Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
Not in the way you understand it.
|
BOBINIUS:
(X-->Y) <=> (X-->Y) a.k.a. Identity of the Conditional (Powell style)
Prove to anyone that this is equivalent to:
(X-->Y) ^ X => Y a.k.a. Modus Ponens
|
POWELL:
The conditional "if p then q" means "if 'p' then 'q'". So, "IF 'if p then q" THEN if 'p' then 'q'" is a circular argument. However, if you rewrite it as "IF 'if p then q' then if 'p' THEN 'q'" then it's equivalent to modus ponens.
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
If you use "and p" instead of "then if p" then you hide the circularity, you hide some of the reasoning.
|
BOBINIUS:
You don't hide anything.
The logical connective 'and' it's not logically equivalent to 'if_then'.
The antecedent P in the second premise is asserted, it't not a conditional. You are not repeating the conditional again in the MP. You don't know what MP is.
|
POWELL:
No, the antecedent is NOT asserted when the argument is claimed to be valid except in a hypothetical sense. The claim is "if p then . . ." not "p therefore . . ."
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
Consider a sound deductive argument.
If Arnold is Governor of California then Arnold is a Governor
Arnold is Governor of California
Therefore
Arnold is a Governor
|
BOBINIUS:
This is written as this in propositional logic:
If (Arnold is Governor of California)=P then (Arnold is a Governor)=Q.
And
(Arnold is Governor of California)=P
Therefore
(Arnold is Governor)=Q
|
POWELL:
Yes, because the argument is claimed to be sound.
Quote:
BOBINIUS:
You have to be given the two premises together for the conclusion to follow.
|
POWELL:
Yes, IF THE ARGUMENT IS CLAIMED TO BE SOUND. Things are different when you claim the argument is merely valid.
Quote:
BOBINIUS:
The particularity of your example is that the conditional holds in all cases, it is tautological.
(Arnold is Governor of California) => (Arnold is Governor)
|
POWELL:
That's why you should accept the conditional as actually true. It's not possible, assuming the normal meaning of the words, that the antecedent is true while the consequent is false.
Quote:
BOBINIUS:
For example, this conditional is not tautological, it is contingent.
If it rains then the game is cancelled.
(It rains) -> (The game is cancelled).
|
POWELL:
That is a deductive non sequitur since it's possible that it rains yet the game is not cancelled. For example, maybe it only rains a little bit.
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
If the argument is claimed to be sound then (among other things) it is claiming that the premises AND conclusion are true, so I could write it as:
If Arnold is Governor of California then Arnold is a Governor,
Arnold is Governor of California,
And
Arnold is a Governor.
|
BOBINIUS:
Bull shit. This is meaningless. If Arnold is Governor of California then Arnold is Governor and Arnold is Governor of California and Arnold is a Governor. See above where the AND stands.
The sound argument has true premises and a valid form. That's all that it claims. The conclusion deductively follows as true. It is true because it deductively follows not because it is claimed or asserted as true.
|
POWELL:
Yes, a sound argument is both valid and has true premises. Despite that fact, the limited claim I made IS CORRECT, Bobinius, that if the argument is sound then the premises AND conclusion are true. Do you dispute that?
My point is that by making that claim, by putting "and" in place of "therefore" then I hide some of the thinking that produces the sound argument. I hide the fact that the argument is claimed to be valid. I'm suggesting that, by analogy, putting "and" in place of "then if" in modus ponens hides some of the thinking that produces modus ponens.
Quote:
BOBINIUS:
There is no AND there.
|
POWELL:
Yes there is an "and" there, Bobinius, because I put it there. If the argument is claimed to be sound then the premises
AND the conclusion are true.
Quote:
BOBINIUS:
The AND is between the premises, meaning the conditional and the antecedent. You just made the conclusion another premise.
You have no idea how to use logical connectives or what they mean.
|
POWELL:
Then do you deny that if the argument is claimed to be sound then the premises
AND conclusion are claimed to be true?
