Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 123 (8765 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-29-2017 11:59 AM
387 online now:
jar, JonF, ooh-child, PaulK, ringo, Tanypteryx, Taq, Tusko, vimesey (9 members, 378 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: superuniverse
Happy Birthday: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,440 Year: 17,046/21,208 Month: 2,935/3,593 Week: 402/646 Day: 52/113 Hour: 26/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Wikipedia Always A Reliable Source?
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4566
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1 of 15 (803595)
04-02-2017 1:06 PM


In this following wikipedia link I read, it gives examples of an appeal to consequences, as either positive or negative form, where the consequent is desirable or undesirable, and then notes that the modus tollens is a different inference because the negation of the consequent of a modus ponen is a negation rather than an undesirable thing P, and can determine the truth value of the premise

EXAMPLE:

If it is human then it is a vertebrate.
It is not a vertebrate therefore is not human. (correct modus tollens application)

However, wiki then goes on to mistakenly give examples of a modus ponen rather than an appeal to consequences by arguing that the following argument is an appeal to consequences;

"Evolution must be false: if it were true then human beings would be no better than animals, since we would be descended from them."

But in fact this has little to do with desirability, which has to make me wonder why they chose two examples, one being something to do with freewill, which is essentially theistic, and an argument against evolution which is essentially theistic.

In both examples, the examples given are actually better examples of modus ponens, where the tollens can be used, rather than desirable things for certain facts about the world aren't merely desired outcomes but are realities, so the examples they give may be correct because if evolution was true certain circumstances may be reasonably expected, such as humans basically being no better than animals or to expect more than one type of animal like a human, out of all of the millions. This is at the least, a reasonable possibility rather than any desirable outcome..and who has the patent on what to expect if evolution is true without indulging in hindsight such as; "well, here we all are, therefore the facts presented are what we would expect from evolution". (circular reasoning)

A better way to present that example would be as a modus ponen;

If evolution were true then man would not be expected to be special or stand out, or have creative/designer abilities that might match with him being made in God's image as a persona, as there would be no reason to expect a spiritual, creative being that excels so much as to create it's own artificial world on the world.

These things clearly are true, and humans are examples of those things in their unique and peculiar abilities, therefore evolution is false.

(while I am not saying that is the strongest modus ponen ever, and I am not arguing it here as such, my point is it isn't an appeal to consequences, it is the expectation of certain facts if a proposal is true. )

Before you are outraged, Dr Sarfati PHD also says that it may be reasonable to refute the auxiliary hypothesis rather than the hypothesis itself.

So a better form of that argument may be this;

If evolution then auxiliary hypothesis P, and if P then X evidence.
Not X therefore not aux P, (but not necessarily a negation of evolution theory, because it is debatable as to whether we can propose P on behalf of evolution.)

That seems fair in the sense that if a consequent is debatable, then you can't necessarily negate the antecedent.

For example;

"If Bob was a millionaire he would have two cars."
"He doesn't have two cars therefore is not a millionaire".

As you can see, this may or may not follow so isn't the best modus ponen. But it seems at least possible to propose it as a possibility.

If, and only if certainly P follows from X, then X can be negated.

I can't know whether evolution could create humans if evolution did occur, so technically I would say it might be fair to offer a pawn in the place of evolution theory, thus;

If evolution theory (X) is true, then according to my auxiliary proposal (P) I propose that Z would follow.
Z does not follow therefore, not P but not necessarily, 'not X'

(I am being conciliatory because I am not actually trying to attack evolution theory, I am trying to show that wikipedia doesn't seem to have a full grasp of what it is talking about it seems to me. It is basically more reasonable to expect mankind to be special if man is made in God's image, and not to be if mankind isn't.

Conclusion: I am not sure wiki's examples are very good, because if a consequent clearly does follow an antecedent then this is not the same as a desirable consequence because it does not matter if a desirable consequence follows an antecedent but it does matter that certain facts follow an antecedent, in determining the truth-value of that proposal.

It seems to me wiki notes this, but then contradicts itself by giving an example of a modus tollens rather than an appeal to consequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

At this other site below, again the examples seem to refer to theism in some way. They do seem to describe the appeal to consequences correctly here;

Logical Forms:

X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.

