Guest Goober Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 Your Logic Tutor wrote: > > "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? One one encounters claims and arguments there is a pragmatic principle - the principle of charity - which says that one should interpret one's opponents arguments and claims in a way that maximises their coherence and rationality. With you, satisfying that principle poses truly unique challenges. The most rational and coherent interpretation of the reference of "argue" in your response "so you argue fallaciously" to your interlocutor's claim "Scores of scientists and academics think there is a mind-body problem", is to some supposed putative argument for the interlocutor's claim, since that was the only visible claim. I offered you references to support that claim. You now concede that that claim is true. If it turns out that you mean an "argument" for some other claim that does not appear in the quote nor is entailed by the quote, I can hardly be held accountable for not being able to spot it. I did not say it is false (not a > premise known to be true), You said "So you argue fallaciously". The only claim mentioned to which that was a response was that scores of scientists and academics believe that there is a mind-body problem. Hence, any putatively fallacious argument must presumably refer to an argument for that claim. Since there is no other claim. You now (and previously) implicitly concede that scores of scientists and academics believe there is such a mind-body problem. QED. But you apparently suppose that that claim constitutes an argument for a different claim: that there is a mind-body problem. It doesn't. To use that claim to argue for the second claim would require your interlocutor to make that argument. They did not in the quote. knucklehead, I said it is logical fallacy > (fallacious, invalid inference, bogus argument, argument from > popularity). Please learn the difference. It is not an argument - it is just a (true) claim. 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') Therefore, you've conceded it. QED. , I am questioning > the validity of the argument from popularity. There is no argument in the claim: "scores of scientists and academics think there is a mind-body problem". Ergo, no fallacy. Goober. 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 Gandalf Grey Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:xZKdnQUHZ_n28oDYnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> 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." > > Unstated premises, unstated conclusions: No unstated conclusion is made in "P is believed by millions of people worldwide." Since you've proved again and again that have a problem with understanding what a logical argument actually is, you should avoid trying to read people's minds. In other words, when you can't even deal with basic logical forms, you're not ready to deal with unstated implications. Quote
Guest Goober Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 Your Logic Tutor wrote: > > 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, Wrong. Goober 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 Virgil Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 In article <Z4adndzKd92Yp4DYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:451c8ffe$0$24210$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > > > "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:PoSdneF7AbRWHYHYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > >> Argument from Popularity: > >> > >> P is believed by millions of people worldwide > > > > Is not an argument. > > Yes it is, moron. It is Septic who is the moron, or even worse, if he claims it is not an argument for anything except what it says. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 In article <0sGdnYeyq5EV24DYnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote > > > > It clearly was not a hypothesis/conjecture that the valleys might be > > filled with a crystalline substance. > > That is what the term, 'hypothesis' MEANS in this case, moron, it means > guesswork, 'might be' conjecture with no basis in fact. So Septic is saying that the astronomers said it might be that it might be ? That's not what Copi says. The Septic can only be hypothesizing that what Goober said MIGHT BE a fallacy. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 In article <AOqdnfB3T9ho1YDYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > That is what I said No its not. What Septic said is "is a fact" means "might be". Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 In article <Sa6dnZAsfZkS0YDYnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> equivocated: > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:efiivf$dm7$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... > > Septic equivocated: > >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> tries to get away with argument from > >> popularity: > >> > >>> If lots and lots of people believe there IS (not merely might be) a mind > >>> body problem, that would prove what it says that lots and lots of > >>> people believe that there not only might be, but actually IS, a mind > >>> body problem. Not at all, That is entirely Septic's lie and Septic's own argument. If Septic wishes to make that argument he should be willing to acknowledge it as his, no try to palm it off on others, like the coward he is. What everyone else, besides Septic, is saying is that there are lots of people who think that there is a mind-body problem. Which, at most, proves the lots of people think so. Whether that thought is warranted is an entirely different question. Septic claims to know that it is not warranted, but from what arcane source Septic claims to come by such knowledge, he has not informed us. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 In article <duqdnWePoO5czYDYnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septic, the evil one" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:efiiam$dgb$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca... > > Septic, the evil one 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? No But Septic is! > I did not say it is false , knucklehead, No one accused you of that, knucklehead! > I said it is logical fallacy That is indeed false, as it is not an argument at all. It is only Septic's warped mind that produces any argument from what is patently not an argument. So that if there is any fallacy here it is an artifact of Septic's thought processes, and not in Goober's words. > > Again, I am not questioning the truth of the premise ('lots and lots > of people believe there might be a mind - body problem') It is a premise from which no one but Septic is drawing any conclusion (other than the premise itself). So if any fallacy exists, it is Septic who is arguing it. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:apqdnY4j1cxc-4DYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@comcast.com... > Septic's Phony Argument from Popularity: > > P is believed by millions of people worldwide Wrong. The above is not an argument let alone an argument from popularity. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:1qudnRIqlYn__oDYnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com... > > >> And since 'might be' has nothing to do with the argumentum ad >> ignorantiam > > Yes it does; No it doesn't. Read Copi and stop trying to rape Copi's definition. 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 Your Logic Tutor Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> and chums try to get away with arguing from popularity > Your Logic Tutor wrote: >> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> and chums try to get away with arguing from >> popularity >>> 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), > > You said "So you argue fallaciously". It IS logical fallacy (not valid inference) to argue from popularity. Again, I am not dealing with the question of whether the premise is true or false, just the fact that argument from popularity like that is logical fallacy, which you should know by now, so stop trying to build a straw man. >> 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. > > There is no argument in the claim: "scores of scientists and academics > think there is a mind-body problem". Ergo, no fallacy. Argument from popularity is argument which is logical fallacy. Google 'unstated premises, unstated conclusions'. 