Guest Goober Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 Your Logic Tutor 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. On the contrary. 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, True - that hypothesis is not known to actually be the case. that is just theist conjecture, the hypothesis, False. The conjecture/hypothesis put forward by the astronomers of the time was: that the apparent valleys ARE filled with an invisible crystalline substance. the 'might be' > speculation with no basis in fact. False. It clearly was not a hypothesis/conjecture that the valleys might be filled with a crystalline substance. > > And the argument _ad ignorantiam_ is, 'And this hypothesis [this 'might be' > conjecture] Galileo could not prove false!' False. The hypothesis in question was an "is" hypothesis/conjecture, not a "might be" hypothesis/conjecture. That is, it was a hypothesis about what IS the case, not about what "might be" the case. > > 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: False. Copi does not and would not describe the hypothesis as a "might be" conjecture. Such an interpretation as you make is clearly inconsistent with what Copi says. > <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. False. I'm not arguing anything of the kind. One out six - even less impressive. Goober. > Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message news:451c8ffe$0$24210$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > "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. Yes it is, moron. It is argument from popularity, which 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 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 "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote > It clearly was not a hypothesis/conjecture that the valleys might be > filled with a crystalline substance. That is what the term, 'hypothesis' MEANS in this case, moron, it means guesswork, 'might be' conjecture with no basis in fact. Check the thesaurus: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=conjecture Arguing that there might be something magically invisible because there is no proof the hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture) is false is 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.] Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote > Your Logic Tutor wrote: > > 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, 'might be' speculation > > False. The conjecture/hypothesis put forward by the astronomers of the > time was that the apparent valleys ARE filled with an invisible > crystalline substance. That is what I said, it is theist hypothesis, conjecture (guesswork, 'might be' speculation with no basis in fact), 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. And the argument from ignorance Copi is pointing out is, "And this hypothesis [this 'might be' conjecture] Galileo could not prove false!" Check the thesaurus: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=conjecture Arguing that thee might be something magically invisible because there is no proof the hypothesis is false is 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.] Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:efiivf$dm7$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... > 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". The terms, 'real', actual, and 'existing' are synonyms (words having the same or similar meanings). http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=real Can you name ten things that are known to exist that are not known to be real? How could we honestly say that we know that something exists unless it is something known to be actual, to be real? >> 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 Gandalf Grey Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:AOqdnfB3T9ho1YDYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote >> Your Logic Tutor wrote: > >> > 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, 'might be' speculation >> >> False. The conjecture/hypothesis put forward by the astronomers of the >> time was that the apparent valleys ARE filled with an invisible >> crystalline substance. > > That is what I said, it is theist hypothesis Then it has nothing to do with the Argument from Ignorance which is not based on 'might be' arguments. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:0sGdnYeyq5EV24DYnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote > > >> It clearly was not a hypothesis/conjecture that the valleys might be >> filled with a crystalline substance. > > That is what the term, 'hypothesis' MEANS in this case, moron, it means > guesswork, 'might be' conjecture with no basis in fact. And since 'might be' has nothing to do with the argumentum ad ignorantiam you've got no case, Septic. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Z4adndzKd92Yp4DYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:451c8ffe$0$24210$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> >> "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:PoSdneF7AbRWHYHYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >>> Argument from Popularity: >>> >>> P is believed by millions of people worldwide >> >> Is not an argument. > > Yes it is, moron. Your ad hominem just makes you look weak. Since the statement above is not a logical argument, it is not an ad argumentum ad populum and you STILL haven't figured out what an argument actually is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument In logic, an argument is an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an assertion called a conclusion, based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises. The process of demonstration of deductive (see also deduction) and inductive reasoning shapes the argument, and presumes some kind of communication, which could be part of a written text, a speech or a conversation. Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:efiiam$dgb$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... > 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". Are you trying to build a straw man? I did not say it is false (not a premise known to be true), knucklehead, I said it is logical fallacy (fallacious, invalid inference, bogus argument, argument from popularity). Please learn the difference. Again, I am not questioning the truth of the premise ('lots and lots of people believe there might be a mind - body problem'), I am questioning the validity of the argument from popularity. Argument from poopularity is logical fallacy (invalid argument). 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 > Does [ad hom deleted] deny that there are many who claim that there is a > mind-body > problem? If you are talking to me, no I do not, that is your straw man doing that. I am questioning your appeal to popularity. Try reading it again: 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? 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 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:oOWdncNYft4CyYDYnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > > >> Does [ad hom deleted] deny that there are many who claim that there is a >> mind-body >> problem? > > If you are talking to me, no I do not, You're just trying to pretend that the statement is an argument when it's not. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:duqdnWePoO5czYDYnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:efiiam$dgb$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... >> Needs a 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". > > Are you trying to build a straw man? I did not say it is false (not a > premise known to be true), knucklehead, I said it is logical fallacy No it's not. In order to be a logical fallacy, it would have to be an argument which it is not. 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: > >> "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. Having a premise that might be a fact does not make it any less 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 Gandalf Grey Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:_rydneRifNakx4DYnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote >> "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: >> >>> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote >>> > "Needs a 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. > > Having a premise that might be a fact does not make it any less an > argument from popularity. And not being an argument saves it from being an Argument from Popularity. > > Argument from Popularity: > > P is believed by millions of people worldwide Wrong. In order to be the Argument from Popularity, the premise you typed above would have to be linked to a conclusion. "P is believed by millions of people worldwide, THEREFORE P is true." Get a clue, Septic. Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to get away with logical fallacy > Your ad hominem Why don't you stop trying to change the subject, son? Don't you know that is the logical fallacy of trying to evade the issue? To return to the issue: 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 Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to the facts in evidence: > And since 'might be' has nothing to do with the argumentum ad > ignorantiam Yes it does; 'might be' conjecture is what the term 'hypothesis' [highlighted below] means. You need to study more carefully Copi's explanation of this logical fallacy for which theists are FAMOUS: <quote> FAMOUS in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this HYPOTHESIS, which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false! Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward THE EQUALLY PROBABLE HYPOTHESIS that there were, rearing up from the invisible crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not prove false. </quote> (Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_) [in this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might be' imagining with no basis in fact.] Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:WoGdnS9l84U1wYDYnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > Why don't you stop trying to change the subject, son? Don't you know that > is the logical fallacy of trying to evade the issue? I haven't changed the issue. The issue is that you don't know what the Argument from Popularity is. > > > To return to the issue: > > 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. 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: > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote >> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote >>> Your Logic Tutor wrote: >> >>> > 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, 'might be' speculation >>> >>> False. The conjecture/hypothesis put forward by the astronomers of the >>> time was that the apparent valleys ARE filled with an invisible >>> crystalline substance. >> >> That is what I said, it is theist hypothesis > > Then it has nothing to do with the Argument from Ignorance Then why is Copi citing this incident as an excellent EXAMPLE of argument from ignorance, 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.] 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: > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote >> >> >>> Does [ad hom deleted] deny that there are many who claim that there is a >>> mind-body >>> problem? >> >> If you are talking to me, no I do not, > > You're just trying to pretend that the statement is an argument when it's > not. Except that it is not pretense, it is actually an argument, 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. 