Are you a believer?

[Cicero]

So I'm watching Long Island Medium, and honestly, I'm starting to believe. Like, during some of the readings, I get goosebumps. Do you believe that people can contact the afterlife? I'm still sorta a skeptic though.

[Gigablue]

While I don't completely rule out an afterlife, I see no reason to believe in one. It doesn't make sense that someone's conscienceness can persist after death, since it is product of brain activity.

I don't really like paranormal tv shows. While some are somewhat well made, most are just dull. It's generally obvious that there is nothing supernatural happening. The people just speculate wildly without any real evidence.

[Sir Suomi]

I definetly do believe in an afterlife. I'll admit, not a very strong christian, but I'm still a believer.

And you watch that show? Seen commercials about it, but looked kinda scripted. But maybe I was wrong! :D

[West Coast Sheriff]

I do believe in an afterlife. I'm catholic so that's propably why. :D

[Mob Boss]

Not really, no. I'd have no problem saying I'm wrong if there was proof, concrete proof, but until then I'm a serious skeptic.

[Jess]

No, I don't believe in an afterlife. Once you die, you die. You cease to exist. Your body decomposes.

[Bath]

I don't believe in an afterlife, but I would love to. I love messing around with ouija boards and spirit conjuring, it's difficult for me to accept that this is all we get, especially since I've lost a lot of people. But I know there's nothing else. It makes the most sense. Spirits and ghosts and afterlife don't. But part of me doesn't give up, so I always say "most likely there's no afterlife."

[Brice]

I believe in an afterlife. While humans are able to think and do things, it's the soul that allows us to be ourselves and we'd be zombies without them. Or so, I think. And I also believe that if someone was really concentrated, that they could do anything with their mind. That's just my opinion. I don't care about facts and proof.

[Sleepy Raisin]

Imma go ahead and vote yes.. But really i dont believe in an "afterlife" persay but more like a rebirth i suppose.. Or a gathering i guess you could call it

[Daracon]

I voted no, I believe the afterlife will be like before you were born, nothing. I may be wrong, It would be nice if there were an afterlife, but I just do not believe their is one.

[xXJust Jump ItXx]

:( Well... I really dont know if I can say it does or not...

[ArsenicCatNip]

I'm honestly not sure. The idea is nice, but it's not very logical.. :(

[Human]

I don't believe in afterlife. When you watch programs like Most Haunted you can tell they're fake and it's been proved most of these paranormal shows are staged.

[NeuroTiger]

I'm a believer

[Hypers]

I dont believe in life after dying. Its not scientific and it just doesnt seem correct/logical, after all, after you die, your dead.

[ShatteredWings]

Reincarnation, yes.
Do I realize it's just a belief and I can't expect to prove it either way? Yes.

[Antisthenes]

Not really, no. I'd have no problem saying I'm wrong if there was proof, concrete proof, but until then I'm a serious skeptic.

If you are truly a skeptic, then you wouldn't be wrong if there was concrete proof to the contrary. A skeptic does not assert belief towards the negative. To assert belief towards the negative due to lack of evidence to the affirmative is fallacious.

For example:

I assert X is the case.
A skeptic does not say that X is not the case until X is proven true. A skeptic says that it is unknown as to whether or not X is the case until it is proven true. There is a difference here.

To assert that X is not the case until it's proven true is logically fallacious. This is the fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance).

My point is, if you're a skeptic, then you're not going to be proven wrong by evidence for a the truth of the claim. You're not going to be proven right, either.
A skeptic only asserts that it is not known until evidence is provided. A skeptic does not assert that it is false until evidence is provided.
Critical difference between irrationality and skepticism.

[TigerBoy]

My view is we are all software, and brains are our hardware. The hardware decays rapidly after the heart stops providing it with oxygenated blood, and the software is corrupted and then destroyed.

Not very optimistic perhaps but it seems the most probable outcome to me. Just in case I'm right I intend to make the most of my life and have plenty of fun while I'm here.

[Apollo.]

I don't believe in anything after death, I think when your gone your not coming back, optimistic eh? To be fair though I wouldn't want an afterlife cause if you are still the same person just in a different body your gonna miss old friends and relatives. I don't know if that's how it apparently works but that's my view

[Twilly F. Sniper]

The afterlife cannot exist under any circumstance.

[LoveMe_HateMe]

Yes I do, kind off... too complicated for me to answer at this time of night...

[Antisthenes]

The afterlife cannot exist under any circumstance.

Why not?

[Jean Poutine]

These shows are not scripted. They don't need to be.

All Lisa Williams et al do is cold reading. It's an old mentalist trick. They ask questions that seem specific, but really aren't.

A crude example : "I hear an old man" *old lady reacts* "he is the husband of somebody in this room" *old lady reacts* etc etc.

They look at the public, pick something likely and then play it by ear. It's not scrying, it's psychology, and personally I think this kind of show should be banned or forced to declare they are not real.

As for an afterlife? Hell if I know? Atheists don't have any more "proof" than the theists do. I'll experience it on my own someday as will 100% of the human race so why fret about it in our teens/twenties? If it doesn't exist I won't care, I'll be dead. If it does exist then I'll have fun haunting my own house or something.

[Castle of Glass]

i do think that there is one, but i am not a "believer". i say that i think there is one is because your soul is an abstract thing and it does not die, unlike your body or a physical thing.

[Elysium]

I don't believe in an afterlife, but I think it's a very nice and comforting thought.

[Stronger]

The afterlife cannot exist under any circumstance.

Do explain why?

and I do.

[Magical]

The afterlife cannot exist under any circumstance.

