Enneagram Type 5 Board Archive

test failed [ Boards: Main, Type4, Type5, Movie, Care, Chat ][ Top 10 ] [ HOME ]

test failed

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Type 5 Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by isaac on January 05, 2002 at 14:17:21:

In Reply to: A test of the system of argument, for Isaac posted by Bartholomew on January 04, 2002 at 19:52:34:

: I agree that the system of argument that I described is not a tool intended for everyday life; it is too cumbersome for that. It is intended for philosophical discussions, where both parties are willing to resolve their discrepancies in the most conclusive manner possible.

it's also too cumbersome for philosophical discussions. give your premises, and draw your necessary conclusion. if i dispute the premises, i'll say so. if i think you've made a fallacy, i'll say so. if you want more structure, label your premises and conclusion so we can refer to them by number or letter. in short, use the standards of philosophical discussion that are used all the time, cuase they work well.

: Conclusion: The conclusion of any chain of reasoning cannot be trusted as true with respect to its precepts.

you still miss the glaring contradiction. you can't trust your own conclusion, if you adopt it. which means that you're saying that you can possibly trust conclusions. and if you don't adopt it, then you can trust conclusions, which means that it's false. it's either a contradictory statement or it doesn't hold water. contradictions don't exist. if you find one, check your premises or your logic chain.

: 1.) People never know they have made a given mistake until some unpredictable time after they have made it.

people do not know when they've made a mistake unless they employ some mistake-finding techniques, including watching out for conclusions that are contradictory and debating with other philosophers. in addition, one can reduce the likelihood of making errors to a negligible probability by being competent.

: 2.) If there is any chance that a conclusion of a chain of reasoning is false with respect to the chain of reasoning's precepts, that conclusion may not be trusted as true with respect to those precepts.

one can test conclusively for this. if there is "any chance" that a conclusion is not derived from the precepts, it's a 100% chance, because it's a fallacy, and can be identified as such. in that case, yes, the conclusion cannot be trusted wrt the premises. but you seem to believe that it's possible to be 50% uncertain of the *chain of logic* and thus not be able to accept the argument. if you can't identify fallacies, then you need some education. it's a skill that must be learned.

: 3.) Mistakes in a chain of reasoning have a chance of rendering the conclusion of that chain of reasoning false with respect to the precepts of the chain of reasoning.

yes, fallacies have a chance of yielding false conclusions.

: 4.) If a person has no way of verifying how many objects of a certain type are present in a given situation, that person has no way of verifying when none of those objects are present.

that's true. if i can't tell how many eggs are in the bag, then i can't tell if there are none. however, it's a nonsequiter here, even tho you don't think it is. a person DOES have a way of verifying how many mistakes are in an argument. you can take a class which will teach you how to do it. it's easier than addition. any moderately competent human can learn how to do it, and in the VAST majority of cases, will never make a mistake. or, if they have made a mistake, will be capable of finding it.

:
: At this point, Isaac, you may dispute any (but only one - if you have problems with more than one, break your problems into separate posts) of the four pieces of evidence. You may not dispute the conclusion yet, because I have not yet revealed how I arrive at my conclusion.

hahahahhahaaah
shall we call you the argument nazi now? i'm not gonna use your rules. they're stupid. however, it did save some time, i suppose. i mean, it's pointless to continue, right? since most of your premises are all flawed in some way and your conclusion is contradictory, anyway?

isaac

Follow Ups:

A test, like anything else, cannot fail until it is begun Bartholomew 17:14:40 01/05/02 (8)
- there ain't no maybe about it isaac 20:41:43 01/05/02 (7)
  - Re: there ain't no maybe about it Bartholomew 22:36:24 01/05/02 (6)
    - Re: there ain't no maybe about it isaac 11:39:29 01/06/02 (5)
      - Re: there ain't no maybe about it tiev (205.188.208.106) 23:17:37 06/08/03 (0)
      - Re: there ain't no maybe about it tiev (205.188.208.106) 23:17:07 06/08/03 (0)
      - Re: there ain't no maybe about it Bartholomew 13:39:52 01/06/02 (0)
      - Bah! *^%$#@! 12:45:21 01/06/02 (1)
        
