| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
04 Sep 2003 03:04:21 PM |
| Object: |
'Science cannot provide all the answers' |
'Science cannot provide all the answers'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1034872,00.html
Why do so many scientists believe in God? Tim Radford reports
Thursday September 4, 2003
The Guardian
Colin Humphreys is a dyed-in-the-wool materialist. That is, he is
professor of materials science at Cambridge. He believes in the power
of science to explain the nature of matter. He believes that humans -
like all other living things - evolved through the action of natural
selection upon random mutation. He is also a Baptist. He believes in
the story of Moses, as recounted in the biblical book of Exodus. He
believes in it enough to have explored Egypt and the Holy Land in
search of natural or scientific explanations for the story of the
burning bush, the 10 plagues of Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea and
the manna that fell in the wilderness -and then written a book about
it.
.
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
13 Nov 2003 10:49:46 AM |
|
|
"Kevin L. O'Brien" <kevinlob@clare.ltd.new.net> wrote in message
news:ed6ccb78.0311130336.26daee2c@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<4jwsb.131564$mZ5.895832@attbi_s54>...
See what I mean?
Yes, I do see what you mean.
I also see that you have twice now deliberately avoided answering my
question at the end of my post. I shall reproduce my post below
again. Please read through all it and answer the question. My
question points to a possible flaw in your reasoning.
The structure or pattern of a reductio ad absurdum arguement is:
(to-be-refuted assumption + a conjugation of preestablished facts)
yields a contradiction.
It doesn't have to be "facts" plural, your argument can certainly be refuted
because it is in conflict with just ONE fact already in evidence,
knucklehead.
Take the argument that you are championing,
that the law prohibiting murder is a purely subjective matter.
That does not fit the fact already in evidence that it is already
established objectively,
perceptible to any observer, as a self evident truth (because the opposite
would be an absurd barbaric situation among us mortals) that each individual
comes into the world endowed with the right to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, that rules out also holding that
murder is acceptable behavior. The result: the law prohibiting murder,
arrived at through reductio ad absurdum, a perfectly valid means of arriving
at objective logical conclusions.
That means that the argument you are championing, that the law prohibiting
murder is a purely subjective matter, is one that cannot have any validity.
See what I mean?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin L. OBrien" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
13 Nov 2003 04:30:09 PM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<dCOsb.140635$275.425844@attbi_s53>...
"Kevin L. O'Brien" <kevinlob@clare.ltd.new.net> wrote in message
news:ed6ccb78.0311130336.26daee2c@posting.google.com...
The structure or pattern of a reductio ad absurdum arguement is:
(to-be-refuted assumption + a conjugation of preestablished facts)
yields a contradiction.
It doesn't have to be "facts" plural, your argument can certainly be refuted
because it is in conflict with just ONE fact already in evidence,
knucklehead.
Alright. Here is the reductio ad absurdum argument that you assert
demonstrates that "life is an unalienable right" is an objective fact
perceptible to all:
to-be-refuted assumption --- life is not an unalienable right
preestablished fact --- ?????
such that
(life is not an unalienable right + ?????) yields a contradiction
What would "?????" be?
Kevin L. O'Brien
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arn" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
13 Nov 2003 06:33:33 PM |
|
|
Kevin L. O'Brien wrote:
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<dCOsb.140635$275.425844@attbi_s53>...
"Kevin L. O'Brien" <kevinlob@clare.ltd.new.net> wrote in message
news:ed6ccb78.0311130336.26daee2c@posting.google.com...
The structure or pattern of a reductio ad absurdum arguement is:
(to-be-refuted assumption + a conjugation of preestablished facts)
yields a contradiction.
It doesn't have to be "facts" plural, your argument can certainly be refuted
because it is in conflict with just ONE fact already in evidence,
knucklehead.
Alright. Here is the reductio ad absurdum argument that you assert
demonstrates that "life is an unalienable right" is an objective fact
perceptible to all:
to-be-refuted assumption --- life is not an unalienable right
preestablished fact --- ?????
such that
(life is not an unalienable right + ?????) yields a contradiction
What would "?????" be?
Kevin L. O'Brien
Kevin,reductio ad absurdum is just disproof by showing that the
consequences of the proposition are absurd.
http://tinylink.com/?omXGHF9ApS
Absurd simply means ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable,
inconsistent with reason or logic or common sense.
"People do not have an unalieanable right to live" certainly leads to
absurd consequences. It would bugger common sense to hold that anyone
could take our lives at any time, with no reason at all, without fear of
the law.
Time to wake up and smell the coffee, Kevin.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin L. OBrien" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
14 Nov 2003 09:19:48 AM |
|
|
Arn <arnold02165@hotmailspamblock.com> wrote in message news:<tpVsb.192855$HS4.1616779@attbi_s01>...
Kevin,reductio ad absurdum is just disproof by showing that the
consequences of the proposition are absurd.
http://tinylink.com/?omXGHF9ApS
Absurd simply means ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable,
inconsistent with reason or logic or common sense.
Actually there are three conditions that would satisfy the logical
requirement of being absurd (see
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/reductio.htm): a
self-contradiction, a falsehood, or an implausibility or anomaly. A
self-contradiction is reductio ad absurdum in its strictest sense; the
other two require a looser sense of the term. Bob White has been
using reductio ad absurdum in its strictest sense, so that is what I
have been concentrating on.
"People do not have an unalieanable right to live" certainly leads to
absurd consequences. It would bugger common sense to hold that anyone
could take our lives at any time, with no reason at all, without fear of
the law.
Alright, then maybe you can answer the question.
The structure of a reductio ad absurdum argument in its strictest
sense is:
(to-be-refuted assumption + preestablished fact) yields a
contradiction
In the case of "life is an unalienable right", the to-be-refuted
assumption is "life is not an unalienable right", thus the structure
of this particular reductio ad absurdum argument would be:
(life is not an unalienable right + ?????) yields a contradiction
What preestablished fact or facts would be substituted for "?????"?
Kevin L. O'Brien
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
13 Nov 2003 07:09:21 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:33:33 +0000 (UTC), Arn
<arnold02165@hotmailspamblock.com> wrote:
Kevin L. O'Brien wrote:
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<dCOsb.140635$275.425844@attbi_s53>...
"Kevin L. O'Brien" <kevinlob@clare.ltd.new.net> wrote in message
news:ed6ccb78.0311130336.26daee2c@posting.google.com...