Aaaand that is wroooong. Any circumstance? You know, another hypothetical universe where souls actually existed? And had different Laws? (No conservation of energy or mass etc.) Afterlife could exist there. Eh?

Anyway, I will state that I am making the assumption that the afterlife does not exist. Others have to prove that it does - they are making a positive claim and thus have the burden of proof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof

[philosophizing]

I do not believe in an afterlife, or any of the Gods people claim exist. A big fallacy in religion that is also extremely obvious it that "God" has always been wrong with the people. If God had been real don't you think he would've known that Earth revolved around the sun? If God had been real, I definitely believe the world would've been very different.

Let me put it this way. If I were to tell you, "I have the hottest, most perfect woman in the entire galaxy as my girlfriend". Firstly, you would want proof. What if I said, "no, you cannot talk to her, see her (not even a picture), BUT I wrote this book which is filled with quotations of what she has said about me". Imagine you looked in this book, it said things such as "Best lover ever, Perfectest person of all time, biggest dick EVER, just the most amazing, caring, loyal man I think the world will ever see". Would you believe that I was telling the truth? Would you believe that I was in a relationship with the most perfect woman of all time? No. Which is why I don't believe in God.
You, as I, want proof. Which there is none. I think religion is like a blanket for adults, to feel happy and secure, to have something to believe in. Without religion they would have to face reality, which is, to say the least, terrifying.

[Antisthenes]

Aaaand that is wroooong. Any circumstance? You know, another hypothetical universe where souls actually existed? And had different Laws? (No conservation of energy or mass etc.) Afterlife could exist there. Eh?

Anyway, I will state that I am making the assumption that the afterlife does not exist. Others have to prove that it does - they are making a positive claim and thus have the burden of proof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof

You misunderstand the burden of proof that Russell detailed in his work. You're actually engaging in the argument from ignorance fallacy (Which Russell himself anticipated people doing from what he had said on Burden of Proof) by doing what you claim.

The burden of proof is not:

X is not the case until proven true.

The burden of proof is:

You claim X. It's a burden on you to prove X.
IF I was to say, "X is not the case." Which, you are in regards to the afterlife right now, then I have a separate burden of proof placed on me to demonstrate this case. The burden is not shifted onto me, but a new one is made, and we both have our own separate burden of proof.

Russell's (the one who coined 'burden of proof') entire point on the matter was not that all claims are able to be said as false until proven true, as you seem to think, but it was that you can't claim to know they are true until proven true. This is Russell's epistemology of burden of proof and it's what spawned the entire idea. Don't warp it.

For claiming the negative or affirmative, you need to prove either one. You cannot simply say, "This is the case until proven otherwise" because as said, that's logically fallacious. I can explain the misunderstanding you're having in even more detail if you need me to.

Furthermore, logically speaking, that's not what an assumption is. That's what's known as a supposition in logic. There is a strict difference.

I do not believe in an afterlife, or any of the Gods people claim exist. A big fallacy in religion that is also extremely obvious it that "God" has always been wrong with the people. If God had been real don't you think he would've known that Earth revolved around the sun? If God had been real, I definitely believe the world would've been very different.

First of all, what you pointed out of religion is not a fallacy at all. Second of all, the last sentence you wrote actually does contain a fallacy. You're begging the question. You're assuming that God is not real in order to make this conclusion. The world cannot possibly, at any point, be any different than it is, because, the way it is is the way it is. This is unavoidable.
In ANY possible situation, the world is never different from the way it is (Law of identity in logic). So by this, you're assuming that for there to be a God, an impossible scenario must take place. This is also supposing some knowledge of God, which you already claimed doesn't exist. So not only are you assuming the initial point, here. You're also supposing knowledge of God in order to deny that God exists, which is ridiculous because you're asserting that he doesn't exist in the first place and thus you couldn't have knowledge of God in order to use this to deny that case.

Let me put it this way. If I were to tell you, "I have the hottest, most perfect woman in the entire galaxy as my girlfriend". Firstly, you would want proof. What if I said, "no, you cannot talk to her, see her (not even a picture), BUT I wrote this book which is filled with quotations of what she has said about me". Imagine you looked in this book, it said things such as "Best lover ever, Perfectest person of all time, biggest dick EVER, just the most amazing, caring, loyal man I think the world will ever see". Would you believe that I was telling the truth? Would you believe that I was in a relationship with the most perfect woman of all time? No. Which is why I don't believe in God.
You, as I, want proof. Which there is none. I think religion is like a blanket for adults, to feel happy and secure, to have something to believe in. Without religion they would have to face reality, which is, to say the least, terrifying.

You don't believe in God because I wouldn't believe that you have a perfect woman? Excuse me, what? The logic is non sequitur.

And as for the italicized bold part after that:

Lack of proof for X does not imply that X is not the case. I'll show you why:

Let's grant that it's true, to see the issue. Let's say that:

1. Lack of proof for something implies that it is not the case.
Now add on this premises, to see the logical problem you have here:
2. Two-thousand years ago there was no proof for the Earth revolving around the Sun.

Now, with #1 and #2, we can conclude the following:
___________________
3. Therefore, two-thousand years ago the Earth was not revolving around the Sun.

I'm sure you agree that the Earth didn't just suddenly start revolving around the Sun once we found evidence for it, right? This would be absurd, because if it hadn't been revolving around the Sun before we found evidence, then evidence would never have come, because it wasn't even true until we found that it was. This reasoning of yours is both circular and contradictory.

[ArsenicCatNip]

I do not believe in an afterlife, or any of the Gods people claim exist. A big fallacy in religion that is also extremely obvious it that "God" has always been wrong with the people. If God had been real don't you think he would've known that Earth revolved around the sun? If God had been real, I definitely believe the world would've been very different.

