Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 07-28-2011, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

...Finally, I said 'which', not 'what'. Meaning, which KIND of logical fallacy did I commit. If somebody says to you, "My car has a color!" you would probably want to know WHICH color....

If somebody says to me "I don't have to know what the capital of Brazil is in order to know it's not Copenhagen" I would know that such a statement does NOT LOGICALLY follow.

Logical fallacies do NOT LOGICALLY follow.

PyramidHead · 07-28-2011, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

...Finally, I said 'which', not 'what'. Meaning, which KIND of logical fallacy did I commit. If somebody says to you, "My car has a color!" you would probably want to know WHICH color....

If somebody says to me "I don't have to know what the capital of Brazil is in order to know it's not Copenhagen" I would know that such a statement does NOT LOGICALLY follow.

Logical fallacies do NOT LOGICALLY follow.

Do you know what the capital of Brazil is, off the top of your head?

If not, how certain are you that it isn't Jupiter?

J-D · 07-28-2011, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

J-D's post are RECORDED.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

1.....Logic is concerned with the relations of ideas, not with matters of fact.

2.....Logic is no more concerned with the content of specific ideas than it is with specific questions of fact. It is concerned with patterns of reasoning.

3.....Logic is concerned with the relations between ideas--specifically, as I said earlier, with patterns of reasoning--not with the content of specific ideas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Those statements do not contradict each other.

It is False and illogical that Logic is NOT concerned with matters of fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

J-D's post are RECORDED.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Those statements do not contradict each other.

It is False and illogical that Logic is NOT concerned with matters of fact.

Please support this statement, since it is in direct contradiction to what people who are experts in logic have said.

A good primer: http://www.jcu.edu/math/vignettes/logic.htm

Quote:

The validity of an argument has to do only with the logical structure of the argument, and not with the truth of any of the premises. Convincing an individual that the premises are, indeed, true is persuasion rather than logic.

You do NOT appear to understand the difference between "TRUTH" and "FACTS".

You previously made a statement which was a logical fallacy.

You claimed that you honestly did NOT know the capital of Brazil yet claimed that it was NOT Copenhagen.

Once it is the TRUTH that you do not know the capital of Brazil then it was ILLOGICAL for you to say it was NOT Copenhagen.

And if it was NOT the TRUTH that you do not know the capital of Brazil then it was LOGICAL for you to say it was NOT Copenhagen.

You do not understand what logic is. It is pointless trying to discuss detailed logical issues in detail with somebody who does not understand what logic is and does not want to understand.

J-D · 07-28-2011, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

The validity of an argument has to do only with the logical structure of the argument, and not with the truth of any of the premises. Convincing an individual that the premises are, indeed, true is persuasion rather than logic. emphasis avi

Here, the key word, is VALIDITY.

Let me rewrite this sentence, so that all of us can understand it:

In order for an argument to have merit, the premises can be perceived as either true or false.

Sorry, I don't accept this notion, as valid.

From my perspective, In order for an argument to have merit, the premises MUST either be true, or acknowledged to be false. An argument based on premises of uncertain validity is without merit, as far as I am concerned.

avi

You do not understand what logic is. It is pointless trying to discuss detailed logical issues in detail with somebody who does not understand what logic is and does not want to understand.

J-D · 07-28-2011, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now, if it is suggested that Jesus in gMatthew was ACTUALLY an ordinary man then the claimant has DISCREDITED the author of gMatthew.

You have not given any reason to think that there was just one author of Matthew.

mountainman · 07-28-2011, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

..... what people who are experts in logic have said.

A good primer: http://www.jcu.edu/math/vignettes/logic.htm

Quote:

The validity of an argument has to do only with the logical structure of the argument, and not with the truth of any of the premises. Convincing an individual that the premises are, indeed, true is persuasion rather than logic.

But where does the evidence fit in to the grand scheme? I dont see it mentioned here at all. People who are experts in logic have also said that there are such things as "random truths" and "unproveable truths". I have a great respect for experienced logicians however the field being discussed in the OP is actually the field of ancient history, and therefore it is mandatory for the logicians to address the ancient historical evidence.

Here is a simple primer for experts in ancient history:

Quote:

ON PAGANS, JEWS, and CHRISTIANS

--- Arnaldo Momigliano, 1987

Chapter 1:

Biblical Studies and Classical Studies
Simple Reflections upon Historical Methodp.3

Principles of Historical research need not be different
from criteria of common sense. And common sense teaches
us that outsiders must not tell insiders what they should
do. I shall therefore not discuss directly what biblical
scholars are doing. They are the insiders.

What I can perhaps do usefully is to emphasise as briefly
as possible three closely interrelated points of my
experience as a classicial scholar who is on speaking terms
with biblical scholars.

1) our common experience in historical research;

2) the serious problems we all have to face because of the
current devaluation of the notion of evidence and of the
corresponding overappreciation of rhetoric and idealogy
as instruments for the analysis of the literary sources;

3) what seems to me the most fruitful field of collaboration
between classical and biblical scholars.

Let me admit from the start that I am rather impervious to
any claim that sacred history poses problems which are not
those of profane history.

p.7

One is almost embarrassed to have to say
that any statement a historian makes must
be supported by evidence which, according
to ordinary criteria of human judgement,
is adequate to prove the reality of the
statement itself. This has three
consequences:

1) Historians must be prepared to admit
in any given case that they are unable
to reach safe conclusions because the
evidence is insufficient; like judges,
historians must be ready to say 'not proven'.

2) The methods used to ascertain the value
of the evidence must continually be scrutinised
and perfected, because they are essential to
historical research.

3) The historians themselves must be judged
according to their ability to establish facts.

