|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: cause and effect | |||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Elsewhere, one of the more prolific posters on this forum has taken a stand, though you fail to realize it. The problem is that you do not like tht stand, as it screws up your preformatted argument as outlined by you later in the thread.
quote: I'm sorry, conditions for validity have nothing to do with its truth value?
quote: Actually, not vague at all, though perhaps over your head.
quote: hmmmm..... Let's see. Do parallel lines converge? Its a simple question. A yes or no will suffice, and then we can move on. I'm only interested in the truth value of the statement, not in how it applies to this or that. Please don't introduce extraneous comments. Focus only on the premise itself. Take a stand. Show some backbone! Which is it? Yes? Or no?
quote: Well, you have mixed intuition with inductive reasoning. Which is it? Intuitively true or is it a conclusion based on a person's experience and inductive reasoning? You see, 'intuitive truth' is normally synonymous with a priori and is typically invoked when one has nothing else upon which to stand.
quote: hmmm... prima facie? That means 'at first look' does it not? AKA... superficially! That's funny. Who cares what its superficial appearance is? Oh, sorry, I guess you do. We butt heads because you refuse to go beneath the surface.
quote: Want I should flip a coin? Perhaps that will make more of an impression than the answers to this question you've been given repeatedly.
quote: Not if there is NO CAUSALITY.
quote: Well that's begging the question isn't it?
quote: Well that's begging the question isn't it?
quote: Not if there is NO CAUSALITY.
quote: How about just answering my question about parallel lines? Enquiring minds want to know. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by forgiven:
[B]I'm sorry, conditions for validity have nothing to do with its truth value?[/quote] no need to apologize... of course not, john... [/b][/quote] LOL......
quote: You haven't even understood what I've posted.
quote: quote: What is your hang-up with syllogisms? Just finish a freshma Phil. class and think you've picked up some deep insight into logic?
quote: umm... it is a simple question. Why are you avoiding it?
quote: What are you afraid of? Can't take a stand? Not willing to commit to an answer? It isn't a hard question. Do parallel lines converge?
quote: hmmm... gee, from experience essentially. Now what does this have to do with intuition?
quote: Obvious, of course, meaning true? You have got to be joking. What is obvious is that you will not answer a simple question about parallel lines. Instead of anwering this VERY SIMPLE QUESTION, you bring in extraneous stuff about syllogisms, and minor premises and conclusions. It is a simple question. I didn't bring up anything about arguments, logic... I asked a simple question. Do parallel lines converge?
quote: Actually, I think you are finally getting the point.
quote: LOL..... You can bitch and cry and moan about logic and syllogisms until your fingers bleed, the fact remains that there are conditions under which causality as we know it DOES NOT APPLY. Those conditions exist at the singularity at the center of black holes and, of course, at the singularity of the BB. The BB singularity is the one of particular importance to the origin of the universe. And lets not forget quantum physics, which make a mess of causality in its own right.
quote: Logical format????? DO PARALLEL LINES CONVERGE? It is a simple question. What format do you want? You seem to be unable to take a stand. Why is it so hard? All I want is a yes or a no? Which is it? Do parallel lines converge?
quote: You've got to be joking?
quote: LOL.... Funny thing is that I haven't made up anything I've posted to you. This stuff was all worked out by the best and brightest in physics and cosmology. In essense, I am just the messenger. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
ah.... yet another post full of you not getting it.....
quote: You arrogance is really getting on my nerves. Everything I have posted to you has been directly related to the topic of the thread.
quote: You seem to be of the opinion that you are the only one here with a grasp of logic. That is far from the truth, though you stubbornly refuse to see it.
quote: arrogant arrogant arrogant...
quote: Funny, you've moved the premises but have the problem. The problem is with the phrasing "that begins to exist"
quote: No. Obviously we should all accept the terms as you define them. Again, are you serious?
quote: Wow... you missed that one as well. Mister P was addressing your phrasing of the premise. You choose "that which begins to exist" rather than "that which exists" specifically, as I suspect as well, to avoid this problem. Skipping the logic lesson....
quote: LOL......
quote: He suspects that you formulated the argument to avoid a very prickly problem involving the existence of God. Yes, you can formulate any argument you wish. BUT WE CAN CRITICISE THE PREMISES. You seem to be missing that part. Did they not teach you that in Logic 101?