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
The claim is correct, but what this does, putting "and" instead of "therefore / then", is hide some of the logical thinking that makes the argument sound. I'm suggesting that putting "and p" instead of "then if p" in valid modus ponens hides some of the logical thinking that makes it valid.
|
BOBINIUS:
The argument is deductively valid (not sound ) because there is an 'and' there. It does not hide anything. The conditional AND the antecedent are the premises from which the consequent deductively follows.
See my proof above for MP, in my other post. It is a tautological implication.
|
POWELL:
Yes, M.P. can be shown to be valid with an "and p" instead of a "then if p." It's not the same for my "sound" analogy since it can't be shown that the argument is sound merely by showing that all the propositions are true. Analogies seldom, if ever, are perfect.
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
You don't seem to be trying very hard to think freely, Bobinius. You seem to be relying on your trust of logicians.
|
BOBINIUS:
I am relying only on logical proof. You are relying on a big mistake and ignorance, sorry to say it.
Quote:
POWELL:
Assume for the moment that they're wrong and I'm right (I grant that's unlikely). Try to see things from my point of view rather than continue to quote logician "religious tradition" as to what modus ponens is. If you won't do this then you would seem to be a hypocrite to expect theists to think outside their normal ways.
|
BOBINIUS:
Where did I quote logician "religious tradition"? I proved the damn thing. I gave you the argument. The fact that you don't know what MP is or what is the meaning of logical connectives, can be solved by learning. If you want to keep the ignorance, be my guest.
|
POWELL:
You quoted symbols and meanings that later logicians have come up with. You did NOT make up the symbology "p -> q" nor the associated truth table. These are "traditions" of logicians. The original inventors of modus ponens surely never used such things.
Quote:
BOBINIUS:
I have seen what you did. You simply don't get that the P in the second premise is not part of another conditional, it is logically asserted.
|
POWELL:
And you still confuse valid with sound. A proposition in a valid argument is not asserted as actually true, Bobinius, as would be the case if the argument were claimed to be sound. The claim to validity is that
IF the premises were true then something logically would follow.
Quote:
BOBINIUS:
It is wrong. I have explained why in logical form and in English. If you don't want to get it, or you can't get it, whatever, but don't accuse me of being hypocritical.
|
POWELL:
Your mind is closed shut to the possibility that modus ponens is essentially circular. You only see white. You don't see the blue or red or green which produces the white. By analogy, I'm trying to show you that there's blue there.
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
It's both, Bobinius. If you call the middle "then" the "therefore" then it's clearly circular. If you call the last "then" the "therefore" then it's modus ponens.
|
BOBINIUS:
Now you are inventing a new logic? IF_THEN becomes IF_THEREFORE?
|
POWELL:
The words "then" and "therefore" are synonymous in this context. Where do you think the "therefore" comes from in modus ponens, Bobinius? Did logicians just pull it out of a hat?
Quote:
BOBINIUS:
Where is the IF you insert for the last THEN? Where is the missing antecedent? Where is the AND?
|
POWELL:
I told you.
Here's the kernal again.
IF if p then q then if p then q.
Here's the clearly circular form:
IF if p then q THEN if p then q.
Here's M.P.:
IF if p then q then if p THEN q.
Quote:
BOBINIUS:
Modus Ponens
If It rains, then I am not going to school
and It rains
therefore I am not going to school.
|
POWELL:
Are you claiming the argument is valid or sound, Bobinius? If you're claiming that it's merely valid then you should put an initial "if" before the "if it rains . . .". If you're claiming that it's sound then you're wrong since your conditional is a non sequitur and your second premise is currently false where I live and I bet it's false where you live too.
Quote:
BOBINIUS:
Modus Powell
If If It rains, then I am not going to school then
If It rains, then I am not going to school
MP has two premises, asserted together (that's what AND stands for): the conditional AND the antecedent. The consequent deductively follows from the two, as the conclusion.
|
POWELL:
It's possible to think of M.P. in your way, but doing so ignores the essential circularity.