The structure or pattern of a reductio ad absurdum arguement is:
(to-be-refuted assumption + a conjugation of preestablished facts)
yields a contradiction.
It doesn't have to be "facts" plural, your argument can certainly be refuted
because it is in conflict with just ONE fact already in evidence,
knucklehead.
Alright. Here is the reductio ad absurdum argument that you assert
demonstrates that "life is an unalienable right" is an objective fact
perceptible to all:
to-be-refuted assumption --- life is not an unalienable right
preestablished fact --- ?????
such that
(life is not an unalienable right + ?????) yields a contradiction
What would "?????" be?
Kevin L. O'Brien
Kevin,reductio ad absurdum is just disproof by showing that the
consequences of the proposition are absurd.
http://tinylink.com/?omXGHF9ApS
Absurd simply means ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable,
inconsistent with reason or logic or common sense.
"People do not have an unalieanable right to live" certainly leads to
absurd consequences. It would bugger common sense to hold that anyone
could take our lives at any time, with no reason at all, without fear of
the law.
Claiming that "people do not have an unalienable right to live" does
not lead to "anyone could take our lives at any time, with no reason
at all, without fear of the law".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arn" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
14 Nov 2003 12:55:00 AM |
|
|
Jon Fleming wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:33:33 +0000 (UTC), Arn
<arnold02165@hotmailspamblock.com> wrote:
Kevin L. O'Brien wrote:
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<dCOsb.140635$275.425844@attbi_s53>...
"Kevin L. O'Brien" <kevinlob@clare.ltd.new.net> wrote in message
news:ed6ccb78.0311130336.26daee2c@posting.google.com...
The structure or pattern of a reductio ad absurdum arguement is:
(to-be-refuted assumption + a conjugation of preestablished facts)
yields a contradiction.
It doesn't have to be "facts" plural, your argument can certainly be refuted
because it is in conflict with just ONE fact already in evidence,
knucklehead.
Alright. Here is the reductio ad absurdum argument that you assert
demonstrates that "life is an unalienable right" is an objective fact
perceptible to all:
to-be-refuted assumption --- life is not an unalienable right
preestablished fact --- ?????
such that
(life is not an unalienable right + ?????) yields a contradiction
What would "?????" be?
Kevin L. O'Brien
Kevin,reductio ad absurdum is just disproof by showing that the
consequences of the proposition are absurd.
http://tinylink.com/?omXGHF9ApS
Absurd simply means ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable,
inconsistent with reason or logic or common sense.
"People do not have an unalieanable right to live" certainly leads to
absurd consequences. It would bugger common sense to hold that anyone
could take our lives at any time, with no reason at all, without fear of
the law.
Claiming that "people do not have an unalienable right to live" does
not lead to "anyone could take our lives at any time, with no reason
at all, without fear of the law".
You think not? Think again. If you do not have an unaleanable right to
life, then I am free to take away your life, at my whim.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin L. OBrien" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
14 Nov 2003 09:41:50 AM |
|
|
Arn <arnold02165@hotmailspamblock.com> wrote in message news:<5%_sb.197081$Tr4.561994@attbi_s03>...
Jon Fleming wrote:
Claiming that "people do not have an unalienable right to live" does
not lead to "anyone could take our lives at any time, with no reason
at all, without fear of the law".
You think not? Think again. If you do not have an unaleanable right to
life, then I am free to take away your life, at my whim.
I cannot speak for Jon, but for myself I am not disputing that.
What I am disputing is the claim that this satisfies the logical
definition of absurb as used in a reductio ad absurdum argument: a
self-contradiction, a falsehood, or an anomaly.
The self-contradiction criterion would be the easiest to establish.
Simply tell me what preestablished fact contradicts the assumption
that life is not an unalienable right.
Kevin L. O'Brien
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sven" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
14 Nov 2003 11:42:03 AM |
|
|
"Kevin L. O'Brien" <kevinlob@clare.ltd.new.net> wrote in message
news:ed6ccb78.0311140741.29686200@posting.google.com...
Arn <arnold02165@hotmailspamblock.com> wrote in message
news:<5%_sb.197081$Tr4.561994@attbi_s03>...
Jon Fleming wrote:
Claiming that "people do not have an unalienable right to live" does
not lead to "anyone could take our lives at any time, with no reason
at all, without fear of the law".
You think not? Think again. If you do not have an unaleanable right to
life, then I am free to take away your life, at my whim.
I cannot speak for Jon, but for myself I am not disputing that.
What I am disputing is the claim that this satisfies the logical
definition of absurb as used in a reductio ad absurdum argument: a
self-contradiction, a falsehood, or an anomaly.
The absurd is not limited strictly to being contradictory to FORMAL logic as
you seem to think.
Absurd also means inconsistent with common sense. [WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997
Princeton University ]
absurd
adj 1: inconsistent with reason or logic or common sense; "the absurd
predicament of seeming to argue that virtue is highly desirable but
intensely unpleasant"- Walter Lippman [syn: incongruous, unreasonable] 2: so
devoid of wisdom or good sense as to be laughable; "the absurd excuse that
the dog ate his homework"; "ask a nonsensical question and get a nonsensical
answer"; "a contribution so small as to be derisory"; "it is ludicrous to
call a cottage a mansion"; "a preposterous attempt to turn back the pages of
history"; "her conceited assumption of universal interest in her rather dull
children was ridiculous" [syn: derisory, ludicrous, nonsensical,
preposterous, ridiculous]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
That's what disproof by reductio ad absurdum is all about. For example, the
proposition that anyone is free to take away anyone else's life on a whim
disproved since that would lead to an absurdly barbaric state of affairs
that buggers common sense. Only those few who are challenged in the common
sense department, like despotic kings, dictators, theocracies, or the
sociopath murderer, for example, will take exception to this.
IMPALE, v.t.
In popular usage to pierce with any weapon which remains fixed in the
wound. This, however, is inaccurate; to impale is, properly, to put to death
by thrusting an upright sharp stake into the body, the victim being left in
a sitting position. This was a common mode of punishment among many of the
nations of antiquity, and is still in high favor in China and other parts of
Asia. Down to the beginning of the fifteenth century it was widely employed
in "churching" heretics and schismatics. Wolecraft calls it the "stoole of
repentynge," and among the common people it was jocularly known as "riding
the one legged horse." Ludwig Salzmann informs us that in Thibet impalement
is considered the most appropriate punishment for crimes against religion;
and although in China it is sometimes awarded for secular offences, it is
most frequently adjudged in cases of sacrilege. To the person in actual
experience of impalement it must be a matter of minor importance by what
kind of civil or religious dissent he was made acquainted with its
discomforts; but doubtless he would feel a certain satisfaction if able to
contemplate himself in the character of a weather-***** on the spire of the
True Church.
http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin L. OBrien" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
14 Nov 2003 04:10:06 PM |
|
|
"Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<Rt8tb.146768$mZ5.1003106@attbi_s54>...
