Enneagram Type 5 Board Archive

Re: I challenge you, Isaac [ Boards: Main, Type4, Type5, Movie, Care, Chat ][ Top 10 ] [ HOME ]

Re: I challenge you, Isaac

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

Posted by isaac on January 18, 2002 at 12:14:43:

In Reply to: I challenge you, Isaac posted by Bartholomew on January 17, 2002 at 11:15:54:

oh, i've given you more than that.

you're focused on the wrong aspect here, bart. it seems like you want me to give you a certain number of minutes that must be devoted to each line of an argument, or something like that. it's not a matter of how much error-checking must be done. the point is that an unsound argument will either have untrue premises or an invalid form. so, really, there are 2 sorts of errors that must be checked for. and this is done most effectively in an adversarial system, such as a debate.

in any argument, you must use premises that both parties agree to, if you're to make any progress. (agreed?) this effectively resolves the first issue, most of the time. this is why lawyers and politicians will often throw out the line, "so, you admit that..." to make it clear that their opponent accepts their premises. in order to rebut an argument which you see has an untrue premise (call that A), one must formulate an argument with premises that ARE accepted by both, and concludes the opposite (not A). since A and not A cannot both be true, by the rule of identity, the party with the untrue premise must re-examine his stance. in general, the truth value of premises is a job for the scientist, not the logician. consider the argument:

all martians are green.
the pope is a martian.
thus, the pope is green.

it's perfectly valid. however, the first premise is suspect at best (since we know of no martians at all, let alone green ones) and the second premise is also false. and, well, the pope ISNT green, so that settles it. knowing that the pope isn't green, that we have no evidence of martians, and lots of other premise-value information, is fundamentally scientific. in this way, any good philosopher has to have a finger in the science pie if he is to get anywhere. also, when physicists report to us that the universe is expanding, that there is a particle called the quark, that time is relative, and so on, it is the duty of the philosopher to reexamine any of his premises (and conclusions!) which may rest on faulty assumptions.

so, step 1: examine all premises for truth-value. if they all make sense, then move on to the next part.

the next step is to examine the arguments themselves. check each logic chain for validity, to make sure that the conclusions are the necessary results of the premises. for example:

all men feel pain and men have rights.
all animals feel pain.
therefor, all animals have rights.

that's not a valid argument. it's not established that the ability to feel pain causes the posession of rights. you can examine it symbolically, and it's a lot easier to see the error:

all M is in P and R
all A is in P
therefor, all A is in R ??????

i've referred you multiple times to long lists of every style of fallacy, complete with explainations of why each is invalid. i suggest you refer to those if you're confused about how to identify invalid arguments. often, you can prove the problem of an invalid argument with a counter-example. for the previous example,

all dogs have skin and tails.
all humans have skin.
therefor, all humans have tails.

since this leads to a conclusion which is clearly false, from true premises, it's certainly an invalid form.

and, when in doubt, look for contradictions. contradictions cannot exist. if you find one, check your premises, because something is mistaken. the rules of logic will generally cause contradictions to arise if the pargument is not sound. of course, whether or not to identify them as such, or what to do when faced with a contradiction, is the choice of the philosopher. it's perfectly possible to be negligent in one's duties.

your error checking is done when you've checked everything. examine every premise for truth-value, and every argumetn for validity. a sound argument necessarily results in a true conclusion. a man who does not accept a valid conclusion, when he accepts the premises is, in the words of aristotle, greco, and isaac, a fool.

you should check out this link, because i think you will find it helpful. yes, it's from the ari. but it's also a very good examination of the 3 major camps of philosophy, and the differences between them.
http://www.aynrand.org/ssg/philosophy.html

for a discussion of fallacies and what they are and how to identify them, check out
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

isaac

Philosophy, by Darryl Wright

Follow Ups:

Re: I challenge you, Isaac Alex 11:34:55 01/22/02 (2)
- it is not capacity to feel pain that imparts rights isaac 12:37:30 01/23/02 (0)
- Please, don't distract him Bartholomew 14:26:03 01/22/02 (0)
Does your silence mean that you concede the point? (nt) Bartholomew 11:24:12 01/21/02 (0)
And the actual argument... Bartholomew 20:06:52 01/18/02 (19)
- ok, fine, i'll reply up here, bart isaac 11:47:27 01/24/02 (0)
- Re: And the actual argument... Matches 23:26:53 01/21/02 (17)
  - you apparently do not know what the discussion is about Bartholomew 02:20:17 01/22/02 (14)
    - haha! i'm replying! and there's nothing you can do about it! isaac 11:30:55 01/22/02 (13)
      - Ah, but there is something I can do... Bartholomew 13:56:58 01/22/02 (12)
        
        Re: Ah, but there is something I can do... Matches 14:48:08 01/22/02 (11)
        