Quote:
BOBINIUS:
What you write is a reassertion of the conditional. If if then then if then. Big, big discovery John. You have the discovered the identity A=A. Has nothing to do with MP, or with drawing a conclusion from premises.
|
POWELL:
On the contrary, I've discovered why Modus Ponens is a valid argument form, because it's essentially a circular argument using the "if p then q" conditional.
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
Perhaps you don't want to see the circularity, Bobinius. Perhaps if you were to see the circularity then you'd be pressured to revise your view about the logical value of circular arguments. You don't WANT to believe such a thing. You have a large investment in that position. So, you're quicker to reject my arguments than you would be if you didn't have that investment. Your method of reasoning doesn't seem all that different from that of theists, Bobinius. We all have the same kind of brain, after all.
|
BOBINIUS:
Perhaps you don't have a clue about what MP or implication means. Cut the psychological bullshit.
You have a large investment in what you think you have discovered that 'proves' the big logicianistic conspiracy of 'hidding' the so called circularity of MP. It only shows your ignorance of what propositional logic means.
|
POWELL:
Yes, I have a large investment in what I consider to be this discovery.
Quote:
BOBINIUS:
Not all brains work equally well. Some do better than others.
|
POWELL:
True.
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
That's begging the question of what is the correct description, Bobinius. Just because modern logicians define modus ponens in such a way that it doesn't appear to be circular does not necessarily mean that modus ponens should be so defined or that modus ponens should not be seen as circular.
|
BOBINIUS:
Argument from Ignorance.
|
POWELL:
No, Bobinius. I'm not arguing there that their definition is wrong because I don't know that it's right. I'm claiming that it's a non sequitur to claim that because logicians claim X therefore X.
Quote:
BOBINIUS:
Modus Ponens is proven in logic, not defined. If a guy does not understand that after it is demonstrated clearly, then it's his problem. The conspiracy is in your head John.
|
POWELL:
Perhaps.
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
It's not much of a new proposition since it's just the second part of "if p then q." Look Ma', no hands. Here is one proposition:
if p then q
And here it's written as two propositions:
if
p
then
q
Big deal. If you think it's a big deal whether it's considered one proposition or two then so be it.
Here's one proposition:
The Bible is the inerrant word of God.
Here are two:
The Bible is inerrant.
The Bible is the word of God.
Does it matter much whether it's one proposition or two? It shouldn't.
|
BOBINIUS:
You have no idea what you are talking about.
The conditional is a DISTINCT proposition from the antecedent and the consequent.
|
POWELL:
It is if you make it distinct. The proposition "The Bible is the inerrant word of God" is a different proposition from the propositions "The Bible is inerrant" and "The Bible is God's word."
Quote:
BOBINIUS:
if
p
then
q
is ONE conditional. If_then is a logical connective, and there is one proposition P->Q. It has ONE truth value.
|
POWELL:
Not necessarily, Bobinius. It could be an argument that isn't valid. The premise is "p" while the conclusion is "q." Drop the first "if" and replace the "then" with "therefore" and perhaps it will look more normal to you.
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
An appeal to authority, Bobinius? Don't you realize that the fact that experts claim or believe a thing is no guarantee that the thing they claim or believe is true?
Logic does persuade me, Bobinius, but not necessarily your understanding of it.
|
BOBINIUS:
I was making an Appeal to Knowledge. Learn something before talking about it.
|
POWELL:
That's funny, Bobinius. Then theists can claim they're making an appeal to knowledge when they make claims about God.
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
Then tell me, Bobinius, is the following argument claimed to be valid or sound?
If it's raining then the roads are wet.
It's raining.
Therefore
The roads are wet.
You can't tell.
|
BOBINIUS:
It is valid. If the premises are true, it is sound.
|
POWELL:
Yes it is valid, but the question was whether it's claimed to be merely valid or claimed to be sound. You can't tell when the argument is written in that ambiguous form.
