Clutch

And my point was that this is false.

If n is a natural number, then n has exactly one immediate successor. That is a true conditional statement that "translates" neither directly nor indirectly into cause and effect.

Llyricist

It is by definition.
No, much of what is called reason is pure observation.
I can't imagine using if.. then statements without thinking about causality, though you are right, he obviously didn't

Clutch

Well, short of owning your own dictionary publishing house, you are in no position to stipulate that reasoning is a causal process by definition. But all that matters is that you agree that (a) is correct. Because all that's relevant to Lewis here is (a). Your views about (b) and (c) need not be considered now.

Llyricist

do you have the proof of that theorem handy?
And that DOES qualify as an abstraction of cause and effect, as I already stated is often, possibly usually the case.

bd-from-kg

Biff the unclean:

A final post (to you) on the subject of ad hominem.

Well, that’s not exactly it, but close enough for present purposes.

Now to call someone a hypocrite is to say that he is lying or acting deceitfully. Deceitfulness is generally considered to be something of a character defect. So accusing someone of hypocrisy is attacking his character. Thus on your own showing you’re engaging in ad hominem attacks.

Huh? Bringing up the (actual or alleged) motives of the person making an argument is a classic type of ad hominem argument – a version of “Ad Hominem Circumstantial”. A typical example:

If this kind of argument were legitimate we should always ignore the arguments of a defendant’s lawyer because, after all, he’s being paid to argue for acquittal; in fact he would be guilty of malpractice if he failed to make the best case he could for acquittal.

If Lewis actually used his conversion from atheism as an argument for his beliefs, it is indeed legitimate to question it. Now, could you direct me to the passage in Mere Christianity where he does this?

But in general, if someone engages in “foul” tactics” it doesn’t become “fair” for you to do the same. The appropriate response is to point out his “foul” tactics.

bd-from-kg

Clutch:

Good posts. I'm out of time today but will reply tomorrow.

Clutch

That's not a theorem. It's one of the Peano axioms of arithmetic.An "abstraction of" cause and effect? If that means "not" cause and effect, then yes. Otherwise, no.

That's simply No -- not often possibly usually No.

Llyricist

Well I don't know how you get around the idea that an if-- then formulation always involves some form of a cause - effect relationship.

In the case of the axiom you brought up, or anything similar, if A then B, it's the knowledge of A that causes the knowledge of B (the knowledge of B being an effect of the knowledge of A.) This of course is contingent on the person being aware of the Axiom or theorem.

Abstract was probably the wrong term, I frankly didn't think of how to articulate what I knew to be true, but a cause effect relationship is still being described. Just not directly as in A causes B.

Biff the unclean

BFK:Now to call someone a hypocrite is to say that he is lying or acting deceitfully.
My original contention was that Lewis was ignorant of the facts. You made a strong argument against that, which left us with only this one alternative.
Deceitfulness is generally considered to be something of a character defect. So accusing someone of hypocrisy is attacking his character. Thus on your own showing you’re engaging in ad hominem attacks.
This reminds me of the fellow who becomes incensed that his neighbors have the nerve to complain when he blasts his stereo at 2 AM.
Biff is wrong for pointing out that Lewis is making an argument that is hypocritical, but ignore Lewis' faulty arguement.
But in general, if someone engages in "foul" tactics" it doesn’t become "fair" for you to do the same. The appropriate response is to point out his "foul" tactics.
Then I must point out that your spurious claims of ad hominem attacks smell very much like an "argument from authority."
There is no "Lewis is not lying because of A, D & C." No, "Lewis is not actually making hypocritical statements because of W, Y & Z." There isn't even an assertion that my observations are incorrect. There is just indignation that lowly Biff had the nerve to point out the Great Man's baloney while philosophers who are much much smarter than Biff dote on Lewis' every word.
How dare that peasant boy say that the Emperor has no clothes?!
:banghead:

bd-from-kg

Llyricist:

Originally you said:

Now you explain that what you "really" meant was that reasoning always proceeds from premises to conclusions !?

Why do you waste our time? If this was all that you wanted to say (and for some strange reason thought it worth saying) why didn't you just say "reasoning always proceeds from premises to conclusions" ? What's the point of making a simple, uncontroversial observation in a peculiar way that's bound to be misunderstood?