Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clutch · 05-02-2002, 06:10 AM

(Ever, tiresomely, and) anon,

What, no answer? What a terrible non-shock!

Everyone else,

It strikes me as fairly likely that there is a connection between this tedious trollery and what I encountered <a href="http://www.kipertek.com/cgi-bin/wsmbb/wsmbb.cgi?RT+ZODWHEYOVO/XXNDJATSSS+984+15+apologetic+725.1006+NEXT10" target="_blank">here</a>.

Knowing KT's methods, I preferred not to be an "enabler" for his evasion techniques. Even if anonymousj is not KT, though, the same lesson applies. Maybe I can't stop someone from wanking in public, but I don't have to lend a hand, either.

anonymousj · 05-02-2002, 06:36 AM

Clutch,

You said,

Quote:

Non-anonymous time-waster,

Will you take minute and explain to me the lack of civility that shows itself again and again on this board! Referring to me as a time-waster is utterly gratuitous. You are perusing this board, and posting, voluntarily. If you find it not worth the time, then you don't have to open the topic. But to open the topic, to comment in the way that you have, and to address me as time-waster is to engage in behavior that one finds hard to understand. Any thought on this issue.

You said

Quote:

Notwithstanding your risible claim to the contrary, there is no reason to think that you have given a sound argument. Some people have referred to it as sound; however, it is not difficult to find people who fail to understand the term -- you being a clear example.

Are you saying that I fail to understand the term 'sound'. I started the topic by, inter alia, stating what I mean by sound. I have adhered to this definition throughout the entire discussion. It is not part of the definition of 'sound argument' that the premises of the argument be proved; only that the be true. Yet again and again people move from 'You haven't proved/given any reason to believe that the premises are true' to 'it is unsound'.

Is it your view that soundness should be defined in the following way: A sound argument is an argument that is valid and that has all true premises and has demonstrations that all of the premises of the argument are true?

Quote:

An argument is sound when it is valid and has all true (relevant) premises. Hence, *determining* that an argument is sound requires determining both that it is valid and that its premises are true. The judgement that your argument is sound depends on a judgement that your premises are true. Since there is no reason to believe your Premise One true, there is no reason to think your argument sound. You must find some way to internalize this.

I understand this perfectly well. But what does it have to do with what I have produced. I have never claimed to show that the argument is sound.

You say in this passage that 'there is no reason to believe that premise one is true'. Do you mean merely that you don't have any reason to believe that premise one is true, or do you mean that I, anonymousj, have no reason to believe that premise one is true. If it is the latter, I would like to hear why you think that this is so. I have already why one might, in these circumstances, refrain from producing a sound argument for premise one. Until you and others are clear about what counts as 'producing a sound argument' as contrasted with 'showing that a sound argument is sound', one runs the risk of encountering the same irrelevant 'objections' again.

Do you object to the claim that my argument P is a sound argument? I have not given any reason to believe that the premises are true for that argument. Would you say that I have failed to produce a sound argument in that case. Or would you stop at 'I don't know if it is sound or not?'

Quote:

To diagnose. You seem to confuse there being no reason to think something true with there being decisive reasons to think it false. Since nobody can be bothered to offer the latter, with respect to your first premise, you feel enfranchaised to pronounce your argument sound. But were I simply to pronounce your first premise false, I would do so on just the same grounds from which you assert it in the first place, viz, none whatever.

(my emphasis) Are you maintaining that I have no grounds for premise one simply on the basis of the fact that I have produced no grounds?

You say,

Quote:

But why should anyone attempt such a foolish and time-wasting task, in the absence of any reason to believe it *true*? A valid argument which contained as a premise, "The term 'pickles' has been used exactly 15 billion times in human history" might well be a sound argument as well -- if this premise is true. But who would assume that a (practically impossible) obligation to *demonstrate* it false accrues to one sceptical of the premise?

You have no general obligation to demonstrate anything here. I have never suggested that anyone does have any such general obligation. I have said that if you want to show that the argument is unsound, you must show that the premises are false (given the obvious validity of the argument).

Quote:

If you have reason to think your first premise true -- or even *reasonable* -- you should trot it out. Otherwise you might consider finding the honesty to confess this little epicycle for the empty sophomorism it is.