The absurd is not limited strictly to being contradictory to FORMAL logic as
you seem to think.
First of all, in logic, the formal rules and structures are how you
know an argument is valid. Using nonformal definitions of logical
terms is a fallacy.
Secondly, that's not my claim; that is the claim of Nicholas Rescher,
professor of logic and philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh, as
you can see here:
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/reductio.htm.
So stop beating around the bush and answer the question: what
preestablished fact would contradict the assumption that life is not
an unalienable right? Surely if life being an unalienable right was
self-evidently true as you claim you would be able to answer my simple
question very easily. One would think that you avoid the question
because you know you cannot answer it, because assuming that life is
not an unalienable right produces no logical contradictions.
You don't want to give people that impression do you?
Kevin L. O'Brien
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sven" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
14 Nov 2003 06:03:31 PM |
|
|
"Kevin L. O'Brien" <kevinlob@clare.ltd.new.net> wrote in message
news:ed6ccb78.0311141410.517481b0@posting.google.com...
"Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<Rt8tb.146768$mZ5.1003106@attbi_s54>...
The absurd is not limited strictly to being contradictory to FORMAL
logic as
you seem to think.
First of all, in logic, the formal rules and structures are how you
know an argument is valid. Using nonformal definitions of logical
terms is a fallacy.
Evidently you are not aware of the field of informal (plain language) logic,
as distinguished from formal (symbolic) logic?
That which is genuinely under
discussion here is a reductio ad absurdum in informal (plain language)
logic, not formal (symbolic) logic.
"Informal logic is an attempt to develop a logic which can be used to
assess, analyze and improve the informal reasoning that occurs in the course
of personal exchange, advertising, political debate, legal argument, and in
the types of social commentary found in newspapers, television, the World
Wide Web and other forms of mass media."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/
The absurd is not limited strictly to being contradictory to FORMAL logic as
you seem to think.
Absurd also means inconsistent with common sense. [WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997
Princeton University ]
absurd
adj 1: inconsistent with reason or logic or common sense; "the absurd
predicament of seeming to argue that virtue is highly desirable but
intensely unpleasant"- Walter Lippman [syn: incongruous, unreasonable] 2: so
devoid of wisdom or good sense as to be laughable; "the absurd excuse that
the dog ate his homework"; "ask a nonsensical question and get a nonsensical
answer"; "a contribution so small as to be derisory"; "it is ludicrous to
call a cottage a mansion"; "a preposterous attempt to turn back the pages of
history"; "her conceited assumption of universal interest in her rather dull
children was ridiculous" [syn: derisory, ludicrous, nonsensical,
preposterous, ridiculous]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
That's what disproof by reductio ad absurdum is all about. For example, the
proposition that anyone is free to take away anyone else's life on a whim
disproved since that would lead to an absurdly barbaric state of affairs
that buggers common sense. Only those few who are challenged in the common
sense department, like despotic kings, dictators, theocracies, or the
sociopath murderer, for example, will take exception to this.
IMPALE, v.t.
In popular usage to pierce with any weapon which remains fixed in the
wound. This, however, is inaccurate; to impale is, properly, to put to death
by thrusting an upright sharp stake into the body, the victim being left in
a sitting position. This was a common mode of punishment among many of the
nations of antiquity, and is still in high favor in China and other parts of
Asia. Down to the beginning of the fifteenth century it was widely employed
in "churching" heretics and schismatics. Wolecraft calls it the "stoole of
repentynge," and among the common people it was jocularly known as "riding
the one legged horse." Ludwig Salzmann informs us that in Thibet impalement
is considered the most appropriate punishment for crimes against religion;
and although in China it is sometimes awarded for secular offences, it is
most frequently adjudged in cases of sacrilege. To the person in actual
experience of impalement it must be a matter of minor importance by what
kind of civil or religious dissent he was made acquainted with its
discomforts; but doubtless he would feel a certain satisfaction if able to
contemplate himself in the character of a weather-***** on the spire of the
True Church.
http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/
Secondly, that's not my claim; that is the claim of Nicholas Rescher,
professor of logic and philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh, as
you can see here:
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/reductio.htm.
So stop beating around the bush and answer the question: what
preestablished fact would contradict the assumption that life is not
an unalienable right? Surely if life being an unalienable right was
self-evidently true as you claim you would be able to answer my simple
question very easily. One would think that you avoid the question
because you know you cannot answer it, because assuming that life is
not an unalienable right produces no logical contradictions.
It is contaradictory to (inconsistent with) common sense. (The fact you are
ignoring to suit your own agenda is that the term, 'absurd' also means
inconsistent with common sense. [WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997
Princeton University ])
You don't want to give people that impression do you?
Kevin L. O'Brien
You don't want to give people the impression you are in the habit of
ignoring the facts others point out if they do not suit your agenda, do you?
The argument you are championing, that the law prohibiting murder is a
purely subjective matter is one that cannot have any validity, since it
implies that we as a society could very well do without it, which leads to
an absurd barbaric situation. Absurd also means inconsistent with common
sense. [WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University ]
Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid means (in informal, plain
language, logic) to arrive at an objective logical conclusion perceptible to
all observers.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
14 Nov 2003 12:55:22 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:42:03 +0000 (UTC), "Sven" <svh@nospam.com>
wrote:
"Kevin L. O'Brien" <kevinlob@clare.ltd.new.net> wrote in message
news:ed6ccb78.0311140741.29686200@posting.google.com...
Arn <arnold02165@hotmailspamblock.com> wrote in message
news:<5%_sb.197081$Tr4.561994@attbi_s03>...
Jon Fleming wrote:
Claiming that "people do not have an unalienable right to live" does
not lead to "anyone could take our lives at any time, with no reason
at all, without fear of the law".
You think not? Think again. If you do not have an unaleanable right to
life, then I am free to take away your life, at my whim.
I cannot speak for Jon, but for myself I am not disputing that.
What I am disputing is the claim that this satisfies the logical
definition of absurb as used in a reductio ad absurdum argument: a
self-contradiction, a falsehood, or an anomaly.