quote: Hardly. If things begin to exist in different manners it means that your argument suffers from oversimplification.
quote: You so very over-rate your grasp of logic.
quote: uh-huh....?
quote: It isn't so much false as it is an overgeneralization. In other words, you can't know that it is true. Lets talk about deductive logic for a second. It seems to be an obsession of yours. Deductive logic is all subtractive. That is you derive a subset of a whole. This works just fine when you can actually observe the whole--- for example, all the marbles on the table. When you get to set which you cannot observe, you find that you must over-generalize. Logically, you crash and burn right there. Unless you can demonstrate that you have in fact observed every single case of things-coming-into-being and can therefore claim the truth of your first premise.
quote: That is rich... you mean blanket statements like 'all things which come to exist have a cause'?
quote: This is the least of your problems actually.
quote: Self-reflection is a virtue you appear to lack.
quote: Irrelevant.
quote: Yes, because it can lead to great confusion, as in your case.
quote: NO WE ARE NOT. The premise does not exist as some kind or platonic form. You are claiming that the premise is primary. We are claiming that it isn't, that it implies, requires and assumes other premises.
quote: Sorry, but we have. You introduce both in your first premise, though you do not realize it.
quote: Such terms as you are desperately trying to keep out of the debate as they break your preformatted argument.
quote: Do you really maintain that such a statement does NOT imply time?
quote: This is a logic game. Do you consider "potential existence" to be some form of real thing? If so, you are contradicting yourself. If "potential existence" is some form of real thing, then it can be the source of a things comng into being.
quote: You are treating potential existence as if it were some form of real thing. Make up your mind(s).
quote: Pot calling the kettle black... ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: You can't add conditions. I said nothing about the state of measuring devises.
quote: How's that? It is wrong. You assume a Euclidean geometry, which I did not specify. There are non-euclidean geometries within which parallel lines do converge and others wherein such lines diverge. Now, if you had answered "yes" you would have been wrong as well. Parallel lines do not converge within a Euclidean geometric system. The answer depends upon unstated conditions. This is the position you have been attempting to force me into. You have been insisting that I give you a 'straight' answer but the answer depends upon unstated conditions. Your 'straight' answer is wrong no matter how you answer, unless you specify the conditions, and this you have not allowed me. When I have tried to specify those conditions, you have accused me of not answering the question and, in fact, have been quite abrasive about it.
quote: I have given up on the idea that such a thing is possible. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Well, what do you know? This is what I and others have been telling you all along about YOUR question. Do you now acknowledge that? Nope. You want a simple answer to a question that depends upon conditions not stated yet refuse to state the conditions or allow anyone else to state those condition. Really, it is the height of absurdity. Yet, I'm sure you will continue.
[quote][b]i take issue with this... [quote][b] Thought you might.
quote: Any honest person reading the thread will know that is not true. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: hmmm....
quote: Couldn't have said it better myself. So just change the the first word to 'forgiven'.
quote: Actually, this would be my stating the impression I get from your behavior. This is not the same thing as stating your opinion for you. Remember, words are important.
quote: Actually, just clarifying what MisterP said.
quote: Apparently, you object, since this is precisely what I have been doing since the beginning.
quote: Wow, that is a damning insight since it is precisely what I said.
quote: You may phrase your premises any way you like. I never said otherwise. HOWEVER, we get to criticise those premises. You seem to have a serious problem with this. Tough.
quote: ... coming from someone who has managed to miss the last hundred years of physics and cosmology and the last 2.5 thousand years of logic and metaphysics, this is very painful.
quote: I appreciate the inclusion.
quote: Actually, just restated. The point was hard to miss, though you managed. If I am off base, MrP will correct me.
quote: Then what, exactly, is your problem?
quote: This has been done numerous times. Remember that stuff about the conditions of causality, and the universe, and time? All the stuff that you discount as not being relevant?
quote: I'm sorry, what? I have to prove your unsupported statement wrong? That is laughable.
quote: Wow. We are right back to where this all began, yet again. To do this I must assume causality. To build an argument involving causality-- to build an argument AT ALL, I must assume causality. THIS IS AN ASSUMPTION AND IT ALWAYS WILL BE.
quote: I hate to break it to you.... This isn't news to logicians. It is old information actually.
quote: That is a distinct possiblity. Every system rests ultimately upon unproveable assumptions.
quote: Been trying.... been trying really really hard...... but everything I say is judged slipperly sidestepping.
quote: Did I refuse this?
