Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message news:451b18b6$0$24180$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > "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. 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:svWdnd1-FIq9aIbYnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:451b18b6$0$24180$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> >> "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. > > As any sane man can see It's not an argument at all, hence it's not an argument from popularity. Son, until you learn what a basic logical argument is, you're not going to get any traction talking about fallacy arguments. Quote
Guest Goober Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 Your Logic Tutor wrote: > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:451b18b6$0$24180$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> >> "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. > > As any sane man can see it is an agument from popularity for > proposition P, Wrong again. Goober 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 Your Logic Tutor Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message news:4519f815$0$24207$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:9YKdnZScIo66eYTYnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message >> news:efcjcc$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. It says "argument _ad hominem_," can't you read? 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 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote > 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. You still don't have it straight, knucklehead. Here are the facts in the case: 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, the '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!' Copi goes on to explain how Galileo exposed the argument _ad ignorantiam_ of arguing for something hypothetical based on the absence of proof the hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture) is false: <quote> 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_) So your side, you and Gandy and Virgil, are mistaken, arguing there might be something because there us no proof the hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture) is false IS argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists are famous, as Copi explains. Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: >> >> The question remains, so what if lots and lots of people believe there >> might >> be a mind - body problem, does that prove there is one? > > It proves that there are a lot of people who think there is such a > problem. That is 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. > > 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 Virgil Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 In article <svWdnd1-FIq9aIbYnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:451b18b6$0$24180$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > > > "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 If it argues only itself, which is all that it says, it is not an argument FROM anything, but a mere statement stating only what it states: "P is believed by millions of people worldwide" states only that "P is believed by millions of people worldwide"! Any conclusions that Septic, or anyone else, chooses to draw from that statement are not part of the statement itself. > > The question remains, so what if lots and lots of people believe there might > be a mind - body problem It certainly proves that lots of people believe it, which was all that was being argued. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 In article <Fo-dnSphaOCl1oHYnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:4519f815$0$24207$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > > > "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:9YKdnZScIo66eYTYnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> > >> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message > >> news:efcjcc$b9u$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... > >>> Septic 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 Look, Septic here's the deal, misquoting as you have done above, is not merely fallacious, it is LYING! > The question remains, so what if lots and lots of people believe there might > be a mind - body problem, If lots and lots of people believe there IS (not merely might be) a mind body problem, that would prove what it says that lots and lots of people believe that there not only might be, but actually IS, a mind body problem. Septic deliberately conflates "might be" with "is" again. He seems to dumb to tell the difference. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Fo-dnSphaOCl1oHYnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:4519f815$0$24207$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> >> "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:9YKdnZScIo66eYTYnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com... >>> >>> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message >>> news:efcjcc$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. > > It says "argument _ad hominem_," can't you read? > > Look, Goober, here is the deal: Argument _ad hominem_ He made no argument ad hominem either. Since you're obviously misrepresenting his position and he's simply pointing that out, where is the ad hom? Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:dO6dnbEbSf2AyYHYnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote > >> 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. > > You still don't have it straight, knucklehead. Your argumentum ad hominem is going nowhere. Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> tries to get away with argument from popularity: > If lots and lots of people believe there IS (not merely might be) a mind > body problem, that would prove what it says that lots and lots of > people believe that there not only might be, but actually IS, a mind > body problem. Lots and lots of people believe that there actually IS a mind - body problem? So what? Does that prove that there actually is one? Here you are equivocating between that which is known to be real ('IS') and that which is only hypothetical ('might be' conjecture). Lots and lots of people believing X might be real doesn't make X real. Let X be your hypothetical 'mind - body problem'. That remains purely hypothetical ('might be' conjecture) unless you can show something more probative than your logical fallacy of argument from popularity. Argument from popularity like that is logical fallacy, moron, as you have been informed. 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 Virgil Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 In article <dO6dnbEbSf2AyYHYnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote > > > 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. > > You still don't have it straight, knucklehead. Septic is not only dead wrong ( and Goober completely right), but he includes an argumentum ad hominem into the bargain making himself doubly wrong. > Here are the facts in the case: Whenever one sees Septic say something like this, one can be quite certain that what follows is only Septic's warped view of the issue, misrepresenting everyone, even himself. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 In article <6YOdnXmZ8b7byoHYnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > >> > >> The question remains, so what if lots and lots of people believe there > >> might > >> be a mind - body problem, does that prove there is one? > > > > It proves that there are a lot of people who think there is such a > > problem. > > That is argument from popularity. It is a statement of fact. It does not in any way intimate the the belief is well founded any more that the acknowledgment of the existence of many theists concedes that theism is a well founded. Otherwise Septic would have to deny that any theists exist in order to deny the validity of their faiths. So If Septic argues that nobody believes that there is a mind-body problem, he must equally argue that there is no such thing as theism. Which makes all his atheist arguments a waste of time and energy. Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to the facts in evidence: > It's not an argument at all, hence it's not an 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. 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 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > > 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? > It certainly proves that lots of people believe it That's not the question. The question is, 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? Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> attempts to evade the issue: > Your argumentum ad hominem is going nowhere. Nice try at evading the issue, knucklehead. Here are the facts in the case: 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, the '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!' Copi goes on to explain how Galileo exposed the argument _ad ignorantiam_ of arguing for something hypothetical based on the absence of proof the hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture) is false: <quote> 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_) So your side, you and your brother Goober and your other brother Goober, are mistaken, arguing there might be something because there us no proof the hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture) is false IS argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists are famous, as Copi explains. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:PoSdneF7AbRWHYHYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@comcast.com... > Argument from Popularity: > > P is believed by millions of people worldwide Is not an argument. It's a statement. As usual, YOU don't know what an argument is. In order to be an argument, it would have to be stated as "P is believed by millions of people worldwide, therefore P is true." Since this is not the form of the above statement, it is not the Argument from Popularity. Get a clue, Septic. You're just getting dumber. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:FM6dnauQIdr7GYHYnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > Nice try at evading the issue, knucklehead. Your argumentum ad hominem is noted, Septic. Quote
Guest William Elliot Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Virgil wrote: Virgil, have you noticed your septic tank is overflowing? Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 In article <PoSdneZ7AbRVHYHYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> tries to get away with argument from > popularity: > > > If lots and lots of people believe there IS (not merely might be) a mind > > body problem, that would prove what it says that lots and lots of > > people believe that there not only might be, but actually IS, a mind > > body problem. > > Lots and lots of people believe that there actually IS a mind - body > problem? So what? Does that prove that there actually is one? Didn't say that, did I. Though it certainly does not prove there isn't one either. Note: If Septic's argument against people believing in a mind-body problem were valid then his own argument that there are any people (theists) believing in any gods is equally a fallacy. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 In article <PoSdneF7AbRWHYHYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@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: > > > > It's not an argument at all, hence it's not an 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. Septic is be the one arguing that large scale belief makes truth, as no one else is arguing anything like that. On that basis, Septic is a theist. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 In article <9tGdnYRQHO4lH4HYnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > > > > 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? > > > It certainly proves that lots of people believe it > > That's not the question. The question is, 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? That is Septic's argument, but no one else has argued it. So any fallacy here is entirely Septic's fallacy Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 In article <FM6dnauQIdr7GYHYnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> repeated his sin by writing: > Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> wrote: > > > Your argumentum ad hominem is going nowhere. > > Nice try at evading the issue, knucklehead. And we see that Septic responds to a charge of argumentum ad hominem by committing another argumentum ad hominem. Nice one, Septic!!! Quote
Guest Goober Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 Your Logic Tutor wrote: > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> tries to get away with argument from > popularity: > >> If lots and lots of people believe there IS (not merely might be) a mind >> body problem, that would prove what it says that lots and lots of >> people believe that there not only might be, but actually IS, a mind >> body problem. > > Lots and lots of people believe that there actually IS a mind - body > problem? Yes - scores of scientists and academics to be specific. So what? I'll tell you "so what": it means that you were mistaken in saying that the claim that scores of scientists and academics believe there to be a mind-body problem was "fallacious". Does that prove that there actually is one? It proves that you were completely mistaken to say that the claim that scores of scientists and academics believe there to be a mind-body problem was "fallacious". Goober. > > Here you are equivocating between that which is known to be real ('IS') and > that which is only hypothetical ('might be' conjecture). Lots and lots of > people believing X might be real doesn't make X real. Let X be your > hypothetical 'mind - body problem'. That remains purely hypothetical ('might > be' conjecture) unless you can show something more probative than your > logical fallacy of argument from popularity. > > Argument from popularity like that is logical fallacy, moron, as you have > been informed. > > 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 Goober Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 Your Logic Tutor wrote: > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> tries to get away with argument from > popularity: > >> If lots and lots of people believe there IS (not merely might be) a mind >> body problem, that would prove what it says that lots and lots of >> people believe that there not only might be, but actually IS, a mind >> body problem. > > Lots and lots of people believe that there actually IS a mind - body > problem? So what? Does that prove that there actually is one? > > Here you are equivocating between that which is known to be real ('IS') "IS" here does not mean " known to be real". It means "exists". Goober. and > that which is only hypothetical ('might be' conjecture). Lots and lots of > people believing X might be real doesn't make X real. Let X be your > hypothetical 'mind - body problem'. That remains purely hypothetical ('might > be' conjecture) unless you can show something more probative than your > logical fallacy of argument from popularity. > > Argument from popularity like that is logical fallacy, moron, as you have > been informed. > > 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
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.