:ef718d$dkq$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... > > >> Septic wrote: > > >>> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps on trying to argue > > >>> contrary > > >>> to > > >>> the facts in evidence: > > >>> > > >>>> Copi does not include the notion of might be ... > > >>> Are you blind? Not so blind as Septic makes himself with his blinding prejudices against truth. > > > Now you are just trying to get away with equivocation on the term, > > > 'hypothesis' which clearly means 'might be' conjecture. > > > > In this case it clearly means "is" not "might be" > > You are just trying to get away with equivocation on the term, > 'hypothesis' which clearly means 'might be' conjecture. It is Septic who is equivocating "is in fact" with "might be as far as we know". > It is not known to actually be the case that God filled all the valleys of > the moon with an invisible crystaline substance, making of it a perfect > sphere It was "known to be the case" by those astronomers. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:q8CdnQLA9qvxeoTYnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:efai4l$kf3$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... >> MagicRub wrote: >> > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message >> > news:ef718d$dkq$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... >> >> Your Logic Tutor wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Copi does not include the notion of might be ... >> >>> Are you blind? No. But Copi says you are, son. Copi [1953, 56] "Introduction to Logic" "The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam is illustrated by the argument that there must be ghosts because no one has ever been able to prove that there aren't any. The argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed whenever it is argued that a propostion is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true." Several important points here that illustrate how off the beam your viewpoint has been. 1. Note the use of the term "must" "...there MUST be ghosts because no one has ever been able to prove that there aren't any." Copi is talking about definitive conclusions of proof based on ignorance or lack of proof to the contrary. 2. Note the use of the term "argued." "....The argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed whenever it is ARGUED that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false..." Copi does not include the notion of "might be/might not be" in his definition. And he wisely notes that the Argument from ignorance must be an ARGUMENT. It is not a statement, it is not a question. It is an argument. Since your entire spew is based on the idea of "maybe's and might be's" and since you presume that even a question or a statement can be an Argument from ignorance, you're clearly WRONG. Now, don't you feel better? Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:9YKdnZScIo66eYTYnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:efcjcc$b9u$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... >> MagicRub 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. >> >> You have deliberately and misleadingly deleted your interlocuter's word >> "statement" and replaced it with the word "argument" in the above. Your >> interlocuter never said any such thing, as you well know. Your >> transparently mendacious attempt to misrepresent your opponent is >> dishonesty exemplified and you are dishonesty personified. >> >> Goober. > > Look, Goober, here is the deal: Argument _ad hominem_ like that He made no Argument from ignorance. But then, you apparently don't know what the argument from ignorance is, as Copi explains. 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 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 In article <q8CdnQLA9qvxeoTYnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:efai4l$kf3$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... > > Septic wrote: > > > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message > > > news:ef718d$dkq$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... > > >> Septic wrote: > > >>> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps on trying to argue > > >>> contrary > > >>> to > > >>> the facts in evidence: > > >>> > > >>>> Copi does not include the notion of might be ... > > >>> Are you blind? Not so blind as Septic makes himself with his blinding prejudices against truth. > > > Now you are just trying to get away with equivocation on the term, > > > 'hypothesis' which clearly means 'might be' conjecture. > > > > In this case it clearly means "is" not "might be" > > You are just trying to get away with equivocation on the term, > 'hypothesis' which clearly means 'might be' conjecture. It is Septic who is equivocating "is in fact" with "might be as far as we know". > It is not known to actually be the case that God filled all the valleys of > the moon with an invisible crystaline substance, making of it a perfect > sphere It was "known to be the case" by those astronomers. Quote
