quote:
First of all, I would ask that you read my entire posts before you reply to them. Some of the questions you have asked would have been answered if you had continued to read.
I typically don't reply to anything I take seriously withour first reading it several times. This falls into that category. You perhaps think your questions were answered. I do not think so, or I would not have asked. Do you seriously intend for this to go anywhere? Just curious. Perhaps you could get on with it now?
quote:
No, I have not even begun my proofs of God, because we can't get past these logical fallacies. As an example, why must you insist on using 'ad hominem' arguments?
Please, please, please learn what
ad hominem means. An
ad hominem attack, or argument, is an ARGUMENT wherein one dismisses an opponent's argument based on some perceived and irrelevant character flaw. The insult must be part of an argument.
For example, you are a poo-poo head and so you are wrong. <<
ad hominem
You are a poo-poo head. << NOT
ad hominem There is no ARGUMENT. This is just an insult. IF you feel that I am insulting (I'd call it banter: a light teasing repartee. ), say so, but this fallacious use of 'fallacy' is irritating.
Don't like my example? Try this one.
Example of Ad Hominem
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
Page not found - Nizkor
quote:
But from your letter it appears that you don't understand informal logic.
LOL.... I know a cute little old german lady named Kalsi who'd disagree with you. I trust her more than you.
quote:
So I must conclude that they are Statements, therefore they fall under the rule of logic, both formal and informal.
Cows are green. << This is a statement. Apply logic to it. I dare you. The best you can do is translate it to "All cows are green" or "if C then G, where C=Cows and G=Green." You can do no more until you introduce more statements, and that is the point. Logic is the manipulation of several statements, two minimum, one being the conclusion. If you can formulate it as if/then, it is logic. If there is no 'if' or no 'then' it isn't logic but a bare statement. There is an analogy with mathematics. The number '1', or the number '2', is not math. "1+2=3" is math.
quote:
Speaking of logic, I do not understand how your statements regarding Lewis' lack of arguments can be tenable. First, you say that English is not precise. I agree, but logic must be. If you do not find an English word that means exactly what you're trying to say, then make one up or define an existing word precise enough so that it can only have one meaning. Many English words have multiple meanings, so your usage of them has to be defined in debates like these.
Friend: Take me to the store.
You: I don't have any gas.
Friend: Please, I really need to go.
You: I only have enough to get to the gas station and I don't have any money.
Ooooppppp..... there is a contradiction!!!!! Why did 'you' not define precisely what you meant in the first statement? Instead you led your friend to believe something that is not true. You do have gas, just not enough. Shame on you !!! Why? Because English is not precise yet people generally understand how it works and deal with it. That is, most people have a bit of common sense when it comes to using language. The danger with the study of logic is that you can lose this ability.
quote:
First you said that Lewis doesn't have an argument. Now you say he has a bad one. This kind of confusion only exists because you have not precisely defined your own terms.
Do I need to repeat myself? And do you sincerely believe that this is even remotely important? Is this the fight you want to pick? If I wrote this is Boolean algebra you'd have a case, but I wrote it in English and this is perfectly acceptable English. If I thought it were important, I'd have worded it more carefully.
quote:
On another note, a straw man does not necessarily mean someone used the straw man intentionally, it could be a mere misunderstanding.
Yes, it could be, in which case I'd call it a misunderstanding. The straw man fallacy-- any fallacy really-- carries a strong implication of intent.
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
Page not found - Nizkor
quote:
Your other comments at the beginning of your message are an example of another logical fallacy, 'Tu quoque' which means 'you too'.
Not an argument really, it is IRRITATION. Largely, irritation that you won't just get on with it. BTW, I repeated yet again why we aren't taking Lewis seriously-- he ignores evidence that ought to be included in an argument such as he makes. I've been saying this from the get-go. It is really quite hard to be guilty of "you too" when I am the one who made the initial claim that Lewis ignores evidence -- ie. has no real argument. ( Actually, I think PaulK said it even before I did. )
quote:
This is a logical fallacy because Lewis' alleged lack of evidence does not influence your own (though you do, in fact, have some now).