The absurd is not limited strictly to being contradictory to FORMAL logic as
you seem to think.
Nobody thinks that. However, when you are doing a reductio ad
absurdum proof, you are doing formal logic, and you are limited to
meaning of "absurd" that is appropriate to formal logic. Don't whine;
_you_ chose to frame your argument as a formal logic proposition, so
either live with the meaning of "absurd" that is appropriate to formal
logic or abandon your claim of a reductio ad absurdum proof.
Absurd also means inconsistent with common sense. [WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997
Princeton University ]
Yes, but not when used in formal logic, such as a reductio ad absurdum
proof.
That's what disproof by reductio ad absurdum is all about.
Nope, reductio ad absurdum is ABSOLUTELY NOT about that sense of
absurd, as shown by some links posted earlier today.
If you want to claim that reductio ad absurdum _is_ about the
colloquial "inconsistent with common sense" meaning of absurd, let's
see your references.,
For example, the
proposition that anyone is free to take away anyone else's life on a whim
Ah, this is called "moving the goal posts". We start with "everyone
holds that each person is born with an unalienable right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks" and you claim
that the opposite of this is 'anyone is free to take away anyone
else's life on a whim"?
Sorry, no that won't wash.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sven" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
14 Nov 2003 03:45:38 PM |
|
|
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:aj8arv8k553j9lp9dp8a1uqkcurajcgspv@4ax.com...
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:42:03 +0000 (UTC), "Sven" <svh@nospam.com>
wrote:
"Kevin L. O'Brien" <kevinlob@clare.ltd.new.net> wrote in message
news:ed6ccb78.0311140741.29686200@posting.google.com...
Arn <arnold02165@hotmailspamblock.com> wrote in message
news:<5%_sb.197081$Tr4.561994@attbi_s03>...
Jon Fleming wrote:
Claiming that "people do not have an unalienable right to live"
does
not lead to "anyone could take our lives at any time, with no
reason
at all, without fear of the law".
You think not? Think again. If you do not have an unaleanable right
to
life, then I am free to take away your life, at my whim.
I cannot speak for Jon, but for myself I am not disputing that.
What I am disputing is the claim that this satisfies the logical
definition of absurb as used in a reductio ad absurdum argument: a
self-contradiction, a falsehood, or an anomaly.
The absurd is not limited strictly to being contradictory to FORMAL logic
as
you seem to think.
Nobody thinks that. However, when you are doing a reductio ad
absurdum proof, you are doing formal logic ...
No, that's your straw man doing that. That which is genuinely under
discussion here is a reductio ad absurdum in informal (plain language)
logic, not formal (symbolic) logic.
"Informal logic is an attempt to develop a logic which can be used to
assess, analyze and improve the informal reasoning that occurs in the course
of personal exchange, advertising, political debate, legal argument, and in
the types of social commentary found in newspapers, television, the World
Wide Web and other forms of mass media."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/
The absurd is not limited strictly to being contradictory to FORMAL logic as
you seem to think.
Absurd also means inconsistent with common sense. [WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997
Princeton University ]
absurd
adj 1: inconsistent with reason or logic or common sense; "the absurd
predicament of seeming to argue that virtue is highly desirable but
intensely unpleasant"- Walter Lippman [syn: incongruous, unreasonable] 2: so
devoid of wisdom or good sense as to be laughable; "the absurd excuse that
the dog ate his homework"; "ask a nonsensical question and get a nonsensical
answer"; "a contribution so small as to be derisory"; "it is ludicrous to
call a cottage a mansion"; "a preposterous attempt to turn back the pages of
history"; "her conceited assumption of universal interest in her rather dull
children was ridiculous" [syn: derisory, ludicrous, nonsensical,
preposterous, ridiculous]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
That's what disproof by reductio ad absurdum is all about. For example, the
proposition that anyone is free to take away anyone else's life on a whim
disproved since that would lead to an absurdly barbaric state of affairs
that buggers common sense. Only those few who are challenged in the common
sense department, like despotic kings, dictators, theocracies, or the
sociopath murderer, for example, will take exception to this.
IMPALE, v.t.
In popular usage to pierce with any weapon which remains fixed in the
wound. This, however, is inaccurate; to impale is, properly, to put to death
by thrusting an upright sharp stake into the body, the victim being left in
a sitting position. This was a common mode of punishment among many of the
nations of antiquity, and is still in high favor in China and other parts of
Asia. Down to the beginning of the fifteenth century it was widely employed
in "churching" heretics and schismatics. Wolecraft calls it the "stoole of
repentynge," and among the common people it was jocularly known as "riding
the one legged horse." Ludwig Salzmann informs us that in Thibet impalement
is considered the most appropriate punishment for crimes against religion;
and although in China it is sometimes awarded for secular offences, it is
most frequently adjudged in cases of sacrilege. To the person in actual
experience of impalement it must be a matter of minor importance by what
kind of civil or religious dissent he was made acquainted with its
discomforts; but doubtless he would feel a certain satisfaction if able to
contemplate himself in the character of a weather-***** on the spire of the
True Church.
http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin L. OBrien" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
14 Nov 2003 08:48:22 PM |
|
|
"Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<c2ctb.148367$mZ5.1008474@attbi_s54>...
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:aj8arv8k553j9lp9dp8a1uqkcurajcgspv@4ax.com...
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:42:03 +0000 (UTC), "Sven" <svh@nospam.com>
wrote:
"Kevin L. O'Brien" <kevinlob@clare.ltd.new.net> wrote in message
news:ed6ccb78.0311140741.29686200@posting.google.com...
Arn <arnold02165@hotmailspamblock.com> wrote in message
news:<5%_sb.197081$Tr4.561994@attbi_s03>...
Jon Fleming wrote:
Claiming that "people do not have an unalienable right to live"
does
not lead to "anyone could take our lives at any time, with no
reason
at all, without fear of the law".
You think not? Think again. If you do not have an unaleanable right
to
life, then I am free to take away your life, at my whim.
I cannot speak for Jon, but for myself I am not disputing that.
What I am disputing is the claim that this satisfies the logical
definition of absurb as used in a reductio ad absurdum argument: a
self-contradiction, a falsehood, or an anomaly.
The absurd is not limited strictly to being contradictory to FORMAL logic
as
you seem to think.
Nobody thinks that. However, when you are doing a reductio ad
absurdum proof, you are doing formal logic ...