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
Now, tell me whether the following is claimed to be valid or sound:
If "If it's raining then the roads are wet" then if "it's raining" then "the roads are wet." The argument is claimed to be valid.
|
BOBINIUS:
This is not an argument.
An argument is a set of premises supporting a conclusion.
|
POWELL:
Well, depending on what you want, a circular argument or modus ponens, either the premise is "if it's raining then the roads are wet" or the premises are that in addition to "it's raining."
Quote:
BOBINIUS:
What is your conclusion? If it's raining then the roads are wet supporting If it's raining then the roads are wet.
|
POWELL:
Depending on what you want, a circular argument or modus ponens, either the conclusion is "if 'it's raining' then 'the roads are wet'" or "the roads are wet.
Quote:
BOBINIUS:
Where is the inference of a new proposition, the conclusion, from the premises? No inference, just an identity.
|
POWELL:
The inference is either circular or M.P. depending on how you arrange the premises and conclusion.
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
Then soundly prove it, Bobinius. Compose the associated truth tables.
|
BOBINIUS:
I am not your pet. If you can't understand the difference between a conjunction and an implication, you should not talk about logic.
|
POWELL:
Perhaps in your native language things are different, Bobinius, but in English the words "and" and "then" can sometimes be interchanged. I gave you an example. I think Hebrew and Greek allow a similar replacement such as in a series of events separated by "and" rather than "then." Logic tries to prevent such variation of meaning, but when one tries to use logic in the natural language then the problem resurfaces.
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
I seem to understand the meanings of "then" and "and" when used in the natural language better than you do.
|
BOBINIUS:
You just proved it.
'then' is not a conditional. 'if then' is a conditional.
|
POWELL:
Yes, "if ___ then ___" is a conditional, whereas "then" by itself is not. Where did I claim or clearly imply otherwise?
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
I went to work then I answered the phone. I went to work and I answered the phone.
|
BOBINIUS:
Where is the conditional smarty?
|
POWELL:
I'm not using a conditional there, but merely showing how "and" and "then" can replace each other sometimes.
Quote:
BOBINIUS:
If I went to work I answered the phone. This is the conditional. What you write is just a temporal succesion of events. An equivocation of 'then'. Without the 'if'. No implication.
|
POWELL:
I didn't claim it was a conditional.
There is a logic to the succession of events. Event A then event B then event C. For example: I woke up, I went to work, I answered the work phone. There is a logic to implications. Proposition A then proposition B then proposition C. For example: Arnold is Governor of California, Arnold is a Governor, Arnold is an important person. We help identify the logic by a word like "then."
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
I claimed they are logically equivalent. Do I need to soundly prove it to you or will you discover the truth for yourself?
|
BOBINIUS:
PROVE IT FOR CHRISSAKES. PROVE THAT THE CONDITIONAL (if_then) IS LOGICALLY EQUIVALENT WITH THE CONJUNCTION (and).
|
POWELL:
You mean prove that "then" is logically equivalent to "and" in the present context. Ok, I'll try to show it by reversing the order of p and p->q.
Let's suppose that "Arnold is Governor of California" is true, Bobinius, ok? Now, if that's the case
THEN
it's the case that if "if Arnold is Governor of California then Arnold is a Governor" were true then "Arnold is a Governor" would be true, could not be false, yes?
Now, let me rephrase things. Again let's suppose that "Arnold is Governor" is true, ok? Now, if that's the case
AND
it's the case that if "if Arnold is Governor of California then Arnold is a Governor" were true then "Arnold is a Governor" would be true, could not be false, yes?
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
You missed one, Bobinius, the one that shows the circularity:
If "if p then q" then if "p" then "q."
|
BOBINIUS:
This is not MP. Even a child can see that this is different than any possible formulation of MP.
|
POWELL:
It works, Bobinius. I don't think you can compose a M.P. that I can't phrase in this way that gives the right result.