Let me put it this way. If I were to tell you, "I have the hottest, most perfect woman in the entire galaxy as my girlfriend". Firstly, you would want proof. What if I said, "no, you cannot talk to her, see her (not even a picture), BUT I wrote this book which is filled with quotations of what she has said about me". Imagine you looked in this book, it said things such as "Best lover ever, Perfectest person of all time, biggest dick EVER, just the most amazing, caring, loyal man I think the world will ever see". Would you believe that I was telling the truth? Would you believe that I was in a relationship with the most perfect woman of all time? No. Which is why I don't believe in God.
You, as I, want proof. Which there is none. I think religion is like a blanket for adults, to feel happy and secure, to have something to believe in. Without religion they would have to face reality, which is, to say the least, terrifying.

You just replaced "God" With "Hot, perfect Girlfriend" FUCKING GENIUS! Secondly, why wouldn't anyone believe said person is with some girl? There's a difference between something tangible and a omnipotent God you never see. Lastly, you can't compare a physical thing, a person to something you put faith into.

[Pierce]

My answer for an afterlife is not just black and whte or yes and no. It is impossble to say that an afterlife exists and it's also not possible to say with the utmost confidence that it doesn't. We will never truly know. I respect others opinons on this topic seeing that it is very complex but you cannot be certain whether it exists or not.

[TheBigUnit]

afterlife exists, even if it is only ur mind which we knows happens, theres no "accurate" time in ur mind the average dream which mite last several hours in your mind only clocks for around several minutes

as for the tradional afterlife like Heaven, know one will know

[Electra Heart]

I dunno.

[Antisthenes]

My answer for an afterlife is not just black and whte or yes and no. It is impossble to say that an afterlife exists and it's also not possible to say with the utmost confidence that it doesn't. We will never truly know. I respect others opinons on this topic seeing that it is very complex but you cannot be certain whether it exists or not.

I understand everything except the first sentence.
How is it that it's "not just black and white or yes and no"?

Certainly, either there is an afterlife or there isn't, correct? There isn't some manner by which we both have an afterlife and do not have an afterlife, and neither is there some manner by which we neither have an afterlife nor do not have an afterlife.
So explain the first sentence for me, would you?

[Syvelocin]

Afterlife? Hell no. Energy imprints? I'm not ruling it out.

I also think if ghosts exist, they aren't real dead people, but a more explainable, less intelligent phenomena.

[TigerBoy]

I understand everything except the first sentence.
How is it that it's "not just black and white or yes and no"?

Certainly, either there is an afterlife or there isn't, correct? There isn't some manner by which we both have an afterlife and do not have an afterlife, and neither is there some manner by which we neither have an afterlife nor do not have an afterlife.
So explain the first sentence for me, would you?

Pierce's view could be validly expressed in probabilistic logic rather than the philosophical style propositional. There is some data from 'near death experiences' that could be considered, and various theories about mechanisms for afterlife have also been proposed.

One could also argue that elements of the complex concept of 'afterlife' could be true while others could at the same time be false. For instance, self awareness and identity might be lost while ones life energy merges with a greater whole as some philosophies have proposed. Thus the concept of 'afterlife' is neither wholly 'true' or wholly 'false'.

[Antisthenes]

Pierce's view could be validly expressed in probabilistic logic rather than the philosophical style propositional. There is some data from 'near death experiences' that could be considered, and various theories about mechanisms for afterlife have also been proposed.

One could also argue that elements of the complex concept of 'afterlife' could be true while others could at the same time be false. For instance, self awareness and identity might be lost while ones life energy merges with a greater whole as some philosophies have proposed. Thus the concept of 'afterlife' is neither wholly 'true' or wholly 'false'.

Even if we were to appeal to probabilistic logic, this would not get us to an answer that is neither yes, nor no. This would still be applied to the law of non contradiction as well as the principle of bivalence when we have the end result, thus keeping it from being either of the two in the end. The manner by which we come to the conclusion is not the conclusion itself. Probabilistic logic still ends us in a conclusion of either it being so, or not being so probabilistically. There being probabilities in the premises does not lead us to a conclusion of both the disjuncts, it only gets us to a conclusion of either one of the disjuncts being so. There is a crucial difference here.

Furthermore, 'near death experiences' are precisely this. These do not get us to the afterlife, nor lack thereof an afterlife. Just like a 'near building' experience does not get us to the interior of the building, nor the lack of the interior of the building. Only 'near' to the building. Death being the manner by which we would approach the afterlife if it exists, if we're only having a 'near death' experience, then we're only approaching the approach of the afterlife, and not actually having any conclusive basis for any sort of truth regarding the afterlife itself.

As for the underlined final sentence, this is not a conclusion you can get to from the above, and so this isn't a solid basis either.

Some elements of X are true.
Some elements of X are false.
Therefore, X as a whole is not true nor false.

We cannot do this. This is fallacious reasoning known as the fallacy of composition. Just because the parts of the whole are mixed between being true or false exclusively does not mean that the whole itself is also mixed as to it's truth or falsity.
(Think of disjunctions and you can see another (different) example of why the above is a fallacy in logic of any stripe. (T or F) -> T)

[TigerBoy]

Even if we were to appeal to probabilistic logic, this would not get us to an answer that is neither yes, nor no. This would still be applied to the law of non contradiction as well as the principle of bivalence
Neither principle need to apply to probabilistic logic as I understand it - if you use probability distributions (as in fuzzy logic) it offers the opportunity to apply a probability of two outcomes. One may be more probable than the other, but the presence of a more probable outcome doesn't preclude the possibility of the less probable.