No, that's your straw man doing that. That which is genuinely under
discussion here is a reductio ad absurdum in informal (plain language)
logic, not formal (symbolic) logic.
"Informal logic is an attempt to develop a logic which can be used to
assess, analyze and improve the informal reasoning that occurs in the course
of personal exchange, advertising, political debate, legal argument, and in
the types of social commentary found in newspapers, television, the World
Wide Web and other forms of mass media."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/
Nothing in your quote says that informal logic does not use formal
logical structure. The informal refers to what circumstances it is
applied to, not how it is used. Informal logic is still uses the same
formal structure as formal logic. It is your misconception of what is
meant by informal that is the problem.
Kevin L. O'Brien
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
14 Nov 2003 05:18:05 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 21:45:38 +0000 (UTC), "Sven" <svh@nospam.com>
wrote:
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:aj8arv8k553j9lp9dp8a1uqkcurajcgspv@4ax.com...
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:42:03 +0000 (UTC), "Sven" <svh@nospam.com>
wrote:
"Kevin L. O'Brien" <kevinlob@clare.ltd.new.net> wrote in message
news:ed6ccb78.0311140741.29686200@posting.google.com...
Arn <arnold02165@hotmailspamblock.com> wrote in message
news:<5%_sb.197081$Tr4.561994@attbi_s03>...
Jon Fleming wrote:
Claiming that "people do not have an unalienable right to live"
does
not lead to "anyone could take our lives at any time, with no
reason
at all, without fear of the law".
You think not? Think again. If you do not have an unaleanable right
to
life, then I am free to take away your life, at my whim.
I cannot speak for Jon, but for myself I am not disputing that.
What I am disputing is the claim that this satisfies the logical
definition of absurb as used in a reductio ad absurdum argument: a
self-contradiction, a falsehood, or an anomaly.
The absurd is not limited strictly to being contradictory to FORMAL logic
as
you seem to think.
Nobody thinks that. However, when you are doing a reductio ad
absurdum proof, you are doing formal logic ...
No, that's your straw man doing that. That which is genuinely under
discussion here is a reductio ad absurdum in informal (plain language)
logic,
There is no such thing. I notice that your one reference does not
mention reductio ad absurdum.
not formal (symbolic) logic.
Why not?
"Informal logic is an attempt to develop a logic which can be used to
assess, analyze and improve the informal reasoning that occurs in the course
of personal exchange, advertising, political debate, legal argument, and in
the types of social commentary found in newspapers, television, the World
Wide Web and other forms of mass media."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/
Which makes no mention of reductio ad absurdum, because that's part of
formal logic and not a part of that guy's informal logic..
The absurd is not limited strictly to being contradictory to FORMAL logic as
you seem to think.
I not ice that you couldn't come up with references to support this
outlandish claim, even though I already requested them.
<snip irrelevancies>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sven" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
14 Nov 2003 08:12:08 PM |
|
|
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:16oarvc5eqvb57shr9dh70vmgb37g5h669@4ax.com...
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 21:45:38 +0000 (UTC), "Sven" <svh@nospam.com>
wrote:
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:aj8arv8k553j9lp9dp8a1uqkcurajcgspv@4ax.com...
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:42:03 +0000 (UTC), "Sven" <svh@nospam.com>
wrote:
"Kevin L. O'Brien" <kevinlob@clare.ltd.new.net> wrote in message
news:ed6ccb78.0311140741.29686200@posting.google.com...
Arn <arnold02165@hotmailspamblock.com> wrote in message
news:<5%_sb.197081$Tr4.561994@attbi_s03>...
Jon Fleming wrote:
Claiming that "people do not have an unalienable right to live"
does
not lead to "anyone could take our lives at any time, with no
reason
at all, without fear of the law".
You think not? Think again. If you do not have an unaleanable
right
to
life, then I am free to take away your life, at my whim.
I cannot speak for Jon, but for myself I am not disputing that.
What I am disputing is the claim that this satisfies the logical
definition of absurb as used in a reductio ad absurdum argument: a
self-contradiction, a falsehood, or an anomaly.
The absurd is not limited strictly to being contradictory to FORMAL
logic
as
you seem to think.
Nobody thinks that. However, when you are doing a reductio ad
absurdum proof, you are doing formal logic ...
No, that's your straw man doing that. That which is genuinely under
discussion here is a reductio ad absurdum in informal (plain language)
logic,
There is no such thing. I notice that your one reference does not
mention reductio ad absurdum.
not formal (symbolic) logic.
Why not?
"Informal logic is an attempt to develop a logic which can be used to
assess, analyze and improve the informal reasoning that occurs in the
course
of personal exchange, advertising, political debate, legal argument, and
in
the types of social commentary found in newspapers, television, the World
Wide Web and other forms of mass media."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/
Which makes no mention of reductio ad absurdum, because that's part of
formal logic and not a part of that guy's informal logic..
The absurd is not limited strictly to being contradictory to FORMAL logic
as
you seem to think.
I not ice that you couldn't come up with references to support this
outlandish claim, even though I already requested them.
It's not a claim, knucklehead, it is a fact, and I explained why. You
snipped the explanation!
<snip irrelevancies>
[unsnip]
The absurd is not limited strictly to being contradictory to FORMAL logic as
you seem to think.
Absurd also means inconsistent with common sense. [WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997
Princeton University ]
absurd
adj 1: inconsistent with reason or logic or common sense; "the absurd
predicament of seeming to argue that virtue is highly desirable but
intensely unpleasant"- Walter Lippman [syn: incongruous, unreasonable] 2: so
devoid of wisdom or good sense as to be laughable; "the absurd excuse that
the dog ate his homework"; "ask a nonsensical question and get a nonsensical
answer"; "a contribution so small as to be derisory"; "it is ludicrous to
call a cottage a mansion"; "a preposterous attempt to turn back the pages of
history"; "her conceited assumption of universal interest in her rather dull
children was ridiculous" [syn: derisory, ludicrous, nonsensical,
preposterous, ridiculous]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
That's what disproof by reductio ad absurdum is all about. For example, the
proposition that anyone is free to take away anyone else's life on a whim
disproved since that would lead to an absurdly barbaric state of affairs
that buggers common sense. Only those few who are challenged in the common
sense department, like despotic kings, dictators, theocracies, or the
sociopath murderer, for example, will take exception to this.
IMPALE, v.t.