There is nothing sophomoric about this point. The difference between 'proving that P ' and 'showing/proving that one has proved that P is an obvious one, so well-known to contemporary epistemologists that there simply are no violations of it in the professional literature.

cheers,

anonymousj

[ May 02, 2002: Message edited by: anonymousj ]

anonymousj · 05-02-2002, 06:46 AM

Koyaanisqatsi,

You said,

Quote:

I'm not quite sure why you're doing this, anon, but you are, quite simply incorrect. It is your burden to demonstrate all of your premises are true in order for your syllogism to be considered sound.

That is irrefutable.

I will assume that you are using 'considered sound' and 'sound' interchangeably. If not then you and I may have no disagreement.

If it is your view that (call this the Proved-premise principle, or PPP) in order to produce a sound argument,Argument S, one must prodcue the sound argument S, and then produce sound arguments for each of the premises of argument S.

If this is so, then I would like you to produce a sound argument for the proved-premise principle. I think you will find that it, in principle, be satisfied. If this is not your claim here, then I don't know what your objection is.

cheers,

anonymousj

anonymousj · 05-02-2002, 06:54 AM

tom cooper

You say,

Quote:

anonymousj,
Can I just ask, is this thread an attempt to prove that there is a God (as the title suggests), or a discussion on the philosophy of arguments? With a quiet nod to the KK paradox (ie. Whether you can know that know something).

Someone is beginning to understand. It is both.(a very quiet nod to the KK 'problem'.) One of the difficulties that religious believers face (quite unfairly) is the widespread failure to appreciate the difference between 'proving that there is a God' and 'showing that one has proved there is a God'. It is no place clearer than it is on this discussion board (and not just in this topic).

cheers,

anonymousj

Philosoft · 05-02-2002, 06:56 AM

AnonymousJ,

I'm not going to pretend I'm skilled in propositional logic, but I would like to ask one thing: what's your operational definition of "God"?

anonymousj · 05-02-2002, 07:02 AM

All,

I will return. Can you believe that anonymousj is off to teach a logic class, and then an epistemology class? What a joke, Huh? Poor students!!

cheers,

anonymousj

[ May 02, 2002: Message edited by: anonymousj ]

philechat · 05-02-2002, 07:16 AM

Oh no...If anonymousj is going to teach logic, I guess Second Coming is imminent...
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ May 02, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]

The Dark Lord · 05-02-2002, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by anonymousj:
Tom Cooper,

Ihave titled it "A proof that there is a God" because I hve provided a sound argument for the existence of God and nothing that anyone has provided shows that it is not sound. You say that I have an argument but no proof. If, according to you I must show that the premises are true in order to be able to offer it as a sound argument, then you must, by parity of reasoning, show that one or more of the premises are false in order to say that it is not a proof. Otherwise, all you are entitled to is something such as 'I don't know whether it is a proof or not." There is a signifcant difference between 'I don't know if it is a proof or not' and 'It is not a proof'.

I don't know if you are assuming that I am assuming that my argument is a proof only because no one has shown that the conditions on proof have not been satisfied. Many seem to think that this is what I am doing. This is not my view, and it plays no role in my thinking. It is my view that whether or not any particular person believes or knows that a premise is true, is, in general, irrelevant to the truth of the premise. (there are certain exceptions to this-- my statements of my beliefs, for example (with certain qualifications).

cheers,

anonymousj

Hi everyone.

anon, the burden of proof lies on you, not us. You made the assumption that 'If something exists, god exists.' We do not have to prove this false. You have to prove it true.

It's the equivalent of me saying that there is a monster in Loch Ness. Based on your reasoning that something is true until proven false, you would have to believe that there is a monster in Loch Ness. It is near impossible to prove the non-existence of something, and it is impossible to prove the non-existence of god.

You have produced a sound arguement, assuming that god exists if something exists. However you have to prove that assumption. We do not have to disprove it, for that is impossible.

philechat · 05-02-2002, 07:28 AM

I don't believe that anon is teaching logic/epistemology. Evidence: he was like "huh" when several infidels used formal terminology.
How could someone teach logic if they don't even know the most basic terminology?

BLoggins02 · 05-02-2002, 07:50 AM

anon: The notation for the formal system I am using is similar to standardized notation for symbolic logic. The authors of <a href="http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=3366" target="_blank">this book</a> (both of which teach logic at Texas A&M where I am an undergraduate of Philosophy) decided to employ several non-conventional methods to make the formal system of sentential logic and first order predicate calculus easier to grasp for beginning students with no prior experience. I like the notation, and use it more often than standard logic notation.

Example:

In one example by a poster, he used the following rule:

m, n MPP - modus ponens ponens

Given a conditional at line m, and it's antecedant at line n, conclude the consequent of the conditional.

