Guest Virgil Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 In article <1qudnQ0qlYn-_oDYnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com>, Septic wrote: > Here are the facts in the case: 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 would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 In article <MYWdnQz1BuS_-IDYnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to > the facts in evidence: > > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote > >> "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, > > > > 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. Then, by Septic's own logic, acknowledging the existence of theism is fallaciously arguing that gods exist. In which case Septic must deny that anyone can believe in any god, and there is no point in being antheist as there cannot be any theists. That is what Septic's logic leads to. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 In article <apqdnY4j1cxc-4DYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > > 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. Then, by Septic's own logic, acknowledging the existence of theism is fallaciously arguing that gods exist. In which case Septic must deny that anyone can believe in any god, and there is no point in being antheist as there cannot be any theists. That is what Septic's logic leads to. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 In article <c9OdnSeFo44Q8YDYnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> wrote: > > > > "P is believed by millions of people worldwide." > > "P is true" [or just plain "P," it doesn't matter, it means the same] is the > proposition in question. Richard did not say P is true, what Richard said was P is believed.> Then, by Septic's own logic, acknowledging the existence of theism is fallaciously arguing that gods exist. In which case Septic must deny that anyone can believe in any god, and there is then no point in being atheist as there cannot be any theists. That is what Septic's logic leads to. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 In article <xZKdnQUHZ_n28oDYnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > 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. Then the statement that there are millions who believe that some god exists must equally be an argument that gods exist. In which case Septic must deny that anyone can believe in any god, and there is no point in being atheist as there cannot be any theists. That is what Septic's logic leads to. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:yIGdnZAH2KSLPoDYnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@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. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:V9SdnRPFA85OC4DYnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@comcast.com... > You don't see it because it is UNSTATED I don't see it because it isn't there, Septic. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 In article <3_-dnbQZLc-2FIDYnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Sepic" <ylt...@nospam.com> lied: > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote > > 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 Not every statement implies unstated conclusions. And Septic is not free to read whatever he wants into what is unstated. if he were, he would have to deny that there are scores who think that some god exists, as otherwise he is supporting theism. By Septic's own logic, acknowledging the existence of theism is fallaciously arguing that gods exist. In which case Septic must deny that anyone can believe in any god, and there is no point in being atheist as there cannot be any theists. That is what Septic's logic leads to. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 In article <JOidndbia98aFoDYnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > Google 'unstated premises'. Septic's (always unstated) premises are that he is always right and the rest of the world is always wrong, and furthermore that he is atheist and anyone who does not agree with him in everything is theist. In Fact, Septic's success rate on being right is very nearly zero. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 In article <V72dnZmK4atzDYDYnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "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. Copi does cite the astronomers say saying ( in translation from the Latin, of course) "it is a fact that he moon is a perfect sphere." That does not sound the least bit tentative or "might be-ish" to me. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 In article <o96dnQpG6vB2CYDYnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to point out > some simple truths to the invinciply ignorant Septic: > > <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 IS 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 One does not hypothesize about what one is absolutely convinced of. Or else all of Septic's claims are merely "might be"'s. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 In article <V9SdnRPFA85OC4DYnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> is again misrepresetned by Septic, the liar: > > > >>> 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." > > You don't see it because it is UNSTATED, Mr. Hanson. If it is unstated, by what authority does Septic, rather than Hanson state it? Hanson knows better than Septic what Hanson intended, so Septic has no right to put words in Hanson's mouth. If Septic claims the right to put words in Hanson's mouth, we all claim equal rights to put whatever words we please in Septic's mouth. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:38:29 -0600, in alt.atheism Virgil <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in <virgil-DA22C3.17382929092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>: >In article <V9SdnRPFA85OC4DYnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@comcast.com>, > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > >> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> is again misrepresetned by Septic, the liar: >> >> >> >>> 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." >> >> You don't see it because it is UNSTATED, Mr. Hanson. > >If it is unstated, by what authority does Septic, rather than Hanson >state it? > >Hanson knows better than Septic what Hanson intended, so Septic has no >right to put words in Hanson's mouth. > >If Septic claims the right to put words in Hanson's mouth, we all claim >equal rights to put whatever words we please in Septic's mouth. Septic is a master of mistaken understanding. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 In article <yIGdnZAH2KSLPoDYnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > 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 If Absolute certainty in no more than "might be" hypothesizing, then that applies equally well to all of Septic's absolute certainties, and Septic can only hypthesize that Hanson 'might be' arguing ad ignorantiam. Quote
Guest Goober Posted September 30, 2006 Posted September 30, 2006 Your Logic Tutor wrote: > > "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. I have not argued or suggested anything to the contrary. > > Again, I am not dealing with the question of whether the premise is true > or false, And you couldn't even if you wanted to, because you responded only to a claim, not to a premise of an argument. 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. The claim is not a premise, not an argument, and (therefore) not a fallacy. > >>> 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. But, there is no argument in the claim: "scores of scientists and academics think there is a mind-body problem". Ergo, no fallacy in that claim. Google > 'unstated premises, unstated conclusions'. Progress!! You now appear to want to come clean and make it clear that you are insisting that there are either implicit premises or an implicit conclusion in addition to the explicit claim "Scores of scientists and academics think there is a mind-body problem", which you view as an explicit premise in an implicit argument. In such cases, you must identify (as is suggested in your uncited quote below) any other implicit premises or conclusions that you insist are implicit. When you've done that, you can then ask your interlocutor whether they agree that that is their argument. If you interlocutor agrees that make such an argument, then we can move to assess the legitimacy of your suggestion that they commit a fallacy. If your interlocutor denies making any such argument, even implicitly, then to criticise that argument is to erect a straw man. In any case, you would be mistaken to attack an explicit premise as committing a fallacy when it does not, by itself, constitute an argument. Only arguments can commit fallacies and "Scores of scientists and academics think there is a mind-body problem" is not an argument - at most (see above) it might be a premise of an argument. Up to this point, all you've attacked is the explicit claim, not an argument. For example, you have insisted that claims of the form "P is believed by millions" is a fallacious argument from popularity. It can be a premise in an argument from popularity (whether that argument is implicit or explicit), but the claim itself commits no fallacy because it is not an argument - EVEN if it is a premise of an argument that does commit a fallacy. > > 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) Quite so. Go forth and do likewise. Goober. > > > >>> 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 Goober Posted September 30, 2006 Posted September 30, 2006 Your Logic Tutor wrote: > > "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". I note that you do not reject my above claim. > > 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 Naturally. > 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? Why do you ask? "IS" does not mean " known to be real/exist/actual"; it is synonymous with "exists" or "real" or "actual" (as the thesaurus might suggest). Thus, to say of anything that it "is" is to say it exists, it is real, or it is actual. It is NOT to say anything to the effect that it is known to be real, or known to exist or known to be actual. 