Bud, my initial rejection of his argument is simply because he ain't got no evidence. This is fallacious?
Friend: My car can fly.
Me: Prove it.
Friend: I can't. It doesn't work when people are looking.
Me: Then I don't believe you.
Oooppppps.... guess I just committed a fallacy.
quote:
When you say that animals depend on the herd, it appears that you are meaning that they are calculating their odds of survival within the herd.
Do consider a bear walking to the river just as the salmon arrive to be calculating? Animals do have a sometimes remarkable ability to calculate. Bats calculate the trajectory and future position of insects by analyzing echoes-- that sort of thing. But that is not really what I was getting at. There are genetic components to behavior. Import an set of individuals of, say, deer, to a region infested with crocodile. Assuming that the deer come from a region without crocodile, they will not have behavior targeted at crocodile avoidance. Some will venture too close to the water, some will stay too long at the water's edge, but some will be quick and cautious. After awhile the careless ones die. The next generation will have the DNA of the survivors and hence at least some of the tendency towards cautious behavior. Add to this that many animals learn behavior. Humans are not the only ones who do this. Bears teach there young what to hunt and how to hunt. You've heard of programs designed to re-introduce captive animals into the wild? A big hurdle is teaching these animals what to eat and how to go about it. They did not learn such things as babies. Cultural, social, herd conventions are no different. It isn't calculating in the sense of whipping out a laptop and firing up the stats package. It is using accumulated knowledge, whether learned or hard coded into DNA.
quote:
This is very important, because if this is what you're saying then you're view of 'herd instinct' is very different from Lewis'.
I have no doubt that it is.
quote:
Lewis is not saying that morality is physical. He's saying that it is metaphysical and influences and directs our physical actions.
This is exactly the part I don't like. There is no need for the meta-physical and no evidence for it either. Everything I have said has been to explain this point.
quote:
The statements regarding mother-child observations, or teams of monkeys fighting tigers don't contradict Lewis' argument. These observations could be used to prove either side.
That's nice. WHY? and HOW?
quote:
In these cases, merely asserting what we observe to happen does not really prove anything.
I'm sorry. Can you repeat that? Maybe repeat it to yourself until you realize what you just said? Observation doesn't prove anything?
quote:
The only way I can make sense of your non-dichotomy, is if you see 'herd instinct' as one and the same as 'self preservation'. Is this what you're trying to say?
I believe I states so explicitly, at least in a practical sense for social animals. For strongly social animals, you can't talk about 'self-preservation' outside the group. Outside the group, survival doesn't happen. Not living in the group is suicide. Making some sacrifices to stay in the group is the best way to survive.
quote:
Again, a quarrel is a disagreement about fairness.
Thus you define things such as to 'prove' your point, or attempt to do so. Argument by definition is not argument. And I don't have to care. It doesn't do the argument any good though. 'Fair' is no more metaphysical than 'I want my stuff' or 'I want more stuff'.
added by edit--- Lewis wants to use 'fairness' to pull us into the metaphysical. It can also be understood and quite adequately described as a necessary component of stable social structure. You can see this in monkey and ape societies, even in naked mole rats if I remember correctly. You can see this in the way that group members who do not share are treated-- ie. other group members don't share with the stingy party.
quote:
Unfortunately, this has not turned out to be the case. So instead of the outline, I have had to defend morality by itself.
IF step one fails, the rest is pointless.
quote:
But I do not consider your contradictions of Lewis' arguments to be reasonable, hence the debate.
To be honest, I don't think you've quite figured out what I am saying. And I don't really care what you find unreasonable unless you can tell me why. This you haven't done. I'm not sure you've even tried.
quote:
Does this clarify?
No. It seems that 'really oppose' means 'say something that makes sense to you.' Or, alternatively, 'find a strict logical contradiction internal to the argument.' Well, if you haven't noticed, there are a lot of internally consistent arguments that have nothing to do with the real world. The problem with such arguments usually being the premises. If you are going to insist that the only criteria is logical consistency, we may as well stop right here. I can make up a dozen such arguments in a matter of minutes.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 03-02-2003]
#122 of the "An honest anwer for a newbie" thread.
™ Version 4.2