Quote:
Quote:
BOBINIUS:
(P^Q) => P. This is an implication, a rule of inference, and it is not circular, even though if it holds in all situations, it is a tautology.
POWELL:
Then would you consider the following to be a circular argument, begging the question, or something like that?
The Bible is God's inerrant word.
Therefore
The Bible is God's word.
|
BOBINIUS:
This is a tautology. It is circular. Analytically true.
|
POWELL:
So, is "If (A and B) then A" circular or not circular if A = "The Bible is God's word" and B = "The Bible is inerrant"?
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
Yes, that's what "if p then q" means. It means that if p is true then q is true.
|
BOBINIUS:
There is no 'if'. It is just p. The antecedent asserted as the second premise.
|
POWELL:
Yes, if the argument is claimed as SOUND. However, if the argument is claimed as merely valid then it's not asserted as true, but claimed that if it were true then something logical would result.
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
Just like there's no conspiracy about what constitutes an appeal to authority?
An appeal to authority is a deductive fallacy, a deductive non sequitur, yet logicians make a big to do about appeals to authority being non fallacious if the person is an expert speaking within his field of specialty. That's irrelevant to whether it's a deductive non sequitur. It doesn't matter if you're the world-class expert, just because you claim X is no guarantee that X.
Why do the logicians do that, Bobinius? I suspect because if they didn't then bright students of logic will ask them why they should believe the teacher given that appeals to authority are fallacious. The teacher has to provide an INDUCTIVE / PROBABALISTIC argument for why they should be trusted: the teacher is PROBABLY correct in his claims. Thus, the learning of deductive logic becomes based, not on deductive reason alone, but on induction. Apparently, that's not something logicians are eager to admit to.
|
BOBINIUS:
All identities and implications in propositional logic are proved, not declared to be true. Learn something about it. Buy a book of logic. Read more.
Quote:
POWELL:
People were thinking logically long before modus ponens was invented, Bobinius.
|
BOBINIUS:
We all use modus ponens without knowing it. We did not 'invent' it.
|
POWELL:
Was language invented, Bobinius?
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
Yes, if you understand what logicians mean by "if p then q." What they mean is something like "if p then certainly q." If they allow for "if p then probably q" then it's not so clear that ~p would result from ~q.
|
BOBINIUS:
p->q is a contingent implication.
p=>q is a tautological implication. it means 'if p then certainly q'. Logicians know very well what they are talking about. You don't.
|
POWELL:
Then it would seem that merely contingent implications will be non sequiturs and, so, won't produce a sound argument.
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
Let's not. My assertion is that the argument is valid, not that the premises or conclusion are true. Will you agree to that?
|
BOBINIUS:
The antecedent is logically asserted. You know what that means?
|
POWELL:
I know what "the antecedent is asserted as actually true" means and that's not what I'm doing when I claim that the argument is merely valid.
Quote:
BOBINIUS:
The argument is valid, no one said it is not. It is MP.
Quote:
POWELL:
Yes, it's given as a premise and it's not a conditional. It's part of the conditional "if p then q." It's the antecedent of the conditional "if p then q."
|
BOBINIUS:
Yes. There are not two conditionals, but one and the antecedent. This is where you are wrong. You assert two.
|
POWELL:
Given what the conditional means, you can divide the conditional into the antecedent and the consequent. That's what M.P. does.
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
It's supposed to be a proposition, a statement that is either true or false. A person who composes a proposition is not necessarily affirming the proposition as true, but is merely affirming that it is either true or false.
|
BOBINIUS:
Logically asserted, given.
|
POWELL:
The validity claim is that "if p were true", not "p is actually true."
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
Not necessarily. Just because I write a proposition is no guarantee that I think the proposition is true.
|
BOBINIUS:
It is not factually true. It is logically asserted. IT IS AFFIRMED IN THE ARGUMENT.
|
POWELL:
Not unless the argument is claimed to be sound. If the argument is claimed to be merely valid then what is affirmed is that IF the premises were true then the conclusion would be true.