X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences.

X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences.

X is false because accepting that X is false has positive consequences.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...ppeal-to-Consequences

A good and correct example I can think of, which isn't an attack of theism (for once) might be this;

Abortion being morally right is true, because if people did not accept this as true then there would be negative consequences, nobody to adopt babies, or care for them, etc....therefore abortion being morally correct, is true. (A genuine appeal to consequences).

I have a suspicion that atheists write a lot of the content on these sites, which you may think is cynical of me, but the thing is I would say that 90% of all examples seem to be strawman fallacies of some form that theists don't really seem to argue, or at least it would be hard to find many theists arguing those examples in the specifically devious and misrepresentative way that wiki seems to present it in.

Whether or not you agree or disagree they are wrong, it seems to me that wikipidia only presents theistic arguments as examples. You can provide neutral examples from wiki which is fine, but are there any examples where wiki will attack an argument that may stem from a more atheistic ideology?

Of course obtuse people may respond; "the examples are only theistic because only theistic arguments are fallacious", but obviously I can't take that very seriously. The fact is atheists argue fallacies a LOT, I come across it each day, but it seems like propaganda, that the likes of wiki seem to want to portray only the non-religious as rational people by making their examples some type of theistic argument, be it explicitly or more implicitly.

(of course you may say, "it's undesirable for man to not be better than animals or be machine-like" but it seems like a stretch to me, a stretch to contrive a theistic argument to attack, as propaganda.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Tangle, posted 04-03-2017 9:50 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 04-03-2017 1:57 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 6 by caffeine, posted 04-03-2017 2:20 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Pressie, posted 05-04-2017 3:34 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12516
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2 of 15 (803661)
04-03-2017 8:47 AM


Thread Moved from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
jar
Member
Posts: 29044
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 3 of 15 (803664)
04-03-2017 9:31 AM


Is there actually a link to the wiki article in question?

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4783
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


(6)
Message 4 of 15 (803665)
04-03-2017 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
04-02-2017 1:06 PM


qs writes:

Is Wikipedia Always A Reliable Source?

1. No, of course it isn't.

2. Why would anybody mess about with logic and semantics to either prove or disprove the ToE? The ToE is proven by observation.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 04-02-2017 1:06 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by mike the wiz, posted 05-03-2017 4:51 PM Tangle has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7407
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 5 of 15 (803685)
04-03-2017 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
04-02-2017 1:06 PM


However, wiki then goes on to mistakenly give examples of a modus ponen rather than an appeal to consequences by arguing that the following argument is an appeal to consequences;

"Evolution must be false: if it were true then human beings would be no better than animals, since we would be descended from them."

And so it is. It is arguing that evolution is false because if it were true then the consequence would be that we are no better than animals. Which, the implication goes, is not to be desired.

so the examples they give may be correct because if evolution was true certain circumstances may be reasonably expected, such as humans basically being no better than animals or to expect more than one type of animal like a human, out of all of the millions.

Things which are logically fallacious reasoning can in fact be correct.

The logical fallacious reasoning is not that 'if evolution were true, we'd be no better than animals' but 'evolution must be false or we'd be no better than animals'.

The fallaciousness is the pointing at the consequence 'we'd be be no better than animals' as the REASON evolution must be false. Whether or not evolution actually is false, is not relevant to whether or not this reasoning is logical, which it isn't.

A better way to present that example would be as a modus ponen

Changing the argument to a logically valid argument and presenting that would be a shit example of a logically fallacious 'appeal to consequences' though wouldn't it?

make me wonder why they chose two examples, one being something to do with freewill, which is essentially theistic, and an argument against evolution which is essentially theistic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

Gives three examples:

quote:

1. "Free will must exist: if it didn't, we would all be machines."
2. "Evolution must be false: if it were true then human beings would be no better than animals, since we would be descended from them." (This is also a false dilemma.)
3. "If the six men win, it will mean that the police are guilty of perjury, that they are guilty of violence and threats, that the confessions were invented and improperly admitted in evidence and the convictions were erroneous... This is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say that it cannot be right that these actions should go any further." Lord Denning in his judgment on the Birmingham Six.

my point is it isn't an appeal to consequences, it is the expectation of certain facts if a proposal is true.

