Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/20/04 9:56pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "I guess you even know what I'm thinking" on 03/20/04 6:54pm
>>Hmm, no I don't think I quite said that. I said that
>>if Shandy has been writing from eternity past, he
>>either finishes at some point or he is infinitely far
>>behind. Notice I didn't say and infinitely far
>>behind. I used a disjunction, not a conjunction.
>
>
>I'm aware you didn't quite say that. I said it was
>implied.
Okay, then I'm saying it wasn't implied anywhere in the argument. Or does not imply and, for instance.
>>Again, it was a disjunction, not a conjunction, and as
>>such is not contradictory.
>
>Well then, there is no paradox. Game over.
I don't believe that logically follows. The disjunction is part of what creates the conclusion of an infinite past not existing. Perhaps you should look at the argument again.
>>Well, yes, sort of. But the only way it can
>>fail in reality is if the premises fail. I think I've
>>proven that.
>
>Not quite.
Yes quite. In logic, being invalid and the premises being wrong are the only ways a deductive argument can fail. So if its not invalid (as I proved) the premises have to fail if the conclusion is incorrect.
>Confer Zeno's paradox.
Assuming that's a deductive argument also, it too can fail in only one of two ways: it is invalid or at least one of the premises is false (or both).
>>And what premise is this? The first? The second?
>>Actually, no premise says that Shandy has been writing
>>from eternity past. It says things like "If
>>Shandy..."
>
>Now you are hiding behind your newly rephrased
>argument
Isn't the revised argument what we were talking about? We both agree that the original argument I presented is flawed.
>>I request an actual number to designate the
>>premise.
>
>I know what you request, but I'm not playing the
>"here's a number with obvious implications that Wade
>now gets to explain away by picking and mixing his
>assumptions" game.
And where have I ever played this game? (I request a specific example.)
>What you want is a technical argument delineating what
>premises are in error
No, what I want is clear and coherent clearly against a specific premise.
>>>Because you shift your criteria of what's logical
>>>according to your own biases.
>>
>>Where have I ever done that? (I request a specific
>>example.)
>
>Again, I'm not playing the "dig through old posts and
>finding specific examples" game
Then I suggest you stop your "unfounded and groundless accusations" game. Otherwise methinks it's a figment of your overzealous imagination.
>>The Duhem-Quine problem is about empirical
>>falsification, which doesn't quite apply here.
>
>Reality deals with empirical entities. This argument I
>would assume falls within the purview of reality.
>Hence, it very much applies here
No, it doesn't. I wasn't making empirical predictions from a background system of scientific theories. I was using an a priori philosophical argument that is deductively valid. Any "assumptions" made are in the premises.
>>Well, you did just call me a hypocrite,
>>remember?
>
>I never called you one. I said if you
>didn't do x, then I'd regard you as one.
Ah. My mistake.
>>Doesn't look like it. If anything you appear hotly
>>frustrated.
>
>Well, I guess appearances are deceiving then
Hmm, didn’t you say:
If anything shows through, it's frustration, because arguing with you is at times like arguing with a mad man.
I think that does kind of show through. What with your accusations of me playing games and all.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 