Guest Goober Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 Your Logic Tutor wrote: > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:efai4l$kf3$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... >> MagicRub wrote: >>> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message >>> news:ef718d$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. >> In this case it clearly means "is" not "might be" > > You are just trying to get away with equivocation on the term, > 'hypothesis' which clearly means 'might be' conjecture. Wrong. > > 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. It is a hypothesis/conjecture (using either word is totally fine by me as it makes not the slightest difference) that, to quote Copi: "the moon IS IN FACT a perfect sphere". Hence, the "hypothesis" (or "conjecture") in question is a claim about what IS the case not what "might be" the case. Goober. > > And the argument _ad ignorantiam_ is, 'And this hypothesis [this 'might be' > conjecture] Galileo could not prove false!' > > Get tit now? > > > > Quote
Guest Goober Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 Your Logic Tutor wrote: > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:efcjcc$b9u$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... >> MagicRub 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. >> You have deliberately and misleadingly deleted your interlocuter's word >> "statement" and replaced it with the word "argument" in the above. Your >> interlocuter never said any such thing, as you well know. Your >> transparently mendacious attempt to misrepresent your opponent is >> dishonesty exemplified and you are dishonesty personified. >> >> Goober. > > Look, Goober, here is the deal: You deliberately misrepresented your interlocuter's statement - fact. That is the deal. Argument _ad hominem_ like that will not > help you establish that there is a mind - body problem any more than your > argument from popularity will, that's all logical fallacy, as you should > know by now. > > > The question remains, .... why are you so dishonest as to deliberately misrepresent your interlocuter's statement? Goober. so what if lots and lots of people believe there might > be a mind - body problem, does that prove that there is, or is that just a > fallacious appeal to popularity? Lots of people think there might be a god, > too; does that prove that there is? > > Isn't it actually the case that there really is > no such thing as a mind - body problem > any more than there is a digestion - gut problem, > that is just argument from ignorance from your side? > > Here is how Wood phrases the not-too-cleverly-disguised argument _ad > ignorantiam_: > > "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for > certain." -- Dan Wood > > Quote
Guest Goober Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 Your Logic Tutor wrote: > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote >> MagicRub wrote: > >>> Argument from Popularity: >>> >>> P is believed by millions of people worldwide >> That's not even an argument ... > > Yes it is, Wrong. Goober. son, it is the logical fallacy of argument from popularity. > > 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 thepossibilities Posted September 27, 2006 Posted September 27, 2006 Bob wrote: > On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:28:35 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> > wrote: > > >>Unless you can specify the essence of the God you claim either exists > >>or does not exist, all you are doing is engaging in constrsadiction or > >>tautology, because until you do specify the essence of the God you > >>claim either exists or does not exist, all you are referring to is a > >>God that does not exist. > > >Yet religious zealots insist they have evidence for the existence of > >God. When pressed on the matter, they fail to provide references for > >such evidence. > > The real question is what is the essence of this God they claim > exists. You can't provide references to something that does not exist. > > >>Furthermore, as we have just seen in the posts to this thread, it is > >>extremely difficult to specify the essence of God in rational terms. > >>Even the God of the Bible changes faces many times during the course > >>of history. And then there is the problem that in India, every person > >>has their own God. You better bring your lunch if you plan on taking > >>on 1 billion different Gods in one sitting. > >> > >>Your theism and your atheism both are fictions based on irrational > >>fantasies fabricated by your imagination. The theist says "there is > >>something more to reality that what we see" and the atheist says "but > >>it is not what you claim it is". > > >I don't think you get anywhere with this. > > Yet this is the single most important consideration in the > theist/atheist debate. Neither side can't specify the essence of the > God they are referring to. Therefore they both refer to a God that > does not exist to begin with. > > > -- > > "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." > --Mark Twain yet we've gone to war many times over the subject and we are still at war because of differing beliefs and ideals. whether God can be defined or not isn't a big deciding factor in believing in him for a great number of people. My experience I spoke of earlier in this thread will be with me and those that went with me on the camping trip forever. It showed me that there is a God and there is Evil. Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > So what does > "P is believed by millions of people worldwide" argue? Well DUH, as any sane man can see it is an agument from popularity for proposition P, moron. 