Even if your rewording is not an appeal to consequences, the original argument that appealed to the consequence 'we be no better than animals' as the reason why evolution is false is an appeal to consequences.

There is truth and there is validity.

'I can't have cancer because I have to finish writing my book therefore I don't have cancer' is logically invalid - even if the conclusion 'I don't have cancer' is true.

It doesn't matter that one could construct a logically valid argument as to why I don't have cancer, the above argument is still logically invalid.

Dr Sarfati PHD also says that it may be reasonable to refute the auxiliary hypothesis rather than the hypothesis itself.

Irrelevant as to whether or not the original argument was logically constructed or not. It wasn't, it was an appeal to consequences.

I am not sure wiki's examples are very good, because if a consequent clearly does follow an antecedent then this is not the same as a desirable consequence because it does not matter if a desirable consequence follows an antecedent but it does matter that certain facts follow an antecedent, in determining the truth-value of that proposal.

The point remains, if evolution is false it is not so because it being true would make us 'no better than animals' even if it were true that it would make us no better than animals. Even if it were true that having cancer would inhibit my finishing my book, this is is not a good reason to suppose that I don't have cancer.

In both examples, the examples given are actually better examples of modus ponens, where the tollens can be used, rather than desirable things for certain facts about the world aren't merely desired outcomes but are realities, so the examples they give may be correct because if evolution was true certain circumstances may be reasonably expected, such as humans basically being no better than animals or to expect more than one type of animal like a human, out of all of the millions.

I'll just repeat it - the fact that evolution's truth would mean we are not better than humans is not a reason to suppose its falsehood. The argument thus made merely appeals to people's desire to be better than animals by pointing out the conclusion that if they accept evolution they are accepting this is not true. This might be persuasive, but it is certainly not logical.

I have a suspicion that atheists write a lot of the content on these sites

Who cares? The fact remains that the examples are indeed appeals to consequences remains.

Whether or not you agree or disagree they are wrong, it seems to me that wikipidia only presents theistic arguments as examples.

Here are the examples it gives

quote:

"Free will must exist: if it didn't, we would all be machines."

This is not about theism it is about free will. It is possible (and in fact empirically confirmable) that some atheists believe in free will and some theists do not.

quote:
"Evolution must be false: if it were true then human beings would be no better than animals, since we would be descended from them."

Nothing to do with theism but about a scientific conclusion. Plenty of theists accept evolution. There is no reason to suppose an atheist must accept evolution. It is nothing to do with theism.

I get the impression that you are confusing these points with theism because your theistic beliefs are tied up in them, but that's a different matter entirely.

Then finally:

quote:
"If the six men win, it will mean that the police are guilty of perjury, that they are guilty of violence and threats, that the confessions were invented and improperly admitted in evidence and the convictions were erroneous... This is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say that it cannot be right that these actions should go any further.

Which is about police corruption. Nothing to do with theism even by your standards, but strangely omitted from your post. Just to be clear, this example has been present in this article since 2010

"the examples are only theistic because only theistic arguments are fallacious"

No, that's not my response. My response is that these are real life examples of contemporary arguments on subjects that someone interested in philosophy and logic are likely to have run into.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 04-02-2017 1:06 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by NoNukes, posted 04-06-2017 8:15 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply
 Message 9 by NoNukes, posted 04-06-2017 8:19 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1290
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 5.8


(3)
Message 6 of 15 (803691)
04-03-2017 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
04-02-2017 1:06 PM


Is Wikipedia Always A Reliable Source?

No, of course not. I waste far too much time on trying to correct obscure matters of phylogeny that nobody else cares about. There are two primary obstacles to my task:

1. Someone who owns the authoratitive '(Insert organism's here) of the World' from 2001; and refuses to accept that the classification in it has been outdated

2. Someone who read an article supporting an intriguing new hypothesis and decided that it is therefore now Uncontrovertible Fact; and is determined the Taxobox and article content will now reflect this Truth.