Quote:
Quote:
BOBINIUS
You have to assert the conditional and the antecedent for the consequent to follow.
POWELL:
No you don't.
|
BOBINIUS:
This is the climax of absurdity. No further effort wasted here.
|
POWELL:
You can DENY the conditional and the antecedent and the conclusion as being true, yet correctly claim that the conclusion would be true if the premises happened to be true. A valid deductive argument can have false premises and a false conclusion, Bobinius. Do you dispute this?
For example:
If pigs fly then snakes sing.
pigs fly.
therefore
snakes sing.
If I claim the argument is valid, Bobinius, then that does not necessarily mean that I am asserting that pigs fly. I'm merely asserting that IF pigs fly (and other things) then something logical results.
Quote:
Quote:
BOBINIUS:
Everybody can claim whatever they want. A simple 'Ipse dixit' deals with the lack of logical and evidential argumentation.
Do they have any evidence that God has blinded our eyes or he exists?
POWELL:
Yes, our rejection of God's existence.
|
BOBINIUS:
Begging the Question.
Quote:
POWELL:
Do we have any evidence that God does not exist? Yes, an argument from ignorance among other things.
|
BOBINIUS:
Speak for yourself.
Quote:
POWELL:
If they don't have evidence then we shouldn't. I think they do have evidence.
|
BOBINIUS:
good for you.
Quote:
POWELL:
All you have, Bobinius, is the claims and arguments of others and the faith that it's possible for you to verify their claims. You haven't taken the astronomical observations yourself.
|
BOBINIUS:
The evidence is public. You can consult it if you like.
|
POWELL:
So is the Bible.
Quote:
BOBINIUS:
Do you want a 2 m telescope in every apartment?
|
POWELL:
My point is that our evidence is similar to that of theists. However, I believe that our evidence is better than theirs. I have much greater confidence that I could verify the claims of something I read in a scientific journal than something I read in the Bible.
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
Perhaps there is better evidence for black holes than there is for God. I'm confident that the things we call black holes aren't exactly what our current theories say they are, but perhaps they're reasonably close.
|
BOBINIUS:
Do you know what our current theories say about them and what it's the evidence for them? Highly doubt it.
|
POWELL:
Sort of. The evidence you and I have are the claims and arguments of others and the faith that we could observe what they've observed.
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
No, Bobinius. Until you replicate their experiments for yourself then all you have is the claims and arguments of others and faith that you can verify them.
|
BOBINIUS:
It is called peer review. Independent verification. If you don't have evidence that it is all a big conspiracy, you should shut up.
|
POWELL:
More claims, Bobinius. People have CLAIMED that they've verified the results. I believe them, but until we verify them for ourself, we're relying on the claims and arguments of other people.
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
There are people who believe it is probably true and there are people who believe it is probably false. The community of scientists is not confident enough yet to say one way or the other.
|
BOBINIUS:
No one believes that, and you are missinformed.
|
POWELL:
Don't some people believe that there are these "strings"? Don't some people disbelieve?
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
The definition is what you find in dictionaries. The description can include other things beyond the definition.
|
BOBINIUS:
What is the definition of the biblical God and how do you know it? What more does the description include?
|
POWELL:
You and I and perhaps others could define it as the entity who allegedly created the Earth and communicated with some persons in the Bible. Perhaps we should add some more characteristics.
Quote:
BOBINIUS:
You cannot know if it is mistaken, it is a non sense to say that the description of a non existant entity is 'mistaken'.
|
POWELL:
It makes sense to me.
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
The complete description in the Bible, as you understand the words, ignoring metaphorical meanings, corresponds to no actual being. So, you burned a strawGod. Are you happy?
|
BOBINIUS:
Straw God?
They say the whole Bible is true. It is INSPIRED by God and it is the true word of God. God is telling us what is he like. This description corresponds to a non existant being.
|
POWELL:
Even inerrantists accept metaphorical meanings to some things in the Bible, Bobinius.