[quote][b]here john nearly states my premise... if he wishes to challenge it all he need do is set forth an argument utilizing something that began to exist and show the validity of it not having a cause... that would be the logical way to continue Still not getting it.
quote: Yep... I figure if i make you mad enough the steam might soften that hard head.
quote: Try re-reading every post to me after about the third one, and lets not leave out the other participants who've now left the debate.
quote: When everything not to your liking is written off as not on topic, slippery, and irrelevant, this is not possible. I have addressed your premise.
quote: I am asserting that your premise implies time and space. This is a valid comment.
quote: Subtract time, and what do you have of causality? Subtract space?
quote: Yes, that follows....
quote: Gee.... it happens. In fact, it is favorite pastime of philosophers.
quote: You first premise implies temporality. Causality requires it. Right from the get-go is the proper time.
quote: Note: questions are not assertions.
quote: Why are we talking about me in the third person? And actually, it appears to me to be you who is making this equivalency. Notice the question marks in my paragraph? In English, those imply that the statement is a question. You see, here I was asking for clarification of your position. I guess that is too much to ask.
quote: Well... hmmm... you seem to have gotten it. Must not be that confusing. But again, you are confusing my asking for clarification with my stating my opinion/belief. You see, this is part of that whole debate process, where you say something then I think about it and reply with my thoughts on the matter. In this case, I responded with what seems to me to be the implications of some of your statements. Now would be your turn to respond to my response.
quote: See this:
quote: If potential is treated as some sort of real thing, this becomes a distinct possibility. If it isn't some sort of real thing, I fail to see the point. Its just a word game.
quote: Notice that it all hinges upon your answer to the question posed. Still looking for clarification here.
quote: Fallacy? For it to be fallacious it must first be an argument. This would instead be an accusation. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by forgiven:
[B]if you have any, post them... Well... it starts here, post #27:
quote: Mild, yes, but what you refuse to realize is that I have answered you in dead earnest, especially in the beginning. You don't like that answer. Tough. It was in dead earnest. This kind of dismissive response is really quite irritating. And graduates quickly to this in post #29:
quote: Nope. Not a non-reply. The best reply I've got. And what is this about fear? Quite a skillful attempt to discredit me. This, and all I have done thus far is try to answer your question. Then on to post #38 where we find this:
quote: More of that bully-debate tactic you are so fond of using. Topped off with the suggestion of spinelessness. and this:
quote: Subtle jab at my ability to comprehend the argument, and essentially a brush off of my post. Yes, this gets old very quickly. And this:
quote: This is a restatement of your premises after I have made a criticism of those premises. In effect, you are ignoring what I have said. Notice, how you have yet to actually respond to any comment I have made. Everything you've said thus far is a string of statements about what you think is valid and appropriate. Bully debate tactics again.
quote: Here we have the suggestion that I neglect 'accepted standards of logic' then the accusation that I am dodging the issue. Then there is #44 where we find this:
quote: More jabbing me for what you think is avoiding the issue. When, and I repeat-- please pay attention-- I HAVE RESPONDED TO YOU HONESTLY AND IN GOOD FAITH. Then post #1 of this thread:
quote: More of the same....
quote: Ouch....! Need I explain this?
quote: My remarks are vague and apparently meaningless... and of course you still haven't addressed any of them. Post #3 of this thread:
quote: Now how does this apply to the question I asked? This was about parallel lines remember? What form of syllogism do you propose would be a valid way to ASK A QUESTION? Can't think of one. Looks like just another chance to imply that I am not logical.
quote: Here we go again... more accusations that I do not respond to you. I do. Post #7:
quote: Ok. This was just funny, in context. Nice attempt to dress yourself up and dress me down. Post #10, this thread:
quote: This, dear forgiven, is simple deceitful. I stated that you were wrong and told you why.
quote: And here:
quote: Well, any HONEST person would I suppose.... Again, you brush off the point made in the paragraph. The paragraph was an attempt to explain to you why I answer the way I do. Another good faith effort; another brush off and another jab.
quote: Need I repeat... I have answered you in dead earnest. Post #12:
quote: Not rely upon... deploy when my serious responses are brushed away like dirt. Imagine that?