Furthermore, 'near death experiences' are precisely this. These do not get us to the afterlife, nor lack thereof an afterlife. Just like a 'near building' experience does not get us to the interior of the building, nor the lack of the interior of the building. Only 'near' to the building. Death being the manner by which we would approach the afterlife if it exists, if we're only having a 'near death' experience, then we're only approaching the approach of the afterlife, and not actually having any conclusive basis for any sort of truth regarding the afterlife itself.
That may be so, but if you get near a building you can peer in the windows. I happen to think its rubbish (based on research (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15494379)by psychologists) so I personally wouldn't be ascribing a particular high weighting to any probabilities on that basis.

The rest of your response I think is covered by my comments above - you are applying syllogistic / Aristotelian type logic I believe (I don't really know anything about this stuff, you just got me reading about it ;-) ) where I was proposing a means to get Pierce out of his hole by using probabilistic (fuzzy) logic.

On the fallacy of composition - if 'afterlife' was defined rigorously I would agree. However what 'afterlife' implies varies widely, and thus I don't believe it can be proven 'true' or 'false'. As with the analogy I gave previously, some would consider that 'afterlife' others might feel that they are missing a key part of what defines 'themselves'.

[Apollo.]

I'm a retard and posted in this twice, someone delete this?

[Antisthenes]

Neither principle need to apply to probabilistic logic as I understand it - if you use probability distributions (as in fuzzy logic) it offers the opportunity to apply a probability of two outcomes. One may be more probable than the other, but the presence of a more probable outcome doesn't preclude the possibility of the less probable.

You understand correctly. However, the principles are applied to the conclusion at the end, which is what we are discussing. Probabilistic logic in and of itself is dealing with probability, which is, after all, an epistemological concept. For example of what I mean:

A coin toss: Heads or tails. 50% heads, 50% tails.

Conclusion: It is either true that it is heads or it is true that it is tails. We don't say that it is both, or neither. We cannot get to that here. We can only get to, "It's one of the two, but it's fuzzy as to which one it is." Thus the phrase, "fuzzy logic." Fuzzy logic isn't saying that it is fuzzy as to the metaphysics of it, but it's fuzzy from an epistemological standpoint.

Metaphysical uncertainty: Something is not the case as well as is the case at the same time. (Or, something is neither the case nor not the case).

Epistemological uncertainty: It is not known as to whether or not it is the case and not the case, or as to whether or not it is neither the case nor not the case.

Fuzzy logic deals with epistemological uncertainties, not metaphysical uncertainties. (Epistemology: Study of knowledge / Metaphysics: Study of the nature of reality).

From a metaphysical standpoint, if we consider all fuzzy logic having been evaluated and formulated, we still do not have an uncertainty at the end. It's still very clear from a metaphysical standpoint in logic. Only from an epistemological (knowledge) standpoint is it "fuzzy."
(Metaphysical uncertainty) ≠ (Epistemological uncertainty) & Fuzzy logic ends in epistemological uncertainty, not metaphysical uncertainty.

That may be so, but if you get near a building you can peer in the windows. I happen to think its rubbish (based on research (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15494379)by psychologists) so I personally wouldn't be ascribing a particular high weighting to any probabilities on that basis.

The rest of your response I think is covered by my comments above - you are applying syllogistic / Aristotelian type logic I believe (I don't really know anything about this stuff, you just got me reading about it ;-) ) where I was proposing a means to get Pierce out of his hole by using probabilistic (fuzzy) logic.

If we get near a building we might be able to peer into the windows, however this does not necessarily mean that if we get near the door that we can peer through the door. Similarly, if we're near the building this doesn't mean that it even has windows to peer into in the first place. To say that it does have something analogous to windows is to suppose something about the afterlife, which is supposing that it's the case in the first place, which is what we're trying to get to, so we can't get that far yet without begging the question. (Same for if it even has a door in the first place; can't get there yet.)

As for the bold last part after that, starting with "The rest of your. . . ", I cleared that up in the response to the first part. Metaphysical uncertainty vs. Epistemological uncertainty.

To the edit made after I posted:

On the fallacy of composition - if 'afterlife' was defined rigorously I would agree. However what 'afterlife' implies varies widely, and thus I don't believe it can be proven 'true' or 'false'. As with the analogy I gave previously, some would consider that 'afterlife' others might feel that they are missing a key part of what defines 'themselves'.

Here we are again, though. Confusing metaphysical uncertainty with epistemological uncertainty.

Simply because we do not know if a proposition, P, is true or false (in any logic) this does not mean that X's truth value in actuality is neither true nor false. The same is thus for proving. Even if no one can prove to us right now that 1 + 1 = 2, this does not mean that there is a metaphysical uncertainty as to whether or not 1 + 1 = 2, this only means that there is a knowledge uncertainty as to whether or not 1 + 1 = 2. The difference here is crucial.

A rigorous definition does not matter, as, it's still the case that for any arbitrarily selected definition, D, it is either the case or it isn't the case. Now, whether we know the definition or we know about it being the case or not the case by some proof shown to us, is an entirely different matter. The metaphysical (actuality) certainty of the matter is still present regardless of if we know of it.

[TigerBoy]

Yes I gathered that the outcome was in a state of uncertainty a la Schroedinger's Cat, however my point is that one answer to your question "How is it that it's "not just black and white or yes and no"?" is "by using a logic system that doesn't require "yes or no" and by dealing with probabilities instead." This may not be satisfying metaphysically as you point out, however I still feel the definition of 'afterlife' matters which eases the pain for me at any rate.