In popular usage to pierce with any weapon which remains fixed in the
wound. This, however, is inaccurate; to impale is, properly, to put to death
by thrusting an upright sharp stake into the body, the victim being left in
a sitting position. This was a common mode of punishment among many of the
nations of antiquity, and is still in high favor in China and other parts of
Asia. Down to the beginning of the fifteenth century it was widely employed
in "churching" heretics and schismatics. Wolecraft calls it the "stoole of
repentynge," and among the common people it was jocularly known as "riding
the one legged horse." Ludwig Salzmann informs us that in Thibet impalement
is considered the most appropriate punishment for crimes against religion;
and although in China it is sometimes awarded for secular offences, it is
most frequently adjudged in cases of sacrilege. To the person in actual
experience of impalement it must be a matter of minor importance by what
kind of civil or religious dissent he was made acquainted with its
discomforts; but doubtless he would feel a certain satisfaction if able to
contemplate himself in the character of a weather-***** on the spire of the
True Church.
http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/
I notice that you are not only ignorant of what informal (plain language)
logic entails, and also ignorant of the original assertion that started this
discussion -- that plain language assertion in informal (plain language)
logic published here by Mr. Flunk, "The law itself is based on subjective
opinion." -- Lenny Flank 11/04/2003, and I also notice that you don't seem
to be capable of grasping that reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid
means of arriving at objective logical conclusions in informal (plain
language) logic, just as it is anywhere else, but not only that, I notice
that you do not seem to be at all interested in reasonable discussion, which
means dealing honestly with what your friends here are spending a lot of
time writing just for your edumacation. The point is this: Shape up, get hip
to reasonable discussion of the issues, or ship out, knucklehead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
15 Nov 2003 07:09:20 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 02:12:08 +0000 (UTC), "Sven" <svh@nospam.com>
wrote:
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:16oarvc5eqvb57shr9dh70vmgb37g5h669@4ax.com...
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 21:45:38 +0000 (UTC), "Sven" <svh@nospam.com>
wrote:
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:aj8arv8k553j9lp9dp8a1uqkcurajcgspv@4ax.com...
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:42:03 +0000 (UTC), "Sven" <svh@nospam.com>
wrote:
"Kevin L. O'Brien" <kevinlob@clare.ltd.new.net> wrote in message
news:ed6ccb78.0311140741.29686200@posting.google.com...
Arn <arnold02165@hotmailspamblock.com> wrote in message
news:<5%_sb.197081$Tr4.561994@attbi_s03>...
Jon Fleming wrote:
Claiming that "people do not have an unalienable right to live"
does
not lead to "anyone could take our lives at any time, with no
reason
at all, without fear of the law".
You think not? Think again. If you do not have an unaleanable
right
to
life, then I am free to take away your life, at my whim.
I cannot speak for Jon, but for myself I am not disputing that.
What I am disputing is the claim that this satisfies the logical
definition of absurb as used in a reductio ad absurdum argument: a
self-contradiction, a falsehood, or an anomaly.
The absurd is not limited strictly to being contradictory to FORMAL
logic
as
you seem to think.
Nobody thinks that. However, when you are doing a reductio ad
absurdum proof, you are doing formal logic ...
No, that's your straw man doing that. That which is genuinely under
discussion here is a reductio ad absurdum in informal (plain language)
logic,
There is no such thing. I notice that your one reference does not
mention reductio ad absurdum.
not formal (symbolic) logic.
Why not?
"Informal logic is an attempt to develop a logic which can be used to
assess, analyze and improve the informal reasoning that occurs in the
course
of personal exchange, advertising, political debate, legal argument, and
in
the types of social commentary found in newspapers, television, the World
Wide Web and other forms of mass media."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/
Which makes no mention of reductio ad absurdum, because that's part of
formal logic and not a part of that guy's informal logic..
The absurd is not limited strictly to being contradictory to FORMAL logic
as
you seem to think.
I not ice that you couldn't come up with references to support this
outlandish claim, even though I already requested them.
It's not a claim, knucklehead, it is a fact, and I explained why. You
snipped the explanation!
What I snipped was not an explanation. I snipped a definition of the
colloquial usage of "absurd", yet another unsupported claim that the
definition is applicable to reductio ad absurdum, and a long
definition of "impale". WHat the heck does "impale" have to do with
this?
<snip irrelevancies>
[unsnip]
The absurd is not limited strictly to being contradictory to FORMAL logic as
you seem to think.
Absurd also means inconsistent with common sense. [WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997
Princeton University ]
In colloquial usage, yes. In formal or informal logic, the realm in
which reductio ad absurdum is valid and used, no.
I'm really not interested in your claim that the colloquial usage of
"absurd" is relevant to reduction ad absurdum without references. A
definition of "absurd" and/or a repetition of your claim is not an
explanation nor is it references.
<snipe repeat of definitions and claims with no explanation or
references>
I notice that you are not only ignorant of what informal (plain language)
logic entails, and also ignorant of the original assertion that started this
discussion -- that plain language assertion in informal (plain language)
logic published here by Mr. Flunk, "The law itself is based on subjective
opinion." -- Lenny Flank 11/04/2003, and I also notice that you don't seem
to be capable of grasping that reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid
means of arriving at objective logical conclusions in informal (plain
language) logic, just as it is anywhere else, but not only that, I notice
that you do not seem to be at all interested in reasonable discussion, which
means dealing honestly with what your friends here are spending a lot of
time writing just for your edumacation. The point is this: Shape up, get hip
to reasonable discussion of the issues, or ship out, knucklehead.
I do not accept that reductio ad absurdum is a valid method of
arriving at objective logical conclusions in informal (plain language)
logic _in_ _the_ _manner_ _that_ _you_ _are_ _using_ _it_; i.e. with a
colloquial definition if "absurd" rather than the definition used in
formal logic. Do you have any support for your claim other than your
assertions and the dictionary definition of "absurd"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sven" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
15 Nov 2003 10:25:13 AM |
|
|
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:qh7crvombs1jtmad9bf3nqdrhivc88h159@4ax.com...
... WHat the heck does "impale" have to do with this? ...
Isn't it obvious? The absurd state of affairs described, in which the
theocracy is free to take anyone's life on a whim is the absurd situation
that results from society not holding that every person is born equal, and
endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life,
liberty, and the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, knucklehead.
The silly proposition you are championing, that people are not born with
these unalienable rights, leads to that absurd, barbaric state of affairs,
so, using reductio ad absurdum, disproof of a proposition by showing that it
leads to an absurd state of affairs, your silly proposition is soundly
dismissed. It's time for you to wake up and smell the coffee, knucklehead.