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) >> Argument from popularity >> 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 Gandalf Grey Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:1qudnQ0qlYn-_oDYnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com... > Then why is Copi citing Here's Copi's judgement. 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 Your Logic Tutor Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote > 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 Google 'unstated premises'. Who do you think hypothetically might have installed the hypothetical invisible crystalline substance in all the valleys of the moon, Zeus maybe? Maybe Oden? I don't believe so. These theists trying to get away with arguing _ad ignorantiam_ in this case are followers of God, Mr. Goober. Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote > ... Copi does not describe the hypothesis as a "might be" conjecture. He does not go into detail as to what the meaning of 'is' is either. There is no need to explain the obvious, and the obvious is that the term, 'hypothesis' means 'might be' conjecture. What else would it mean? If they were talking about a fact (as you seem to want to imply) Copi would have said fact. synonyms (words with the same or similar meaning): hypothesis, 'might be' conjecture, guesswork, speculation, supposition, hunch, intuition, belief, faith See here where Galileo puts forth an EQUALLY PROBABLE HYPOTHESIS ('might be' conjecture) to expose the theist argument _ad ignorantiam_? <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_) He refers to it as an 'equally probable hypothesis' because both of them are equally mere conjecture, speculative 'might be' supposition with no basis in fact. Note the use of the term, 'supposedly'? Get tit now, Mr. Goober? 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: > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote >> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> argued contrary to the facts >> in evidence: >>> And since 'might be' has nothing to do with the argumentum ad >>> ignorantiam >> >> Yes it does; > > No it doesn't. Then why would Copi cite the following case as an excellent example of theist argument _ad ignorantiam_, 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_) See that term, 'supposedly' in there, sonny? Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:o96dnQpG6vB2CYDYnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com... > Then why would Copi cite Here's what Copi says: 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 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:V72dnZmK4atzDYDYnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote > >> ... Copi does not describe the hypothesis as a "might be" conjecture. > > He does not go into detail Sure he does. He defines the term 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 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:JOidndbia98aFoDYnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote >> Needs a Logic Tutor wrote: >>> >>> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote >>>> Needs a 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 > > Google 'unstated premises'. Before you start trying to read minds and deal with unstated premises you need to learn the basics of logic, Septic. 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 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." [unmmarked snippage by Mr. Hanson] >> Unstated premises, unstated conclusions: > > No unstated conclusion is made in "P is believed by millions of people > worldwide." You don't see it because it is UNSTATED, Mr. Hanson. 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 Gandalf Grey Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:3_-dnbQZLc-2FIDYnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> and chums try to get away with arguing from > popularity >> Needs a Logic Tutor wrote: >>> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> and chums try to get away with arguing >>> from popularity >>>> 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), >> >> You said "So you argue fallaciously". > > It IS logical fallacy (not valid inference) to argue from popularity. But since no one's done that you don't have a leg to stand on. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 In article <oOWdncNYft4CyYDYnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > > > > Does Septic 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 never claimed that you denied it, but I do claim that you misrepresent it as an argument for something other that what it is,merely a statement of fact claiming itself. > I > am questioning your appeal to popularity. Which "appeal" exists only in Septic's mind and nowhere in reality. > > 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? I do not know that there is no such thing as a mind-body problem. So that is not the case. I do not argue that there must be a mind-body problem. So that is not the case. I do not have a "side" other than to correct Septic's lies about me and others. So that is not the case. On the other hand Septic has repeatedly, but falsely, argued that I and certain others, have made an argument that none of us have made. So that most, if not all, of what Septic has been repeatedly claiming to be the case, is not the case. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 In article <_rydneRifNakx4DYnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Liar" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > > "Liar" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > > > >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > >> > "Liar" <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. Absent any stated conclusion to be drawn from it, it is not an argument from, or for, anything except itself. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 In article <WoGdnS9l84U1wYDYnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > 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? Grandaddy Septic must be getting senile if the thinks that pointing out fallacies like ad hominem arguments is itself a fallacy. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 In article <1qudnRIqlYn__oDYnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to > the facts in evidence: > > > > And since 'might be' has nothing to do with the argumentum ad > > ignorantiam > > Yes it does Not hardly. To speculate that something might be because it is not known not to be is reasonable speculation. To insist that something must be because it is not known not to be is an argumentum ad ignorantiam. SETI speculates that there might be extraterrestrial intelligence because it is not known not to exist. Reasonable. If SETI claimed there must be ET for that reason, THAT wold be an argumentum ad ignorantiam. 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: > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote >> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> argued contrary to the facts >> in evidence: >>> And since 'might be' has nothing to do with the argumentum ad >>> ignorantiam >> >> Yes it does; > > No it doesn't. Then why would Copi cite the following case as an excellent example of theist argument _ad ignorantiam_, 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_) See that term, 'supposedly' in there, sonny? 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.