quote: Funny, since you have brushed away all of my efforts to do this. Mostly without a response beyond "You can't do that!!!!!" quotejohn again speaks for pamboli][/quote] Is it improper to build upon what someone else has said? I see no point to this statement, which you made a few time, other than to discredit me. And right below it:
[quote][b]one instead needs to put forth valid arguments as to the truth value of the premises as a whole or the terms of each.../b][/quote] Indicative that you haven't paid attention to anything I have said to you.
quote: More logic lessons. Irritating because it positions you as 'teacher'. Bully debate tactic.
quote: And this is deceptive. The "bald assertion" was part of a request that you clarify your position.
quote: Right-o. And you have responded to not a one of them, but brush everything off as not being relevant. The caliber of my arguments is just fine, thanks. The caliber of my ad hominem attacks ain't bad either, but the two are not the same. Of course, I am leaving out the countless logic lessons. All of which paint you as teacher.
quote: This statement is simply amazing to me. Unaware? Really? At least I am aware when I impune your character and intelligence. I wish you'd show the same consideration.
quote: hmmm... the same immaturity is demonstrated when one refuses to acknowledge another's honest answers.
quote: Didn't know I had an offer to refuse.
quote: Lets see.... what was that again.....?
quote: quote: Likewise there seems no point in continuing a discussion in which I am allowed to say not one damn thing with having my opponent-- and apparently judge, jury and executioner of the laws of logic and debate-- brush it off as an evasive tactic. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: quote: So much for standing by your word, but I figured as much. Do you think that if you choose you words carefully you can remain squeaky clean? Apparently, it seem to be the method. You've been unable to see your own blatant crap thus far, why should that change?
quote: Didn't actually say they did. Nor, in fact, did you require it. What you will see is a lot of misrepresentation, a lot of avoidance, some red-herrings, and a whole lot of hard-headedness. (you might dislike any or all of the things i said, but there's a difference between dislike and accusation...) Most of it is the bully debate tactics, where you refuse to admit anything not in your plan. Though I don't think you realize it, this is not good debate.
quote: After the disclaimer, I am not impressed. Oh, I really don't see what I may have said to offend you, but I am sincerely sorry. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 11-17-2002] [This message has been edited by John, 11-17-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: This is very interesting. Now remember, you might dislike any or all of the things i said, but there's a difference between dislike and accusation. That said, you have been given a list of fallacious and deceptive practices which you are fond of committing, yet deny them. Wording hardly excuses you. Surely these is every bit the crimes as are mine?
quote: Then it is simply crap. You do try to hide your own faults. Remember, mind you, you might dislike any or all of the things i said, but there's a difference between dislike and accusation.
quote: Wait a minute.... you accused?
quote: And herein lies much trouble, you do assume a great deal and then defend yourself by appealing to your own assumptions. (You might dislike any or all of the things i said, but there's a difference between dislike and accusation.) What you actually said was that if I had evidence -- ie posts-- demonstrating that you have impuned my character, then please post them. I did. You did not require that anything meet the deinition of an ad hominem attack. (By the way, much of what you call an ad hominem fallacy, isn't. To be a fallacy, it has to be within an argument. Otherwise, it is just a insult.)
quote: Gee whiz, is that another effort to impune my character? Really, for all your whining, you launch these things with frightening regularity.
quote: What do ya know? Yet another assault. And all I said was that your debate tactics are poor. Rather than address the issue, you criticise the man. Hang on, isn't that an ad hominem? Let's review one thing here, and that is this:
quote: What I notice is that you quite obviously object the comment I made about you not getting it. What I also notice is that you class this as an [/i]ad hominem[/i] fallacy. Now, if one were to review post #16 of this thread, it is quite apparent that your initial responses to me are the functional equivalent of this ad hominem attack. Your wording is different, but the meaning is the same. I see no effort to address what I said, which would have been greatly appreciated being as it is that I am here to learn something. What I see is you telling me that I am not getting it. This, by your own standards, is an ad hominem attack. Surely, you can see this? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Are you serious? This is a response to my post? The post where I demonstrate that you blatantly disregard your own rules of conduct? This is sticking to the topic? This is not changing the subject? This is answering a direct question? This is not yet another ad hominem? This is not misdirection? This is not avoidance? This is not forgiven speaking for "others"? This is not similar to John speaking for Mr.P. for which I was criticised? This in not a non-answer, like those of which you are fond of accusing me? Do your rules not apply to you? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Well, you're not getting your bribe this week ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024