It's over. You and Mr. Flunk and company have lost this one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Erica" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
16 Nov 2003 12:29:22 AM |
|
|
In article <Vrstb.159040$275.477508@attbi_s53>, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com>
wrote:
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:qh7crvombs1jtmad9bf3nqdrhivc88h159@4ax.com...
... WHat the heck does "impale" have to do with this? ...
Isn't it obvious? The absurd state of affairs described, in which the
theocracy is free to take anyone's life on a whim is the absurd situation
that results from society not holding that every person is born equal, and
endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life,
liberty, and the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, knucklehead.
The silly proposition you are championing, that people are not born with
these unalienable rights, leads to that absurd, barbaric state of affairs,
so, using reductio ad absurdum, disproof of a proposition by showing that it
leads to an absurd state of affairs, your silly proposition is soundly
dismissed. It's time for you to wake up and smell the coffee, knucklehead.
It's over. You and Mr. Flunk and company have lost this one.
Bob, if you're going to post as another persona, you need to come up
with a less recognizable insult than "knucklehead."
--
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sven" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
16 Nov 2003 10:38:07 AM |
|
|
"Erica" <scribe53151nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:scribe53151nospam-381ABA.00293616112003@newshost1.news.tds.net...
In article <Vrstb.159040$275.477508@attbi_s53>, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com>
wrote:
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:qh7crvombs1jtmad9bf3nqdrhivc88h159@4ax.com...
... WHat the heck does "impale" have to do with this? ...
Isn't it obvious? The absurd state of affairs described, in which the
theocracy is free to take anyone's life on a whim is the absurd
situation
that results from society not holding that every person is born equal,
and
endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life,
liberty, and the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, knucklehead.
The silly proposition you are championing, that people are not born with
these unalienable rights, leads to that absurd, barbaric state of
affairs,
so, using reductio ad absurdum, disproof of a proposition by showing
that it
leads to an absurd state of affairs, your silly proposition is soundly
dismissed. It's time for you to wake up and smell the coffee,
knucklehead.
It's over. You and Mr. Flunk and company have lost this one.
Bob, if you're going to post as another persona, you need to come up
with a less recognizable insult than "knucklehead."
Your argument is directed at the person, not at what the person said
(fallacy of argument _ad hominem_), knucklehead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Erica" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
17 Nov 2003 12:43:54 AM |
|
|
In article <%INtb.213123$HS4.1824944@attbi_s01>,
"Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote:
"Erica" <scribe53151nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:scribe53151nospam-381ABA.00293616112003@newshost1.news.tds.net...
In article <Vrstb.159040$275.477508@attbi_s53>, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com>
wrote:
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:qh7crvombs1jtmad9bf3nqdrhivc88h159@4ax.com...
... WHat the heck does "impale" have to do with this? ...
Isn't it obvious? The absurd state of affairs described, in which the
theocracy is free to take anyone's life on a whim is the absurd
situation
that results from society not holding that every person is born equal,
and
endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life,
liberty, and the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, knucklehead.
The silly proposition you are championing, that people are not born with
these unalienable rights, leads to that absurd, barbaric state of
affairs,
so, using reductio ad absurdum, disproof of a proposition by showing
that it
leads to an absurd state of affairs, your silly proposition is soundly
dismissed. It's time for you to wake up and smell the coffee,
knucklehead.
It's over. You and Mr. Flunk and company have lost this one.
Bob, if you're going to post as another persona, you need to come up
with a less recognizable insult than "knucklehead."
Your argument is directed at the person, not at what the person said
(fallacy of argument _ad hominem_), knucklehead.
Who's arguing, Bob. I'm making no assertion within the argument. I am,
however, making an observation outside of the argument in pointing out
that if you wish to be more successful in your ruse, you might want to
try to appear less like your usual self. Else why switch personas in the
first place.
I'm also making sure that the folks who were debating you all realize
that they are still arguing with the same fellow. Only cricket.
By the way, if we go by your logic, "knucklehead" is also an ad hominem.
Not to mention that calling someone that doesn't necessarily make them
one.
And how does it help your argument anyway, to post it under a different
name? Is you're arguement more correct if it comes out of a guy named
"Sven"? Or John? Or any of the other dozen or so names that have been
associated with you? Are you, perhaps, committing the fallacy of
argumentum ad populum, by attempting to appear more "populous"?
Erica
--
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Slim" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
17 Nov 2003 09:21:35 PM |
|
|
"Erica" <scribe53151nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:scribe53151nospam-EB652C.00441517112003@newshost1.news.tds.net...
In article <%INtb.213123$HS4.1824944@attbi_s01>,
"Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote:
"Erica" <scribe53151nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:scribe53151nospam-381ABA.00293616112003@newshost1.news.tds.net...
In article <Vrstb.159040$275.477508@attbi_s53>, "Sven"
<svh@nospam.com>
wrote:
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:qh7crvombs1jtmad9bf3nqdrhivc88h159@4ax.com...
... WHat the heck does "impale" have to do with this? ...
Isn't it obvious? The absurd state of affairs described, in which
the
theocracy is free to take anyone's life on a whim is the absurd
situation
that results from society not holding that every person is born
equal,
and
endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are
life,
liberty, and the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, knucklehead.
The silly proposition you are championing, that people are not born
with
these unalienable rights, leads to that absurd, barbaric state of
affairs,
so, using reductio ad absurdum, disproof of a proposition by showing
that it
leads to an absurd state of affairs, your silly proposition is
soundly
dismissed. It's time for you to wake up and smell the coffee,
knucklehead.
It's over. You and Mr. Flunk and company have lost this one.
Bob, if you're going to post as another persona, you need to come up
with a less recognizable insult than "knucklehead."
Your argument is directed at the person, not at what the person said
(fallacy of argument _ad hominem_), knucklehead.
Who's arguing, Bob. ...
You are. Aren't you rising to associate yourself with Mr. Fleming's and Mr.
Flunk's argument that the law prohibiting murder is a purely subjective
matter?
If not, then why are you trying to dismiss what was said by Sven by posting
an argument _ad hominem_ against Sven, instead of just sticking to an honest
discussion of the issue that is genuinely under discussion?
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "Erica" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
18 Nov 2003 01:40:24 AM |
|
|
In article <L5gub.229529$Tr4.681307@attbi_s03>,
"Slim" <slimshady@mnm.com> wrote:
"Erica" <scribe53151nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:scribe53151nospam-EB652C.00441517112003@newshost1.news.tds.net...
