ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 1:33 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: The child's "why?"
PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 6:56 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 869
Recently, I have had a conversation of this sort:

Person: I believe in the validity of statement X.
Tamayo: Why do you believe X?
P: Because my authority A tells me that X is valid.
T: How does A know that?
P: I don't know.
T: What about this other authority B, who has all kinds of documented evidence and reasoned argument against the validity of X?
P: The media lie, so all the so-called evidence is suspect. Since it is suspect, I will presume quite properly that it is invalid.
T: How do you know that the media lie?
P: Because A told me.
T: What if I suggested that A was mistaken?
P: A cannot be mistaken.
T: Why not?
P: Because I believe A.
T: Why?
P: Because I have faith in A's statements. Stop pestering me.

I claim that P in the above conversation is making a circular argument, and is therefore in error. If you disagree with me, please explain. Do you feel, for example, that I was pestering P with the child's "why"? I don't think I was, personally.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2005 8:48 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2001 5:00 pm
Posts: 5769
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Well, it's hard to say for sure since I've no idea what the context of any of this is, but your "Why" seems pretty reasonable. Maybe A is a lot more trustworthy than B, but there should still be some sort of rationale for it.

_________________
iothera: a science fantasy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2005 9:04 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 869
Fair enough. Let me quantify some of these variables.

A := "my pastor and a literal reading of the Bible"
B := "the traditional scientific establishment since about 1860 AD"
X := "the idea that the universe was created about six thousand years ago"

Those quantifications are the actual ones, yes, but any quantifications would do. ;-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2005 9:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2038 9:00 pm
Posts: 3209
Of course it's a circular argument. They're just affirming the antecedent.

_________________
election results: still an op
Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2005 9:19 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 869
*rings a bell* ding ding ding! a prize for the Spanish gentleman!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2005 9:45 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2001 5:00 pm
Posts: 5769
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Tamayo wrote:
Fair enough. Let me quantify some of these variables.

A := "my pastor and a literal reading of the Bible"
B := "the traditional scientific establishment since about 1860 AD"
X := "the idea that the universe was created about six thousand years ago"

Those quantifications are the actual ones, yes, but any quantifications would do. ;-)


In that case, IMHO "Why?" was not only justified, but obligated. :)

_________________
iothera: a science fantasy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2005 9:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2038 9:00 pm
Posts: 3209
RMG wrote:
Tamayo wrote:
Fair enough. Let me quantify some of these variables.

A := "my pastor and a literal reading of the Bible"
B := "the traditional scientific establishment since about 1860 AD"
X := "the idea that the universe was created about six thousand years ago"

Those quantifications are the actual ones, yes, but any quantifications would do. ;-)


In that case, IMHO "Why?" was not only justified, but obligated. :)

Well no, because that type of argument is totally invalid regardless of what A, B, or X are. So, in reality, you're always obligated to point that out.

_________________
election results: still an op
Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:09 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1004
Location: Denton County
In other words, it is futile for mere mortals such as us to engage in an argument with Tammy.

_________________
DNI'ed by Wandering Idiot for my complete and utter lack of any special talent whatsoever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2038 9:00 pm
Posts: 3209
Marjin wrote:
In other words, it is futile for mere mortals such as us to engage in an argument with Tammy.

Only if by "mere mortal" you mean "one unfamiliar with symbolic logic." I'm learning... and have homework to do, too. :(

_________________
election results: still an op
Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 am 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:44 pm
Posts: 134
Location: Screaming obsenities regarding untestable C++ software.
I prefer the following definitions.

A= God.
B= Scientific discovery of Biblical "facts"
X= God exists.

Existence is a prerequisite to stating the fact that one exists. Since A & X don't actually qualify the validity of the Bible, B is no longer relevant.

Usually at this point in the argument the door-to-door evangelist decides either I'm correct, a devil worshiper, or have totally lost my mind. Either way, I'm a waste of time and they leave. :D

_________________
"Their need for total domination and to bring the world to the edge of utter apocalypse makes them less-than-ideal Jenga partners."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 9:33 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1004
Location: Denton County
The SeƱor wrote:
Marjin wrote:
In other words, it is futile for mere mortals such as us to engage in an argument with Tammy.

Only if by "mere mortal" you mean "one unfamiliar with symbolic logic." I'm learning... and have homework to do, too. :(


I'm quite familiar with logic, I too spent eight credit hours on it. I'm just saying that even with our rudimentary knowlege Tammy would still wipe the floor with our brains.

_________________
DNI'ed by Wandering Idiot for my complete and utter lack of any special talent whatsoever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:20 am 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:12 pm
Posts: 3394
Location: Royal Court of Unfounded Speculation
I'd rather state tat the bible itself opens the possablility that the univertse is more then 6000 years old. As in the universe WAS created in 6 days... but the Earth day was only created on the 3rd... Thus a diferent definition of "day" is required.

_________________
A man said to the Universe, "Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the Universe, "the fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."


- Stephen Crane


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 5:16 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:39 am
Posts: 1756
Location: The border of civilization
Chaos_Descending wrote:
I'd rather state tat the bible itself opens the possablility that the univertse is more then 6000 years old. As in the universe WAS created in 6 days... but the Earth day was only created on the 3rd... Thus a diferent definition of "day" is required.

It was said by God to Adam somewhere in the first chapters of Genesis "You'll die the day you eat the fruit of the Tree of Wisdom" (like heck I'm gonna find the proper translation). Somewhere along it also says that Adam dies at the age of 900 and something.
Therefore, God's days are at least 900 and something years long.

And most religious people I know don't believe in logic.

_________________
Warning! The owner of this property is armed and willing to defend life, liberty and property.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:24 am 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:12 pm
Posts: 3394
Location: Royal Court of Unfounded Speculation
Most religious people you know arn't interested in Logic, or God, or Salvation, they are interested in following.

_________________
A man said to the Universe, "Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the Universe, "the fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."


- Stephen Crane


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group