I think the analogy is morphing under pressure :) The general point was concerning proximity: my observation was that human experience to date suggests that approaching a subject allows more data to be gathered.

As an aside, I don't see how you can applying principles such as bivalence "at the end" that require an absolute 'true or false' value when using a logic scheme devised precisely to permit uncertainty?

A rigorous definition does not matter, as, it's still the case that for any arbitrarily selected definition, D, it is either the case or it isn't the case. Now, whether we know the definition or we know about it being the case or not the case by some proof shown to us, is an entirely different matter. The metaphysical (actuality) certainty of the matter is still present regardless of if we know of it.

No of course a rigorous definition doesn't matter as to the reality of the thing we're investigating, but it rather matters to the participants in this debate: if we don't know what we're talking about, its rather difficult to determine whether or not it is true. My point is that for any value of D it may be 'true' for some participants, but 'false' for others and an unsatisfactory compromise for still more.

I'm loving the detail you're putting in by the way, its very educational - thanks!

[Antisthenes]

Yes I gathered that the outcome was in a state of uncertainty a la Schroedinger's Cat, however my point is that one answer to your question "How is it that it's "not just black and white or yes and no"?" is "by using a logic system that doesn't require "yes or no" and by dealing with probabilities instead." This may not be satisfying metaphysically as you point out, however I still feel the definition of 'afterlife' matters which eases the pain for me at any rate.

Oh no, it is satisfying metaphysically. That's the point. Metaphysically the logic is very certain. The fuzzy part of probabilistic logic is in the epistemology. It's metaphysically certain and epistemologically uncertain. Metaphysically, it is still "yes or no" given the case even in fuzzy logic. However, epistemologically it's unknown as to whether it's a "yes" or a "no." However, both metaphysically and epistemologically, it's still either a "yes" or a "no." It's satisfied in both contexts.

The only reason that we do not apply bivalence to epistemology is because at any point when we're speaking of the truth of a proposition, whether in fuzzy logic or otherwise, we're speaking of the truth in terms of metaphysics, and in that case, there is no uncertainty. There are knowledge gaps, but there are no actual ones. Thus why it's not a case of 'not being black or white, and neither yes nor no' as Pierce originally asserted.

I think the analogy is morphing under pressure :) The general point was concerning proximity: my observation was that human experience to date suggests that approaching a subject allows more data to be gathered.

Ah, but this is to suppose that when we have 'near death' experiences that we're actually observing any piece of the afterlife. Near death experiences could be entirely unrelated to anything having to do with an afterlife, and thus the entire "human experience to date suggests that approaching a subject allows more data to be gathered." falls apart, as, we're not even certain that we're approaching the afterlife in the first place in that situation.

As an aside, I don't see how you can applying principles such as bivalence "at the end" that require an absolute 'true or false' value when using a logic scheme devised precisely to permit uncertainty?

Oh, because the end is the part that's under discussion. As said before, whenever we are to evaluate a proposition's truth or falsity we are not inquiring epistemologically. We are not inquiring from the perspective of what is known or not known. We are inquiring metaphysically. That is, we're inquiring about what we can say of the subject necessarily even when we're dealing with fuzzy logic.

The roots of fuzzy logic were spawned due to Aristotle's Sea Battle Paradox. "There will be a sea battle tomorrow." True or false? We do not know. However, this does not change the fact of the matter that there either will be a sea battle tomorrow, or there will not be, and there certainly will not both be a sea battle and not be a sea battle. See the situation? There is a probability, that is, there is an unknown here. Yet, it's still either one way or the other.

We don't know if there will be or will not be, but this does not change the metaphysics, being, that there truly will either be or there will not be. Thus why our not knowing whether or not there is an afterlife, even going by fuzzy logic, does not change the fact that there either is or is not an afterlife (it's either the case or isn't the case). Epistemologically there still either is or is not, however we just don't happen to know.

No of course a rigorous definition doesn't matter as to the reality of the thing we're investigating, but it rather matters to the participants in this debate: if we don't know what we're talking about, its rather difficult to determine whether or not it is true. My point is that for any value of D it may be 'true' for some participants, but 'false' for others and an unsatisfactory compromise for still more.

I'm loving the detail you're putting in by the way, its very educational - thanks!

That's fine. However, I was pointing out the flaw Pierce had in his claim of it not being clear cut. Regardless of who is satisfied by a given definition, and regardless of who the definition happens to be true or false for, it is still, in the end, either true or false for any given individual and not (overall true and false), or (neither true nor false).

And you're welcome.

[TigerBoy]

I'm not trying to suggest that the outcome is metaphysically both 'yes' AND 'no' , simply that it can indeed be expressed in probabilistic terms that don't require either 'yes' or 'no', in answer to your earlier question to Pierce. Epistemologically that works, metaphysically it doesn't for you as I said: because, as you pointed out, the actual outcome (for the sake of argument disregarding my point about defining 'afterlife') is going to be one of two values only.


Ah, but this is to suppose that when we have 'near death' experiences that we're actually observing any piece of the afterlife. Near death experiences could be entirely unrelated to anything having to do with an afterlife, and thus the entire "human experience to date suggests that approaching a subject allows more data to be gathered." falls apart, as, we're not even certain that we're approaching the afterlife in the first place in that situation.

Yep I've already cited research as the reason for my own misgivings about such phenomena. However the key words in your statement above are "could be entirely unrelated" : by inference, they could be related. I'm simply being scrupulously open minded (scraping the bottom of the probability barrel admittedly).


Oh, because the end is the part that's under discussion. As said before, whenever we are to evaluate a proposition's truth or falsity we are not inquiring epistemologically. We are not inquiring from the perspective of what is known or not known. We are inquiring metaphysically. That is, we're inquiring about what we can say of the subject necessarily even when we're dealing with fuzzy logic.

