1robin
Christian/Baptist
Ok here is what I said.I didn't reject the statement that was a reply to- I couldn't make any sense of it one way or the other, which is why I asked you to try it again. Perhaps you should go back and read what you had posted- it was clearly a typo, or something, because it was simply incoherent.
It would have been clearer if I had said:Then you must reject every claim except we think because they all can be wrong.
Then you must reject every claim with the exception of "We think" because they can all be wrong. I didn't do so because I had used the "I think" argument so many times I thought your would know that is what I meant.
I have long ago lost all trust in these musings that make no sense. I saw nothing at that site that indicates anything of value is going on there. My arguments make perfect sense and are about as simple as is possible to get. When you objected I thought you did so as a matter of logic (as in reason), if I had realized you were talking about the rigorous "official" logic used in academia I would never have went to the site. I see no value in that stuff. I concentrate on the reliable parts of science and philosophy and regard the extremely theoretical parts as a self created mess with no relevance or application outside academia and it should not be tolerated there. Logic is even worse because it is not even about a natural reality anywhere in many cases. It is about what is preferred. The same way Grammar is. Not putting a capital at the beginning is not actually wrong, it is against convention, and convention is opinion separated from fact. I see no use in it. I am sure rigorous logic has useful parts to it but what I read at that site quickly indicated they must reside else where. Now instead of retreating back to academic opinion about what can't be tested or dressing up a pile of useless garbage in fine linen. For once can't you simply state what is wrong with my two simplistic points other than and you do not like them and they may or may not offend the OPINION of an Oxford professor.The site in question was a basic logic 101 tutorial, and you would find the exact same material in any introductory source on logic you care to pick; could he be wrong? Unlikely, but possible. Was he wrong regarding the basics of his field of expertise? Nope.
I was not aware you were retreating into rigorous semantics so soon already. I thought you meant my conclusions did not reasonably follow from the premise. If I had realized you had jumped back into an encyclopedia I would have told you I do not care what rigorous logic as is used in a classroom but almost no where else says about anything. I will admit that it is not impossible for my premise to be true and my conclusion to be false. I just don't care. Formal logic is one of the most obscure and useless disciplines I can think of. In thousands of hours of debates I have watched and had this is the first time anyone has ever brought it up. Even the formal philosophers in professional debate circuits do not use it that I can tell. It is just another meaningless dept. that is funded by the money from far more applicable and important departments.No, it isn't. The definition of logical (in)validity is not up-for-grabs; it means that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, or, in other words, that it's possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, or, in other words, the negation of the conclusion is consistent with the premises.
In what way was even your logical objection to my argument not a semantic technicality. You know what, don't answer that. I am only setting you up to burrow further into technicality/ Instead supply what I asked for above, and actual reason my claims are invalid, not what arbitrary rule some dusty old professor was violated.
Your utter disregard for truth and accuracy is showing again.
I want nothing to with whatever was at that site. It is meaningless. If the entire field disappeared forever nothing would suffer at all. There are two meanings I use for the world logic. I use it many times in the same way rationality or reason is used (the way 99.9% of humanity would use it), and then there is what exists in a few formal programs on logic as regimented and systematic dogma. It has no basis in reality the way physics and math do as most of us apply them. It can't be verified, it is almost useless even if true, it is obscure and unrequired for almost all degrees, mush of it is arbitrary and pure assumption.That you want "nothing whatever to do" with logic is hardly surprising, and pretty instructive.
Again please state actual reasons (not rules of an obscure dept. of academia). If they were right you will suffer no loss in doing so but I imagine you won't for three reasons. You never do. You prefer abstract rules and technicality to common sense dialogue. And whatever principle you are referring to is either wrong or misapplied. I want to know why my argument is invalid not why some academic who has never had to be right about anything said it was, if they actually did.
I would love to see a judge and a jury handle an objection to my claims based on your complaint against it.
BTW I typed much more than what you responded to. Where did it go?