Quote:
BOBINIUS:
Go and explain [to] them that the words of God are describing a straw god.
Quote:
POWELL:
It's a hypothetical. Do you deny that it's a possible definition? Do you wish to propose a competitor definition?
|
BOBINIUS:
It's a hypothetical, no shit. They all are. There is no 'true' one or 'mistaken' one. They either are describing inconsistent entities or not. The theists don't present a hypothetical one, but the one in which they believe.
Quote:
BOBINIUS:
The first definition wins or what?
POWELL:
Often, yes. However, the definition WE AGREE TO wins in this case. I proposed a definition for God X. Do you refuse to accept, for the sake of argument, that this is the definition of God X?
|
BOBINIUS:
Good. The definition upon the theists agree. They all agree the Bible is true. They believe in that God: inconsistent.
Quote:
POWELL:
So, if somebody changes their mind about the attributes of President Bush then he ceases to exist? Funny, Bobinius. Yahweh, if he exists, exists independently of the descriptions of him.
|
BOBINIUS:
Are you trying to make a joke? If someone comes up with a logically inconsistent description and labels it 'George Bush' it means that the refferent of that description does not exist, not that it is George W. Bush the idiotic president of US. It is again an equivocation unsurmountable for John Powell: the same name with a different concept under it.
|
POWELL:
If someone claims that George W. Bush, President of the U.S., is NOT an idiot then you should conclude they are mistaken rather than that they are actually referring to some other George W. Bush president of some other U.S.
Quote:
BOBINIUS:
Yahweh with his inconsistent properties does not exist.
Quote:
POWELL:
It's a deductive non sequitur, Bobinius. Probably the lion isn't there. However, possibly the lion is there but you aren't seeing it for one reason or another. Maybe somebody has caused the optical impulses from your eyes to go through a device before reaching your brain so you see your room, but without the lion that's there. Perhaps you've been given a drug that somehow prevents you from recognizing the lion.
|
BOBINIUS:
It is a premise. If it is true, the conclusion follows.
|
POWELL:
Yes if it were true, but it's a non sequitur so it shouldn't be accepted as actually true.
Quote:
BOBINIUS:
If you can't see the lion you cannot differentiate a non-observable lion from no lion at all. An entity that it is observable, but it is not observed in this place, means it is not in this place.
A simpler example:
If a man is sitting on your toilet, you should see him when you look at the toilet.
You don't see him when you look at the toilet.
Therefore there is no man sitting on your toilet.
|
POWELL:
No, Bobinius, that's another deductive non sequitur since it's possible, but unlikely, that a man is sitting on your toilet, but you don't see him. You need to make your argument inductive / probabalistic: PROBABLY there is no man sitting on your toilet if you don't see anyone there.
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
I've admitted that PROBABLY there isn't a lion in your yard if you don't see one, Bobinius. You were supposed to provide a sound proof. You failed. All you produced is an inductive / probabalistic argument.
|
BOBINIUS:
It is a deductive argument.
If its premises are true, the conclusion follows DEDUCTIVELY.
|
POWELL:
Yes, if the premises were true, but since the conditional is a non sequitur the conditional should not be accepted as true so the argument should not be accepted as sound.
Quote:
BOBINIUS:
I consider the premise true, and any rational man will do that. Any rational man concludes that it is not a lion in his yard and let's his children play in the afternoon.
See the toilet example if you are not clear.
|
POWELL:
Then you accept a deductive non sequitur as true.
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
I'm a rational strong atheist because, based on the evidence I've considered, I believe that the Biblical God does not exist. I don't have sound proof. I can live with that.
|
BOBINIUS:
You don't have any evidence for a negative. Only your declarations.
|
POWELL:
Claims can count as evidence. So can arguments and experiences.
Quote:
Quote:
POWELL:
Circular reasoning is logical reasoning.
|
BOBINIUS:
use it John. It will take you far.
|
POWELL:
It has taken me far.
John Powell
05-09-2005, 07:31 PM
to Bobinius