That makes sense, but I guess what I'm curious about is if I have a probability of 'yes' of 23%, how does bivalence get applied? Do you simply assume that with a probability >50% = "True" or some such? Seems a rather less informative answer than knowing the probability if so, which makes me wonder why bother?


That's fine. However, I was pointing out the flaw Pierce had in his claim of it not being clear cut. Regardless of who is satisfied by a given definition, and regardless of who the definition happens to be true or false for, it is still, in the end, either true or false for any given individual and not (overall true and false), or (neither true nor false).
Yep, but we can't express the collective concept of afterlife based on the individual, or we fall into the fallacy of composition, correct? So if one wanted to make a statement about the collective concept (i.e. can humanity as a whole expect to experience an afterlife), how would you go about it?

It still seems to me that concurrent individualised afterlives (eg personal "paradises" or instances arising as an outcome of an individuals life, personality or beliefs perhaps) is a potential model we must consider as metaphysically valid (if nothing else to let Pierce of the hook for fun's sake).

[Human]

No I don't. I believe that when you die you rot for eternity in a grave.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Do explain why?

and I do.

Because, When you die your heart stops beating. Your brain stops functioning. Can there be an afterlife, if your body isnt functioning?

[Stronger]

Because, When you die your heart stops beating. Your brain stops functioning. Can there be an afterlife, if your body isnt functioning?

Well....if you brain, heart is still functioning, then one isn't dead, correct? And afterlife refers to the person's soul? or w/e leaving their body, and contiune as a spirit, and all that jazz, etc.

[Antisthenes]

I'm not trying to suggest that the outcome is metaphysically both 'yes' AND 'no' , simply that it can indeed be expressed in probabilistic terms that don't require either 'yes' or 'no', in answer to your earlier question to Pierce. Epistemologically that works, metaphysically it doesn't for you as I said: because, as you pointed out, the actual outcome (for the sake of argument disregarding my point about defining 'afterlife') is going to be one of two values only.

Probabilistic logic still requires either a "yes" or "no" once we get to the conclusion, which is what Pierce asserted. Epistemological uncertainty is what doesn't require "yes" or "no."
Probabilistic logic conclusions -> Metaphysical.
Probabilistic knowledge -> Epistemological.
Pierce's conclusion was just that, a conclusion.
Thus, it falls into the metaphysics and not the epistemology. If he had instead said, "The answer is not known to be true or false." Then he would be correct by probabilistic logic. However, because he quantified his statement as both a conclusion and a metaphysical one when saying,
My answer for an afterlife is not just black and white or yes and no.

He needed to say:

My answer for knowledge of an afterlife is not just black and white or yes and no.

For this to be a claim about knowledge of probability. The way he did say it, though, it's a metaphysical conclusion and thus is bivalent.


Yep I've already cited research as the reason for my own misgivings about such phenomena. However the key words in your statement above are "could be entirely unrelated" : by inference, they could be related. I'm simply being scrupulously open minded (scraping the bottom of the probability barrel admittedly).

And until demonstrated that they actually are related we would be begging the question (assuming the initial point to be proven) to use experience of 'near death' to say we have any sort of experience of the afterlife.
Since what we're trying to say in the first place is that we're experiencing the afterlife at least in part. We can't say that we're experiencing the afterlife due to near death experiences when we have yet to show the relation between the two. It's circular reasoning if we don't have that relation.

That makes sense, but I guess what I'm curious about is if I have a probability of 'yes' of 23%, how does bivalence get applied? Do you simply assume that with a probability >50% = "True" or some such? Seems a rather less informative answer than knowing the probability if so, which makes me wonder why bother?

Bivalence is applied in probabilistic logic as a disjunction. When we have ruled out no probabilities, we have a disjunction statement. (Example: It is raining or it is cold outside.) ->With probabilities attached to both disjuncts. (Such as, 40% chance it is raining / 60% chance it is cold outside).
Such a statement has a definite truth value. Either it's raining or it's cold outside (OR both).

Now, let's say we could, hypothetically, absolutely exclude one of the disjuncts (parts to the "or" statement above.)
Then, it must be the case that the other disjunct is true, because 40% of one event + 60% of another event = 100% of at least one of these events, so if one of them is necessarily not so, then the other one necessarily IS so. (Given that the probabilistic statement is actually true to begin with). So as seen, we're still left with a statement that has a definite truth value.

Yep, but we can't express the collective concept of afterlife based on the individual, or we fall into the fallacy of composition, correct? So if one wanted to make a statement about the collective concept (i.e. can humanity as a whole expect to experience an afterlife), how would you go about it?

In such an instance, we would present a disjunction as I wrote of above to the other question regarding probabilities.

Hypotheses:
Person 1's opinion: X
Person 2's opinion: Y
...
Person N's opinion: Z
Any other possibilities: #

Either (X is the case) or (Y is the case) or (Z is the case) or (# is the case).

-With probabilities attached to each one and evidence attached to each probability.

The "Either ____ or ____ . . ." above is also a statement that has a definite truth value. At least one of the disjuncts is true IF the disjunction (the entire statement) is true.
(The entire statement being true means that we have all possible outcomes within it).

It still seems to me that concurrent individualised afterlives (eg personal "paradises" or instances arising as an outcome of an individuals life, personality or beliefs perhaps) is a potential model we must consider as metaphysically valid (if nothing else to let Pierce of the hook for fun's sake).

Yes. That's also accounted for in the disjunctions I provided above.