        I have learned my lesson, and I will not be tempted Bartholomew 16:24:52 01/22/02 (1)
        
        Ah, screw it Bartholomew 02:07:48 01/24/02 (0)
        
        Re: Ah, but there is something I can do... Primer Gray 15:22:39 01/22/02 (8)
        
        Re: Ah, but there is something I can do... Matches 09:29:59 01/23/02 (7)
        
        Address all refutation of my argument, to my actual argument. (nt) Bartholomew 02:13:22 01/24/02 (0)
        
        Re: Ah, but there is something I can do... Primer Gray 10:30:35 01/23/02 (5)
        
        Address all refutation of my argument, to my actual argument. (nt) Bartholomew 02:12:56 01/24/02 (1)
        
        But...I was addressing Matches...that's why I posted down here in the thread. Primer Gray 16:29:30 01/24/02 (0)
        
        thanks, guys isaac 12:39:24 01/23/02 (2)
        
        Re: thanks, guys Bartholomew 02:12:08 01/24/02 (1)
        
        hahahahahah isaac 11:40:27 01/24/02 (0)
  - You apparently do not know what the discussion is about Bartholomew 01:52:47 01/22/02 (1)
    - Oops, ignore that. Hit the wrong button - meant to hit "reset" (nt) Bartholomew 01:53:28 01/22/02 (0)
Some comments that are not part of the argument Bartholomew 19:57:42 01/18/02 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: oh, i've given you more than that. : you're focused on the wrong aspect here, bart. it seems like you want me to give you a certain number of minutes that must be devoted to each line of an argument, or something like that. it's not a matter of how much error-checking must be done. the point is that an unsound argument will either have untrue premises or an invalid form. so, really, there are 2 sorts of errors that must be checked for. and this is done most effectively in an adversarial system, such as a debate. : in any argument, you must use premises that both parties agree to, if you're to make any progress. (agreed?) this effectively resolves the first issue, most of the time. this is why lawyers and politicians will often throw out the line, "so, you admit that..." to make it clear that their opponent accepts their premises. in order to rebut an argument which you see has an untrue premise (call that A), one must formulate an argument with premises that ARE accepted by both, and concludes the opposite (not A). since A and not A cannot both be true, by the rule of identity, the party with the untrue premise must re-examine his stance. in general, the truth value of premises is a job for the scientist, not the logician. consider the argument: : all martians are green. : the pope is a martian. : thus, the pope is green. : it's perfectly valid. however, the first premise is suspect at best (since we know of no martians at all, let alone green ones) and the second premise is also false. and, well, the pope ISNT green, so that settles it. knowing that the pope isn't green, that we have no evidence of martians, and lots of other premise-value information, is fundamentally scientific. in this way, any good philosopher has to have a finger in the science pie if he is to get anywhere. also, when physicists report to us that the universe is expanding, that there is a particle called the quark, that time is relative, and so on, it is the duty of the philosopher to reexamine any of his premises (and conclusions!) which may rest on faulty assumptions. : so, step 1: examine all premises for truth-value. if they all make sense, then move on to the next part. : the next step is to examine the arguments themselves. check each logic chain for validity, to make sure that the conclusions are the necessary results of the premises. for example: : all men feel pain and men have rights. : all animals feel pain. : therefor, all animals have rights. : that's not a valid argument. it's not established that the ability to feel pain causes the posession of rights. you can examine it symbolically, and it's a lot easier to see the error: : all M is in P and R : all A is in P : therefor, all A is in R ?????? : i've referred you multiple times to long lists of every style of fallacy, complete with explainations of why each is invalid. i suggest you refer to those if you're confused about how to identify invalid arguments. often, you can prove the problem of an invalid argument with a counter-example. for the previous example, : all dogs have skin and tails. : all humans have skin. : therefor, all humans have tails. : since this leads to a conclusion which is clearly false, from true premises, it's certainly an invalid form. : and, when in doubt, look for contradictions. contradictions cannot exist. if you find one, check your premises, because something is mistaken. the rules of logic will generally cause contradictions to arise if the pargument is not sound. of course, whether or not to identify them as such, or what to do when faced with a contradiction, is the choice of the philosopher. it's perfectly possible to be negligent in one's duties. : your error checking is done when you've checked everything. examine every premise for truth-value, and every argumetn for validity. a sound argument necessarily results in a true conclusion. a man who does not accept a valid conclusion, when he accepts the premises is, in the words of aristotle, greco, and isaac, a fool. : you should check out this link, because i think you will find it helpful. yes, it's from the ari. but it's also a very good examination of the 3 major camps of philosophy, and the differences between them. : http://www.aynrand.org/ssg/philosophy.html : for a discussion of fallacies and what they are and how to identify them, check out : http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ : isaac

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Type 5 Message Board ] [ FAQ ] type5board/messages/7139.html

Your Ad Here