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 30, 2006 Posted September 30, 2006 Your Logic Tutor wrote: > > "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. Correct. > There is no need to explain the obvious, Except to you, it seems. and the obvious is that the > term, 'hypothesis' means 'might be' conjecture. Wrong. It may mean "conjecture", but not "might be". What else would it mean? Have you already forgotten? In this case, it means an "is" claim, not a "might be" claim. > If they were talking about a fact (as you seem to want to imply) I do not imply that. Rather I make clear that the hypothesis is claimed to be a fact (i.e. claimed to be true, actual, real). It is not claimed to be a mere possibility (possibly true, possibly real, or possibly actual), as you imagine. Copi > would have said fact. > > synonyms (words with the same or similar meaning): hypothesis, 'might > be' The last is a product of your invention - unless you'd care to cite a source that presents "might be" as a synonym of "hypothesis" or "conjecture". M-W certainly does not. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=conjecture conjecture, guesswork, speculation, supposition, hunch, intuition, > belief, faith All of which can have as their content a claim that some proposition IS the case (is true, is real is a fact, is actual). Which is precisely what we have in the case in question. > > > See here where Galileo puts forth an EQUALLY PROBABLE HYPOTHESIS ('might > be' conjecture) to expose the theist argument _ad ignorantiam_? On the contrary. What he presents as the parallel hypothesis is that "there WERE rearing up from the invisible crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks". "Were" is plural and FACTIVE. > > <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, Sure. speculative 'might be' supposition Wrong. with no > basis in fact. > > Note the use of the term, 'supposedly'? Indeed - in this case, it is supposed that there were, rearing up from the invisible crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made of crystal and thus invisible. It is not supposition that the above merely "might be" the case. Goober. > > Get tit now, Mr. Goober? > > Quote
Guest Goober Posted September 30, 2006 Posted September 30, 2006 Your Logic Tutor wrote: > > "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'. That won't show you or anyone how you misstated the hypothesis. Who do you think hypothetically might have > installed the hypothetical invisible crystalline substance in all the > valleys of the moon, Zeus maybe? Maybe Oden? The answer to that question won't change the fact that the hypothesis in question does not mention "God" and is not as you stated it. > > I don't believe so. These theists trying to get away with arguing _ad > ignorantiam_ in this case are followers of God, Mr. Goober. That is irrelevant to the content of the hypothesis in question. Goober. > > > > Quote
Guest Goober Posted September 30, 2006 Posted September 30, 2006 Your Logic Tutor wrote: > 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, Firstly, "is true" is a predicate (commonly called, for obvious reasons, the truth predicate) and hence cannot be a premise. For "is true" to be a premise it would have to express a proposition, and it doesn't. It has no truth-value. It is, as Gottlob Frege, a founder of modern logic put it: "unsaturated". Secondly, if what you are trying to say is that "P is true" is an unstated premise then, your position is self-defeating. If "P" is identical in meaning to "P is true" (i.e. if the deflationary theory of truth is correct) then, since "P" is explicit, "P is true" is also explicit since it expresses the very same proposition as "P". Your position is like saying "John likes Sally" is an unstated premise of an argument where "Sally is liked by John" is an explicit premise. You are completely incoherent. "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"] BZZZZZZ. "P" is not an argument. is known to be > in accord with the actual state of affairs. BZZZZZ. It does not mean that. It means that P is actual, real, etc. It does not mean that it is known to be anything. > > The problem with such an an argument BZZZZZ. Ain't 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. BZZZZZ. Wrong - that they could all be wrong does not make it a fallacy, even if it were an argument (which it isn't). Large numbers believing P does not make P true. Generally true, we know. Goober. > > 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 30, 2006 Posted September 30, 2006 Your Logic Tutor wrote: > > 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, Yes it is. Goober. 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 'foolsrushin.' Posted September 30, 2006 Posted September 30, 2006 It is quite unimportant whether the exstential predicate can be validated, though it will lead to non-sense, anyway. Kant, though a theist, knew this to be so, since the proposition 'God exists' is antinomially on no better footing than 'Not-God exists', where existential predicates are concerned - or, of course you can turn it round! What matters is only testable predicates of the entity 'God', which strike me as being numerous and sometimes contadictory. As regards the so--called mind-body problem, everything becomes much easier when you give up the God-stuff, too. A good case for Occham's razor! -- 'foolsrushin'. Goober wrote: > Your Logic Tutor wrote: > > > > "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". > > I note that you do not reject my above claim. > > > > > 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 > > Naturally. > > > 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? > > Why do you ask? > > "IS" does not mean " known to be real/exist/actual"; it is synonymous > with "exists" or "real" or "actual" (as the thesaurus might suggest). > > Thus, to say of anything that it "is" is to say it exists, it is real, > or it is actual. > > It is NOT to say anything to the effect that it is known to be real, > or known to exist or known to be actual. > > 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 'foolsrushin.' Posted September 30, 2006 Posted September 30, 2006 The Astronomer, Patrick Moore, said that a lady whom he invited to look through his telescope said, 'You astronomers must be awfully clever.' 