For any true statement:

A or B (A disjunction)

Either A is true, B is true, or both are true. So, it's entirely left open that not just one of the possible afterlives is the case, but all of them are the case at once.

[TigerBoy]

He needed to say: My answer for knowledge of an afterlife is not just black and white or yes and no.


Ah but I don't think its fair to say he needed to say any such thing. He wasn't forming a formal logical statement, merely passing an observation in the common tongue, with all the ambiguity that implies. And actually he was very clear that the issue was one of certainty of knowledge: he said "We will never truly know."


And until demonstrated that they actually are related we would be begging the question (assuming the initial point to be proven) to use experience of 'near death' to say we have any sort of experience of the afterlife.
Since what we're trying to say in the first place is that we're experiencing the afterlife at least in part. We can't say that we're experiencing the afterlife due to near death experiences when we have yet to show the relation between the two. It's circular reasoning if we don't have that relation.

I see your point. I proposed pursuing this line on the hypothesis that proximity to "afterlife" was valid. I've never studied philosophy, so from coming from a scientific perspective I'd expect to be able to pursue an unproven hypothesis. Given that probabilistic logic is designed to describe and even quantify certainty and uncertainty, it surely isn't a barrier to proceed with a line of reasoning simply because it has encountered one of those very things?


Bivalence is applied in probabilistic logic is applied as a disjunction in probabilistic logic.

But we're not dealing with a disjunction of two different values, we are dealing with one value (or proposition), namely "the after life exists" which in my question is currently a probability of "23% True" (or the inverse probability of 77% false). There is only one term, not two as a disjunction would require (according to my quick research anyway :) )



Yes. That's also accounted for in the disjunctions I provided above.

For any true statement:

A or B (A disjunction)

Either A is true, B is true, or both are true. So, it's entirely left open that not just one of the possible afterlives is the case, but all of them are the case at once.
Yep ok, if any of the afterlives is true, then 'afterlife' as a concept is true. Doesn't the fallacy of composition apply though, since we are making an inference based on components? For example if you ask person A if they consider everyone else's version of afterlife to be valid and they do not, then our conclusion regarding the 'collective' afterlife concept is not valid for person A, as they can see the outcome of death for others is 'not afterlife'. I suggest that we'd find a number of compatible subsets of the population for which a given answer would be valid (true), with non-members considering it at the same time to be invalid (false). (Hope that makes sense, I should have gone to sleep ages ago heh).

[Gigablue]

Well....if you brain, heart is still functioning, then one isn't dead, correct? And afterlife refers to the person's soul? or w/e leaving their body, and contiune as a spirit, and all that jazz, etc.

If someone has any evidence of a soul existing, I would consider an afterlife as a possibility, but until then, it seems highly unlikely. All our current evidence suggests that conscienceness is just a product of brain activity. There is no need for invoking a soul.

[Antisthenes]

Ah but I don't think its fair to say he needed to say any such thing. He wasn't forming a formal logical statement, merely passing an observation in the common tongue, with all the ambiguity that implies. And actually he was very clear that the issue was one of certainty of knowledge: he said "We will never truly know."
That was made after his original statement. I was not commenting on his claim that we will never know, I was commenting on his entirely separate claim that the case is not black and white.
Further, any statement or 'observation' or claim of any type made at any point is a formal logical statement. Just by the fact that we're stating anything, it's a formal logical statement. Some are well-formed formulas, others are not, but all are statements. The only time a 'sentence' is not a 'statement' is when we have a question or a command. He was not questioning, nor was he commanding, he was stating. Thus, statement.

I see your point. I proposed pursuing this line on the hypothesis that proximity to "afterlife" was valid. I've never studied philosophy, so from coming from a scientific perspective I'd expect to be able to pursue an unproven hypothesis. Given that probabilistic logic is designed to describe and even quantify certainty and uncertainty, it surely isn't a barrier to proceed with a line of reasoning simply because it has encountered one of those very things?

But we're not dealing with a disjunction of two different values, we are dealing with one value (or proposition), namely "the after life exists" which in my question is currently a probability of "23% True" (or the inverse probability of 77% false). There is only one term, not two as a disjunction would require (according to my quick research anyway :) )

Still dealing with a disjunction for the following reason:

A statement always is paired with it's double negation in logic. When we reference a statement's falsity, we are speaking of the statement's negation being true. In other words:

"It is raining." Even if you assert only this, without realizing it you also happen to be asserting: "It is not not raining." (The double negation)
Similarly, if you assert "It is raining." This immediately asserts that "It is not raining." is a false statement (Due to the double negation law explained above)

If you'd like to know more on how this is the case, I can explain it in more detail for you.
When we have any statement, we immediately have a disjunction. So as said, it's still a disjunction even when we're faced with what appears to be an individual proposition.
(Furthermore, disjunctions are themselves individual propositions).

Yep ok, if any of the afterlives is true, then 'afterlife' as a concept is true. Doesn't the fallacy of composition apply though, since we are making an inference based on components? For example if you ask person A if they consider everyone else's version of afterlife to be valid and they do not, then our conclusion regarding the 'collective' afterlife concept is not valid for person A, as they can see the outcome of death for others is 'not afterlife'. I suggest that we'd find a number of compatible subsets of the population for which a given answer would be valid (true), with non-members considering it at the same time to be invalid (false). (Hope that makes sense, I should have gone to sleep ages ago heh).

Nope. It doesn't apply there, because the inference isn't that: Components of an afterlife are true, therefore afterlife is true.
Notice how in the first part you said "any of the afterlives"? That means that the whole is true right there.
If an afterlife is true, then this means that it must be the case that an afterlife is true.

If A, then A.
Tautological proposition.