But nobody anywhere thinks Wikipedia is always reliable. If you're not happy with the presentation of an article on Wikipedia, wouldn't a better approach be to edit it; or raise your concerns on the talk page?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 04-02-2017 1:06 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 836
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 7 of 15 (803713)
04-03-2017 9:45 PM


I remember a misleading article on early Christianity and vegetarianism.
The entire article sucked enough, but the mention of Clement of Alexandria simply said something like "Clement of Alexandria was a vegetarian "

The great scholar, who quoted more Greek philosophers (including hundreds we know only from his quotes and attributions ) than any other Greek writer, and most venerable of the Alexandrian Church Fathers, said something far and away more important than simply stating that he was a vegetarian.

He actually said that Christians were ( in their practical essence? ) all vegetarians.

Now the modern day Roman Catholics have serious concerns about this second century man for which they claim that too little is known about his life (plus he has been interpreted as believing Jesus had previous incarnations before he was born to Mary ), but that shouldn't be cause for immaculately describing his important observation.

Wikipedia has real problems in my opinion.

EDIT lol I see spell check made innacurAte into immaculate. Lol

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9659
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 8 of 15 (804064)
04-06-2017 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Modulous
04-03-2017 1:57 PM


And so it is. It is arguing that evolution is false because if it were true then the consequence would be that we are no better than animals. Which, the implication goes, is not to be desired.

I think mike the wiz thinks that this is a great argument. Hidden behind this is an acceptance as fact the evolution from animals could not produce a human. Given this hidden assumption, then the argument will appear in this form:

X -->Y. (evolution from animals produces nothing more than animals.)
Not Y, therefore not X. humans are better than animals (or humans are not "nothing more than animals") therefore man did not evolve from an animal.

The above is a perfectly good syllogism. But it is not the one presented in the example

Perhaps a better way to express things would be that from MTW's perspective, the Wikipedia article on logic is showing a bias towards science (and I would say reality) because they do not disclose the unstated possibility that evolution can produce a superior being.

I would counter that such expressions are wrong. A logical argument is one in which the conclusions flow inevitably from the premises. Accordingly, even if an alternative is unstated, the mere existence of a possible fact that makes the argument flawed is enough. The person insisting that an argument is of the Modus Ponens form has the obligation to defend it against all possibilities, stated or unstated, regardless of whether those possibilities are true, false, or mere supposition. In this case, that defense cannot be accomplished.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : Grammar fixes.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 04-03-2017 1:57 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by mike the wiz, posted 05-03-2017 4:43 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9659
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 9 of 15 (804065)
04-06-2017 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Modulous
04-03-2017 1:57 PM


Free will must exist: if it didn't, we would all be machines."

What if we added to these statements, the following: But we are not just machines, therefore free will exists. I think mike the wiz is silently adding that to the syllogism and then evaluating his modification rather than what was actually presented as the example.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 04-03-2017 1:57 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 05-03-2017 4:45 PM NoNukes has responded

    
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4566
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 10 of 15 (807536)
05-03-2017 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by NoNukes
04-06-2017 8:15 PM


NoNukes writes:

I think mike the wiz thinks that this is a great argument. Hidden behind this is an acceptance as fact the evolution from animals could not produce a human. Given this hidden assumption, then the argument will appear in this form:

X -->Y. (evolution from animals produces nothing more than animals.)
Not Y, therefore not X. humans are better than animals (or humans are not "nothing more than animals") therefore man did not evolve from an animal.

The above is a perfectly good syllogism. But it is not the one presented in the example

It's not a syllogism, it's a conditional implication. A syllogism has three parts typically. (two premises and a conclusion)

The one they presented as an example is CONTRIVED in my opinion. I seem to only read contrived examples which are distorted versions of what theists argue.

Remember I am not arguing that evolution is false because we would be no better than animals any more than I would argue that E=MC2 is false because it might lead to explosions.