In Allen and Hand, MPP has been replaced by ->E, meaning "arrow elim". This makes sense to me, it is easier for a student to understand "arrow elimination" than a latin phrase for which he has no orientation.

Put simply, in Allen and Hand's notation, most main connectives have two rules associated with them, an I (intro) and an E (elim). Here are a few examples: (I'm going to leave out assumption sets so that it's easier to read, and I will use dots where tabs would normally be so that spaces line up)

(1) PvQ.............A
(2) ~Q..............A
(3) P...............1,2 vE

(1) P...............A
(2) PvQ.............1 vI

(1) P->Q............A
(2) P...............A
(3) Q...............1,2 ->E

(1) P...............A
(2) Q...............A
(3) P->Q............2 ->I(1)

(1) P&Q.............A
(2) P...............1 &E
(3) Q...............1 &E

(1) P...............A
(2) Q...............A
(3) P&Q.............1,2 &I

(1) P->Q............A
(2) Q->P............A
(3) P<->Q...........1,2 <->I

(1) P<->Q...........A
(2) P->Q............1 <->E
(3) Q->P............1 <->E

...and so on.

Hope this helps.

05-02-2002, 07:02 AM	#86
anonymousj Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 66	All, I will return. Can you believe that anonymousj is off to teach a logic class, and then an epistemology class? What a joke, Huh? Poor students!! cheers, anonymousj [ May 02, 2002: Message edited by: anonymousj ]</p>

05-02-2002, 07:16 AM	#87
philechat Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Mind of the Other Posts: 886	Oh no...If anonymousj is going to teach logic, I guess Second Coming is imminent... <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> [ May 02, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

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

05-02-2002, 06:10 AM	#81
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	(Ever, tiresomely, and) anon, What, no answer? What a terrible non-shock! Everyone else, It strikes me as fairly likely that there is a connection between this tedious trollery and what I encountered <a href="http://www.kipertek.com/cgi-bin/wsmbb/wsmbb.cgi?RT+ZODWHEYOVO/XXNDJATSSS+984+15+apologetic+725.1006+NEXT10" target="_blank">here</a>. Knowing KT's methods, I preferred not to be an "enabler" for his evasion techniques. Even if anonymousj is not KT, though, the same lesson applies. Maybe I can't stop someone from wanking in public, but I don't have to lend a hand, either.

05-02-2002, 06:56 AM	#85
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	AnonymousJ, I'm not going to pretend I'm skilled in propositional logic, but I would like to ask one thing: what's your operational definition of "God"?

05-02-2002, 07:28 AM	#89
philechat Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Mind of the Other Posts: 886	I don't believe that anon is teaching logic/epistemology. Evidence: he was like "huh" when several infidels used formal terminology. How could someone teach logic if they don't even know the most basic terminology?

05-02-2002, 07:50 AM	#90
BLoggins02 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: College Station, TX Posts: 254	anon: The notation for the formal system I am using is similar to standardized notation for symbolic logic. The authors of <a href="http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=3366" target="_blank">this book</a> (both of which teach logic at Texas A&M where I am an undergraduate of Philosophy) decided to employ several non-conventional methods to make the formal system of sentential logic and first order predicate calculus easier to grasp for beginning students with no prior experience. I like the notation, and use it more often than standard logic notation. Example: In one example by a poster, he used the following rule: m, n MPP - modus ponens ponens Given a conditional at line m, and it's antecedant at line n, conclude the consequent of the conditional. In Allen and Hand, MPP has been replaced by ->E, meaning "arrow elim". This makes sense to me, it is easier for a student to understand "arrow elimination" than a latin phrase for which he has no orientation. Put simply, in Allen and Hand's notation, most main connectives have two rules associated with them, an I (intro) and an E (elim). Here are a few examples: (I'm going to leave out assumption sets so that it's easier to read, and I will use dots where tabs would normally be so that spaces line up) (1) PvQ.............A (2) ~Q..............A (3) P...............1,2 vE (1) P...............A (2) PvQ.............1 vI (1) P->Q............A (2) P...............A (3) Q...............1,2 ->E (1) P...............A (2) Q...............A (3) P->Q............2 ->I(1) (1) P&Q.............A (2) P...............1 &E (3) Q...............1 &E (1) P...............A (2) Q...............A (3) P&Q.............1,2 &I (1) P->Q............A (2) Q->P............A (3) P<->Q...........1,2 <->I (1) P<->Q...........A (2) P->Q............1 <->E (3) Q->P............1 <->E ...and so on. Hope this helps.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.