        Just to make things perfectly clear, that was not me. (nt) Bartholomew 13:40:48 01/06/02 (0)
one more thing... isaac 14:18:00 01/05/02 (4)
- Re: one more thing... Bartholomew 17:19:45 01/05/02 (3)
  - YOU'RE THE LOGICAL UNCERTAINTY WEIN 12:49:19 01/06/02 (2)
    - haha isaac 12:53:38 01/06/02 (1)
      - just to make this perfectly clear, that wasn't me isaac 15:24:30 01/06/02 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: : I agree that the system of argument that I described is not a tool intended for everyday life; it is too cumbersome for that. It is intended for philosophical discussions, where both parties are willing to resolve their discrepancies in the most conclusive manner possible. : it's also too cumbersome for philosophical discussions. give your premises, and draw your necessary conclusion. if i dispute the premises, i'll say so. if i think you've made a fallacy, i'll say so. if you want more structure, label your premises and conclusion so we can refer to them by number or letter. in short, use the standards of philosophical discussion that are used all the time, cuase they work well. : : : Conclusion: The conclusion of any chain of reasoning cannot be trusted as true with respect to its precepts. : you still miss the glaring contradiction. you can't trust your own conclusion, if you adopt it. which means that you're saying that you can possibly trust conclusions. and if you don't adopt it, then you can trust conclusions, which means that it's false. it's either a contradictory statement or it doesn't hold water. contradictions don't exist. if you find one, check your premises or your logic chain. : : : 1.) People never know they have made a given mistake until some unpredictable time after they have made it. : people do not know when they've made a mistake unless they employ some mistake-finding techniques, including watching out for conclusions that are contradictory and debating with other philosophers. in addition, one can reduce the likelihood of making errors to a negligible probability by being competent. : : : 2.) If there is any chance that a conclusion of a chain of reasoning is false with respect to the chain of reasoning's precepts, that conclusion may not be trusted as true with respect to those precepts. : one can test conclusively for this. if there is "any chance" that a conclusion is not derived from the precepts, it's a 100% chance, because it's a fallacy, and can be identified as such. in that case, yes, the conclusion cannot be trusted wrt the premises. but you seem to believe that it's possible to be 50% uncertain of the *chain of logic* and thus not be able to accept the argument. if you can't identify fallacies, then you need some education. it's a skill that must be learned. : : : 3.) Mistakes in a chain of reasoning have a chance of rendering the conclusion of that chain of reasoning false with respect to the precepts of the chain of reasoning. : yes, fallacies have a chance of yielding false conclusions. : : : 4.) If a person has no way of verifying how many objects of a certain type are present in a given situation, that person has no way of verifying when none of those objects are present. : that's true. if i can't tell how many eggs are in the bag, then i can't tell if there are none. however, it's a nonsequiter here, even tho you don't think it is. a person DOES have a way of verifying how many mistakes are in an argument. you can take a class which will teach you how to do it. it's easier than addition. any moderately competent human can learn how to do it, and in the VAST majority of cases, will never make a mistake. or, if they have made a mistake, will be capable of finding it. : : : : : At this point, Isaac, you may dispute any (but only one - if you have problems with more than one, break your problems into separate posts) of the four pieces of evidence. You may not dispute the conclusion yet, because I have not yet revealed how I arrive at my conclusion. : hahahahhahaaah : shall we call you the argument nazi now? i'm not gonna use your rules. they're stupid. however, it did save some time, i suppose. i mean, it's pointless to continue, right? since most of your premises are all flawed in some way and your conclusion is contradictory, anyway? : : isaac

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Type 5 Message Board ] [ FAQ ] type5board/messages/7019.html

Your Ad Here