'Why?' he asked. ' The way you find out the names of all those planets,' came the reply. -- 'foolsrushin'. Goober wrote: > Your Logic Tutor wrote: > > > > "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". > > I note that you do not reject my above claim. > > > > > 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 > > Naturally. > > > 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? > > Why do you ask? > > "IS" does not mean " known to be real/exist/actual"; it is synonymous > with "exists" or "real" or "actual" (as the thesaurus might suggest). > > Thus, to say of anything that it "is" is to say it exists, it is real, > or it is actual. > > It is NOT to say anything to the effect that it is known to be real, > or known to exist or known to be actual. > > 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 Your Logic Tutor Posted October 1, 2006 Posted October 1, 2006 "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote > Your Logic Tutor wrote: >> ... >> Large numbers believing P does not make P true. > > Generally true, we know. > > Goober. Thanks for conceding, Mr. Goober. >> >> The question remains, so what if lots and lots of people believe there >> might actually 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? No. >> >> 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 October 1, 2006 Posted October 1, 2006 In article <6OudnRRMlfECZILYnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote > > Your Logic Tutor wrote: > > >> ... > >> Large numbers believing P does not make P true. > > > > Generally true, we know. > > > > Goober. > > Thanks for conceding, Mr. Goober. What Goober said before Septic said it is hardly a concession. So that Septic lies again. > > >> > >> The question remains, so what if lots and lots of people believe there > >> might actually be > >> a mind - body problem, does that prove that there is, or is that just a > >> fallacious appeal to popularity? Or is it merely a statement of fact that lots of people do believe it. Does admitting that lots of people believe in gods require one to suppose that belief to be well founded? If that were the case then Septic would have to believe in gods. So when Septic argues that allowing that lots of people believe there is a mind body problem is an argument that the problem is exists, then Septic;s arguments that anyone is a theist is equally an argument that gods exist. The parallelism is perfect. So either Septic is a theist or he is lying about Goober's statement. Which is it, Sepotic, old sot? Quote
Guest Goober Posted October 1, 2006 Posted October 1, 2006 Your Logic Tutor wrote: > > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote >> Your Logic Tutor wrote: > >>> ... >>> Large numbers believing P does not make P true. >> >> Generally true, we know. >> >> Goober. > > Thanks for conceding, Mr. Goober. You presuppose a falsity: that I maintained something to the contrary. Returning now to your numerous other errors... (apparently, judging from you snipping all your errors out, you're getting tired of being beaten up on these issues) ... here they are again: >> "P is believed by millions of people worldwide, therefore P is true." > [sceptic] > "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, [Goober] Firstly, "is true" is a predicate (commonly called, for obvious reasons, the truth predicate) and hence cannot be a premise. For "is true" to be a premise it would have to express a proposition, and it doesn't. It has no truth-value. It is, as Gottlob Frege, a founder of modern logic put it: "unsaturated". Secondly, if what you are trying to say is that "P is true" is an unstated premise then, your position is self-defeating. If "P" is identical in meaning to "P is true" (i.e. if the redundancy theory of truth is correct) then, since "P" is explicit, "P is true" is also explicit since it expresses the very same proposition as "P". Your position is like saying "John likes Sally" is an unstated premise of an argument where "Sally is liked by John" is an explicit premise. You are completely incoherent. [sceptic] "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"] [Goober] BZZZZZZ. "P" is not an argument. [sceptic] is known to be > in accord with the actual state of affairs. [Goober] BZZZZZ. It does not mean that. It means that P is actual, real, etc. It does not mean that it is known to be anything. [sceptic] > > The problem with such an an argument [Goober] BZZZZZ. Ain't an argument. [sceptic] 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. [Goober] BZZZZZ. Wrong - that they could all be wrong does not make it a fallacy, even if it were an argument (which it isn't). Goober. > >>> >>> The question remains, so what if lots and lots of people believe >>> there might actually 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? No. >>> >>> 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.