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 Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to get away with argument from popularity: > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote >> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote >>> 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". >> >> Are you trying to build a straw man? I did not say it is false (not a >> premise known to be true), knucklehead, I said it is logical fallacy > > No it's not. In order to be a logical fallacy, it would have to be an > argument which it is not. You are mistaken, it is argument from popularity, which is logical fallacy (invalid inference). 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 Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to get away with logical fallacies like argument from popularity and argument from ignorance: > "P is believed by millions of people worldwide, therefore P is true." "P is true" [or just plain "P," it doesn't matter, it means the same] is the proposition in question. "P is true" means exactly the same as just arguing, "P" ("There might be a mind - body problem" for example) alone. Adding "is true" does not change anything, and "is true" stands as an unstated premise in your argument from popularity, "P is believed by millions of people worldwide." There is absolutely no difference in meaning between the following two statements: "There might be a mind - body problem." "It is true that there might be a mind - body problem." The term, 'is true' simpy means that the argument ["P"] is known to be in accord with the actual state of affairs. The problem with such an an argument is that it is logical fallacy (bogus argument), Mr. Hanson. 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 Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to get away with logical fallacies like argument from popularity and argument from ignorance: > In order to be the Argument from Popularity, the premise would have to be > linked to a conclusion. > > "P is believed by millions of people worldwide, THEREFORE P is true." Google 'unstated premises' and 'unstated conclusions', Mr. Hanson, quickly, before you make an even bigger fool of yourself. Unstated premises, unstated conclusions: Often arguments have unstated premise(s), that is, premise(s) that need to be added for the premises to support the conclusion. It's always instructive to try to state all the premises necessary to support one's conclusion. Example: 1. If it snows, then it's cold 2. If it's cold, Jim is at home 3. Hence, Jim is at home. Here, there is an unstated premise (it snows) and an unstated sub-conclusion (it's cold) Quote
Guest Goober Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 Your Logic Tutor wrote: > > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote > > >> It clearly was not a hypothesis/conjecture that the valleys might be >> filled with a crystalline substance. > > That is what the term, 'hypothesis' MEANS in this case, Wrong, and obviously so. moron, it means > guesswork, 'might be' conjecture with no basis in fact. Wrong again. Not in this case. > > Check the thesaurus: > http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=conjecture The thesaurus does not determine what the word "hypothesis" means in this case (or any particular case). A thesaurus does one thing only: it identifies various words or phrases that have a meaning similar to or related to one of the meanings of the target word. > > Arguing that there might be something magically invisible because there > is no proof the hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture) is false is > logical fallacy for which theists are FAMOUS, as Copi explains: Wrong again. Copi (correctly) does not describe the hypothesis as a "might be" conjecture. > > <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_) Care to put the page reference and publication year? > > [in this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, > 'might be' imagining with no basis in fact.] It does not mean "might be". Wrong again. Your test results are getting worse by the hour. Goober. > Quote
Guest Goober Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 Your Logic Tutor wrote: > > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote >> Your Logic Tutor wrote: > >> > 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, 'might be' speculation >> >> False. The conjecture/hypothesis put forward by the astronomers of the >> time was that the apparent valleys ARE filled with an invisible >> crystalline substance. > > That is what I said, Wrong. The word "God" does not appear in the hypothesis - Read Copi below. Neither does "it is not known actually to be the case". Those are you additions and not part of the hypothesis. it is theist hypothesis, conjecture (guesswork, > 'might be' speculation with no basis in fact), 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. And the > argument from ignorance Copi is pointing out is, "And this hypothesis > [this 'might be' conjecture] Galileo could not prove false!" False again. See me above and Copi below for the actual hypothesis. > > Check the thesaurus: > http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=conjecture > > > Arguing that thee might be something magically invisible because there > is no proof the hypothesis is false is logical fallacy for which theists > are FAMOUS, as Copi explains: What Copi explains and what you say he explains are two different things. The astronomers of the time argued that there IS such a crystalline substance. That was their 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.] It means no such thing as "might be" in this case. Goober. > Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:c9OdnSeFo44Q8YDYnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com... > The real Argument from popularity. >> "P is believed by millions of people worldwide, therefore P is true." Septic's Phony Argument from Popularity: > P is believed by millions of people worldwide Wrong again. The above is merely a statement, not an argument. Thanks for juxtaposing them. It clearly demonstrates that you have no idea what you're talking about. 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.