The form of exposition they choosen for their presentation
of the facts is a secondary consideration. I have of course
nothing to object in principle to the present multiplication
in methods of rhetorical analysis of historical texts.

You may have as much rhetorical analysis as you consider
necessary, provided it leads to the establishment of the
truth - or to the admission that truth is regretfully
out of reach in a given case.

But it must be clear once for all that Judges and Acts,
Heroditus and Tacitus are historical texts to be examined
with the purpose of recovering the truth of the past.

Hence the interesting conclusion that the notion of forgery
has a different meaning in historiography than it has in
other branches of literature or of art. A creative writer
or artist perpetuates a forgery every time he intends
to mislead his public about the date and authorship
of his own work.

But only a historian can be guilty of forging evidence
or of knowingly used forged evidence in order to
support his own historical discourse. One is never
simple-minded enough about the condemnation of
forgeries. Pious frauds are frauds, for which one
must show no piety - and no pity.

mountainman · 07-28-2011, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

And Toto, I agree this thread is pretty much out of steam as far as BC&H is concerned, but over in Philosophy we go on like this all the time!

You are not constrained over there by the evidence itself. Theories in the field of ancient history are obliged to address the evidence. Your statement only goes to demonstrate that aa5874s claims (in the field of ancient history not Philosophy) are not being addressed adequately.

J-D · 07-28-2011, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mysteriousworld

Is the argument here that you have to believe everything an ancient text says or reject it completely as a source of any kind of information?

That's an excellent question. I'd really like to know the answer to that.

aa5874 has never explicitly adopted that position statement, maybe because once it's explicitly stated the position becomes indefensible.

But on the other hand, aa5874 has never explicitly stated a clear alternative position, maybe because of not having one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mysteriousworld

Does any historian actually work like that when reading ancient texts? Does any ancient historian actually think that either I believe everything this text says or I have to ignore it completely?

No.

J-D · 07-28-2011, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

..... what people who are experts in logic have said.

A good primer: http://www.jcu.edu/math/vignettes/logic.htm

Quote:

The validity of an argument has to do only with the logical structure of the argument, and not with the truth of any of the premises. Convincing an individual that the premises are, indeed, true is persuasion rather than logic.

But where does the evidence fit in to the grand scheme? I dont see it mentioned here at all. People who are experts in logic have also said that there are such things as "random truths" and "unproveable truths". I have a great respect for experienced logicians however the field being discussed in the OP is actually the field of ancient history, and therefore it is mandatory for the logicians to address the ancient historical evidence.

Here is a simple primer for experts in ancient history:

Quote:

ON PAGANS, JEWS, and CHRISTIANS

--- Arnaldo Momigliano, 1987

Chapter 1:

Biblical Studies and Classical Studies
Simple Reflections upon Historical Methodp.3

Principles of Historical research need not be different
from criteria of common sense. And common sense teaches
us that outsiders must not tell insiders what they should
do. I shall therefore not discuss directly what biblical
scholars are doing. They are the insiders.

What I can perhaps do usefully is to emphasise as briefly
as possible three closely interrelated points of my
experience as a classicial scholar who is on speaking terms
with biblical scholars.

1) our common experience in historical research;

2) the serious problems we all have to face because of the
current devaluation of the notion of evidence and of the
corresponding overappreciation of rhetoric and idealogy
as instruments for the analysis of the literary sources;

3) what seems to me the most fruitful field of collaboration
between classical and biblical scholars.

Let me admit from the start that I am rather impervious to
any claim that sacred history poses problems which are not
those of profane history.

p.7

One is almost embarrassed to have to say
that any statement a historian makes must
be supported by evidence which, according
to ordinary criteria of human judgement,
is adequate to prove the reality of the
statement itself. This has three
consequences:

1) Historians must be prepared to admit
in any given case that they are unable
to reach safe conclusions because the
evidence is insufficient; like judges,
historians must be ready to say 'not proven'.

2) The methods used to ascertain the value
of the evidence must continually be scrutinised
and perfected, because they are essential to
historical research.
3) The historians themselves must be judged
according to their ability to establish facts.

The form of exposition they choosen for their presentation
of the facts is a secondary consideration. I have of course
nothing to object in principle to the present multiplication
in methods of rhetorical analysis of historical texts.

You may have as much rhetorical analysis as you consider
necessary, provided it leads to the establishment of the
truth - or to the admission that truth is regretfully
out of reach in a given case.

But it must be clear once for all that Judges and Acts,
Heroditus and Tacitus are historical texts to be examined
with the purpose of recovering the truth of the past.

Hence the interesting conclusion that the notion of forgery
has a different meaning in historiography than it has in
other branches of literature or of art. A creative writer
or artist perpetuates a forgery every time he intends
to mislead his public about the date and authorship
of his own work.

But only a historian can be guilty of forging evidence
or of knowingly used forged evidence in order to
support his own historical discourse. One is never
simple-minded enough about the condemnation of
forgeries. Pious frauds are frauds, for which one
must show no piety - and no pity.

What methods is aa5874 using to ascertain the value of the evidence? What methods are you using to ascertain the value of the evidence?

aa5874 · 07-28-2011, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If somebody says to me "I don't have to know what the capital of Brazil is in order to know it's not Copenhagen" I would know that such a statement does NOT LOGICALLY follow.

Logical fallacies do NOT LOGICALLY follow.

Do you know what the capital of Brazil is, off the top of your head?

If not, how certain are you that it isn't Jupiter?

How certain were you that it is NOT Copenhagen if you Honestly don't know the capital of Brazil?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

But I honestly don't know what the capital of Brazil is!....

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.