In article <%INtb.213123$HS4.1824944@attbi_s01>,
"Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote:
"Erica" <scribe53151nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:scribe53151nospam-381ABA.00293616112003@newshost1.news.tds.net...
In article <Vrstb.159040$275.477508@attbi_s53>, "Sven"
<svh@nospam.com>
wrote:
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:qh7crvombs1jtmad9bf3nqdrhivc88h159@4ax.com...
... WHat the heck does "impale" have to do with this? ...
Isn't it obvious? The absurd state of affairs described, in which
the
theocracy is free to take anyone's life on a whim is the absurd
situation
that results from society not holding that every person is born
equal,
and
endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are
life,
liberty, and the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, knucklehead.
The silly proposition you are championing, that people are not born
with
these unalienable rights, leads to that absurd, barbaric state of
affairs,
so, using reductio ad absurdum, disproof of a proposition by showing
that it
leads to an absurd state of affairs, your silly proposition is
soundly
dismissed. It's time for you to wake up and smell the coffee,
knucklehead.
It's over. You and Mr. Flunk and company have lost this one.
Bob, if you're going to post as another persona, you need to come up
with a less recognizable insult than "knucklehead."
Your argument is directed at the person, not at what the person said
(fallacy of argument _ad hominem_), knucklehead.
Who's arguing, Bob. ...
You are. Aren't you rising to associate yourself with Mr. Fleming's and Mr.
Flunk's argument that the law prohibiting murder is a purely subjective
matter?
Nah, I stuck my nose in for a moment a couple of weeks ago and posted a
couple of things that occured to me off_hand. Was just peeking in again
to see how things had progressed. I haven't even properly looked at Mr.
Fleming's and Mr. Flunk's arguments in a while, so I've no interest in
supporting their side. I'm sure they're quite capable of handling the
debate themselves.
Once here in the thread, however, I noticed "Bob" had stepped out and
some "Sven" fellow had joined the fray. Then I noticed "Comcast" and a
few telltales, like knucklehead. And decided to make sure that the folks
in the thread knew they were talking to another Bob White sock puppet.
Speaking of which, "Slim"...comcast...same posting host...damn that was
quick. Again.
If not, then why are you trying to dismiss what was said by Sven by posting
an argument _ad hominem_ against Sven, instead of just sticking to an honest
discussion of the issue that is genuinely under discussion?
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
Ad hominem isn't listed under fallacies of Diversion on that website,
btw.
And calling someone a knucklehead mid-argument as if you had a point and
they didn't, isn't ad hominem?
--
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Slim" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
18 Nov 2003 02:28:03 AM |
|
|
"Erica" <scribe53151nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:scribe53151nospam-FA924F.01405718112003@newshost1.news.tds.net...
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
Ad hominem isn't listed under fallacies of Diversion on that website,
btw.
Try this one, knucklehead:
---
http://www.du.edu/~mtursi/logicalfallacies.html
Fallacies of Diversion:
1) Ad Hominem Argument (against the man): refers to an attack on the person
rather than on the argument or the issue. The assumption is that if the
speaker is unacceptable in some way, his or her statements must also be
judged unacceptable.
---
In what category would you place argument _ad hominem_ if not under the
fallacies of diversion?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
18 Nov 2003 12:10:13 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Slim" <slimshady@mnm.com> wrote in
<L5gub.229529$Tr4.681307@attbi_s03>:
"Erica" <scribe53151nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:scribe53151nospam-EB652C.00441517112003@newshost1.news.tds.net...
In article <%INtb.213123$HS4.1824944@attbi_s01>,
"Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote:
....
Who's arguing, Bob. ...
You are. Aren't you rising to associate yourself with Mr. Fleming's and Mr.
Flunk's argument that the law prohibiting murder is a purely subjective
matter?
No one ever said that. That's the parody that you developed after you
lost the discussion.
If not, then why are you trying to dismiss what was said by Sven by posting
an argument _ad hominem_ against Sven, instead of just sticking to an honest
discussion of the issue that is genuinely under discussion?
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "Slim" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
18 Nov 2003 02:40:48 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:stdjrvkeapq53gt5btv3tu3gedibe0n72h@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Slim" <slimshady@mnm.com> wrote in
<L5gub.229529$Tr4.681307@attbi_s03>:
"Erica" <scribe53151nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:scribe53151nospam-EB652C.00441517112003@newshost1.news.tds.net...
In article <%INtb.213123$HS4.1824944@attbi_s01>,
"Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote:
...
Who's arguing, Bob. ...
You are. Aren't you rising to associate yourself with Mr. Fleming's and
Mr.
Flunk's argument that the law prohibiting murder is a purely subjective
matter?
No one ever said that. ...
"The law itself is based on subjective opinion." -- Lenny Flank 11/04/2003
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
18 Nov 2003 07:08:00 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Slim" <slimshady@mnm.com> wrote in
<ZWkub.34791$Dw6.170052@attbi_s02>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:stdjrvkeapq53gt5btv3tu3gedibe0n72h@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Slim" <slimshady@mnm.com> wrote in
<L5gub.229529$Tr4.681307@attbi_s03>:
"Erica" <scribe53151nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:scribe53151nospam-EB652C.00441517112003@newshost1.news.tds.net...
In article <%INtb.213123$HS4.1824944@attbi_s01>,
"Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote:
...
Who's arguing, Bob. ...
You are. Aren't you rising to associate yourself with Mr. Fleming's and
Mr.
Flunk's argument that the law prohibiting murder is a purely subjective
matter?
No one ever said that. ...
"The law itself is based on subjective opinion." -- Lenny Flank 11/04/2003
Can you not tell the difference between
"the law is based on subjective opinion" and
"the law is subjective"?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
14 Nov 2003 08:14:26 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 06:55:00 +0000 (UTC), Arn
<arnold02165@hotmailspamblock.com> wrote:
Jon Fleming wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:33:33 +0000 (UTC), Arn
<arnold02165@hotmailspamblock.com> wrote:
Kevin L. O'Brien wrote:
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<dCOsb.140635$275.425844@attbi_s53>...
"Kevin L. O'Brien" <kevinlob@clare.ltd.new.net> wrote in message
news:ed6ccb78.0311130336.26daee2c@posting.google.com...
The structure or pattern of a reductio ad absurdum arguement is:
(to-be-refuted assumption + a conjugation of | | | | | | |