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 remains, so what if lots and lots of people believe there might be a mind - body problem, does that prove that there is, or is that just a fallacious appeal to popularity? Lots of people think there might be a god, too; does that prove that there is? Isn't it actually the case that there really is no such thing as a mind - body problem any more than there is a digestion - gut problem, that is just argument from ignorance from your side? Here is how Wood phrases the not-too-cleverly-disguised argument _ad ignorantiam_: "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for certain." -- Dan Wood Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:I4adnX5P2rGAiYbYnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > >> So what does >> "P is believed by millions of people worldwide" argue? > > Well DUH, as any sane man can see it is an agument from popularity No it isn't. It's a simple statement. There are no premises involved, hence there is no conclusions reached from a series of premises. Do try to keep up, Septic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument In logic, an argument is an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an assertion called a conclusion, based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises. The process of demonstration of deductive (see also deduction) and inductive reasoning shapes the argument, and presumes some kind of communication, which could be part of a written text, a speech or a conversation. Quote
Guest Goober Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 Your Logic Tutor wrote: > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:efaill$kl1$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... >> MagicRub wrote: >>> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote >>>> Sheikh Yapeter wrote: >>>>> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote >>>>>> By not challenging my claim >>>>> You are challenged, and everybody knows it. 8^) >>>>> >>>>> Argument from popularity is logical fallacy. >>>>> Know what logical fallacy is? >>>>> >>>>> Argument from Popularity: >>>>> >>>>> P is believed by millions of people worldwide >>>>> >>>>> It is a fallacy because millions or billions of people can all believe > in >>>>> something that is wrong. Large numbers believing P does not make P > true. >>>> You implicitly conceded >>> Nothing was conceded >> It sure sure was. > > Don't act so childish, Goober. > > Nothing was conceded It certainly was conceded. Goober. except that your argument that P is believed by scores > of people worldwide is logical fallacy. Read it again: > > Argument from Popularity: > > P is believed by millions of people worldwide. > > It is a fallacy because millions or billions of people can all believe > in something that is wrong. Large numbers believing P does not make P true. > > > >> except that your argument that P is believed by scores >>> of people worldwide is logical fallacy. Read it again: >>> >>> Argument from Popularity: >>> >>> P is believed by millions of people worldwide. >>> >>> It is a fallacy because millions or billions of people can all believe >>> in something that is wrong. Large numbers believing P does not make P > true. >>> >>> >>> > > Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 In article <b_-dnX1FNqqrlobYnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Se[tic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:efaill$kl1$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... > > MagicRub wrote: > > > "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 > > > > It sure sure was. > > Don't act so childish, Goober. It is Septic who is being infantile, in the extreme, here. > > Nothing was conceded except that your argument that P is believed by scores > of people worldwide It is not a fallacy to argue that P being believed by millions proves P is believed by millions. One may contest the fact that millions do believe in P, but given that fact, one cannot then contest that fact. So Septic is WRONG! AGAIN! AS USUAL!!! Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 In article <b_-dnXxFNqqglobYnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@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 > > > > > > > If no one agrees on how the mind is related to the body > > > > > > We all agree on how digestion is related to the body. Why should what > you > > > are calling 'mind' be any different? > > > > Without minds there can be no such agreement, without digestion there > > could be. > > What? Humans could live long enough to learn a language and participate in > coming to an agreement without digesting their food? How you gonna arrange > that, son, short of setting everybody up on an IV drip?? We could feed Septic via enemas. At least til he agrees with common sense. > > Aren't you just trying to evade the issue? It is always when Septic it trying to evade issues that he accuses others of doing it. Septic is trying to make a fact, namely that there are many who claim that there is a mind body problem, not a fact, but an argument. By itself, it is mere fact. Does Septic deny that there are many who claim that there is a mind-body problem? Does Septic claim to be able top prove that there are few, or even none, who claim that there is a mind-body problem? Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 In article <I4adnX5P2rGAiYbYnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > > > So what does > > "P is believed by millions of people worldwide" argue? > > Well DUH, as any sane man can see it is an agument from popularity for > proposition P, moron. Does Septic concede that there are millions of theists in the world? If he does, then by his own argument above, he is arguing that a god must exist. 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.