But perhaps my topic isn't the best one, I didn't return to it as it was one of those ones I kind of think through while I type it, one I'm kind of toying with. It's not that important to me if I'm wrong or right, I just think that sometimes it seems almost patronisingly transparent that a lot of their examples (wiki) seems to be contrived theism-arguments OR, a representation of the theists that would argue these things, which is an unfair representation. I just don't see many examples of arguments that would be more of the atheist flavour.

Modulous says, "so what" but if there is a bias at play then the atheist writing the article may want to spread the absurd propaganda and false dichotomy, that "atheists are rational, scientists and theists are absurd people that argue fallacies and dismiss scientific facts".

Oh well, it's not a big deal, take it or leave it.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by NoNukes, posted 04-06-2017 8:15 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4566
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 11 of 15 (807537)
05-03-2017 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by NoNukes
04-06-2017 8:19 PM


Nonukes writes:

What if we added to these statements, the following: But we are not just machines, therefore free will exists. I think mike the wiz is silently adding that to the syllogism and then evaluating his modification rather than what was actually presented as the example.

Those telepathic abilities must be greatly valued by the readers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by NoNukes, posted 04-06-2017 8:19 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by NoNukes, posted 05-03-2017 7:34 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4566
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 12 of 15 (807540)
05-03-2017 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tangle
04-03-2017 9:50 AM


Tangle writes:

2. Why would anybody mess about with logic and semantics to either prove or disprove the ToE? The ToE is proven by observation.

I don't know couldn't you just ask, "why would anyone want to think?" Perhaps I want to "mess about with logic" so that I can acquire the critical thinking skills necessary to study whether evolution is, "proven by observation".

Lead the way to where I can observe a prokaryotic cell evolve into a eukaryotic one.

Most thinking evolutionists I discuss these matters with at EFF forum, would agree with me that science doesn't really deal in proof, not in the sense that an induction of confirmation evidence cannot be affirmed. But then if you don't, "mess about with logic" I guess you don't know what Popper argued about such things. Lol.

For example, "the ToE is proven by observation", in logic, is referred to as a bare assertion because you only stated your case.

So you get many "likes" for presenting the case that being thoughtful and educated isn't something to be desired. Rather goes against the propaganda that the creationist is an unlearned nitwit when the evolutionist recommends that I simply switch off my brains.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tangle, posted 04-03-2017 9:50 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Tangle, posted 05-03-2017 5:03 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4783
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 13 of 15 (807541)
05-03-2017 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by mike the wiz
05-03-2017 4:51 PM


Mike the Wiz writes:

I don't know couldn't you just ask, "why would anyone want to think?" Perhaps I want to "mess about with logic" so that I can acquire the critical thinking skills necessary to study whether evolution is, "proven by observation".

You're using the wrong tool Chuck. Perhaps it's the only one in your bag?

Would you use logic and semantics to determine the history of the automobile industry? The development of the internal combustion engine?

Personally, instead of reaching for the ancient philosophy books, I'd look at a Model T Ford engine, a Ford Galaxy engine and as many intermediates as I could get my hands on, date them and try to work out the changes in sequence.

But if you want to argue about definitions and premises while I get on with studying reality be my guest. Everyone needs a hobby.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by mike the wiz, posted 05-03-2017 4:51 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9659
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 14 of 15 (807547)
05-03-2017 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mike the wiz
05-03-2017 4:45 PM


Those telepathic abilities must be greatly valued by the readers.

My comment was a hypothesis and was phrased a such.

A correctly formed Modus Ponens argument does not rely on the truth or the obviousness of the clauses. It is instead an argument that one should accept provided that the clauses are correct. Similar a flawed argument can reach a correct conclusion, but some arguments are nonviable strictly based on their form. Your arguments suggested that some of the trigger clauses that were supposed to be appeals to consequences were something other than that. My best guess is still that you believe they were actually true.

Your objections were drawn to other things than the form of the argument. I took a guess at why you might be doing that. If my guess is wrong, then perhaps the reason you are off base is more subtle.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 05-03-2017 4:45 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1638
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 15 of 15 (807566)
05-04-2017 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
04-02-2017 1:06 PM


Good Lord, what a word salad.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 04-02-2017 1:06 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017