So it's not going from components to the whole, it's going from the whole to the whole, we just did not know which answer was the whole until it was found to be true. See the difference there?

[Abyssal Echo]

[QUOTE=Austin_;1969187]I definetly do believe in an afterlife. I'll admit, not a very strong christian, but I'm still a believer.

yup yup :D same here...

[TigerBoy]

That was made after his original statement. I was not commenting on his claim that we will never know, I was commenting on his entirely separate claim that the case is not black and white.
Well we'll have to disagree on this then, since I think that it is unfair to only scrutinise part of the post and not the whole (as explained below).

Further, any statement or 'observation' or claim of any type made at any point is a formal logical statement. Just by the fact that we're stating anything, it's a formal logical statement. Some are well-formed formulas, others are not, but all are statements. The only time a 'sentence' is not a 'statement' is when we have a question or a command. He was not questioning, nor was he commanding, he was stating. Thus, statement.

No, I still don't agree. A formal expression - being one that adheres to the principles of a particular system of logic - is not the same as natural language. A quick google got me this from "the free online dictionary":

Formal expression: (Philosophy / Logic) a language designed for use in situations in which natural language is unsuitable, as for example in mathematics, logic, or computer programming. The symbols and formulas of such languages stand in precisely specified syntactic and semantic relations to one another


As a further example, legal language similarly deals with another special case where rigor and precision is required, and is notably different from natural language because of this.

Since natural language is not precise and requires more context and expansion to define its ideas, I do not agree it is valid to apply specific semantic analysis to isolated portions of a concept expressed in natural language and use this portion to apply a conclusion to the whole.


Still dealing with a disjunction for the following reason:

A statement always is paired with it's double negation in logic. When we reference a statement's falsity, we are speaking of the statement's negation being true. In other words:

Ok I'd referred to it as 'inverse' probability. Hmm I find this a bit disappointing then. A disjunction with a single term and its own negation is inevitably going to evaluate to true statement as far as I can see, which as I said earlier feels rather pointless as it simply states in effect "either it will be this or it will be that" - it has lost the probability value, and doesn't seem to add anything new in the process.

Notice how in the first part you said "any of the afterlives"? That means that the whole is true right there.
Yes, however that was me paraphrasing your previous expression and its conclusion. I didn't say I unequivocally agreed with it, hence my follow up.


So it's not going from components to the whole, it's going from the whole to the whole, we just did not know which answer was the whole until it was found to be true. See the difference there?
Only in that you are considering 'afterlife' recursively now, where I'd considered it as on the one hand as a general case, and then on the other as specific instances of that case.

[Antisthenes]

Well we'll have to disagree on this then, since I think that it is unfair to only scrutinise part of the post and not the whole (as explained below).

There was nothing else wrong with his post. I don't take to pointing out non-existent errors, only existent ones.

No, I still don't agree. A formal expression - being one that adheres to the principles of a particular system of logic - is not the same as natural language. A quick google got me this from "the free online dictionary": Formal expression: (Philosophy / Logic) a language designed for use in situations in which natural language is unsuitable, as for example in mathematics, logic, or computer programming. The symbols and formulas of such languages stand in precisely specified syntactic and semantic relations to one another

Yes, the definition is correct, but you seem to have misunderstood it a bit. The part you seem to be missing is that natural language sentences are what we get formal expressions from. There are no formal expressions without any other languages. We go from English to formal logic languages when we evaluate arguments, statements, or propositions.
You can go just by formal languages, but when we argue with others, we do so in English and we are still making formal logical expressions at the same time, so this entire idea that he is not making one is just incorrect. Formal logical expressions are derived from commonplace language. They are not mutually exclusive, they are mutually inclusive. You don't have formal logic without informal.

Even going by what you just gave us you can see this to be true. Notice how it says, "in which natural language is unsuitable."? This is not saying that formal language cannot capture natural language. It's saying the inverse, being, that natural language cannot capture all of formal language. You can represent ANY natural statement in formal language and refute it as such. However, you cannot represent all formal statements in natural language and refute them as such. It works one way but not the other. Formal language is always usable in argument, as all natural language assertions are equivalent to formal language assertions.

I'll even demonstrate what I mean for you if you'd like. Provide me with any statement in English or natural language and I will translate it to the letter into a formal expression, to show that any English statement is equivalent to a formal expression.

Since natural language is not precise and requires more context and expansion to define its ideas, I do not agree it is valid to apply specific semantic analysis to isolated portions of a concept expressed in natural language and use this portion to apply a conclusion to the whole.

As said before, formal language comes from natural language. If you make a natural language assertion, you are simultaneously making a formal language assertion. Formal languages in logic are used precisely for this purpose - to evaluate natural language assertions in a formal setting. They are not exclusive pieces.

Ok I'd referred to it as 'inverse' probability. Hmm I find this a bit disappointing then. A disjunction with a single term and its own negation is inevitably going to evaluate to true statement as far as I can see, which as I said earlier feels rather pointless as it simply states in effect "either it will be this or it will be that" - it has lost the probability value, and doesn't seem to add anything new in the process.

Oh no, that was just an example of how any statement forms a disjunction. There are other manners by which you can form a disjunction, but that is just one part of it. For example, if P is a true proposition, then the proposition P or Q is also a true proposition necessarily. You can always have a disjunction if you have only one proposition. You always will have the negation being in the disjunction implicity (not always stated), but you can also use the disjunction introduction inference for a disjunction, as it is logically equivalent.


Yes, however that was me paraphrasing your previous expression and its conclusion. I didn't say I unequivocally agreed with it, hence my follow up.

Didn't say you did agree, either. I was saying that, even given the situation you provided, it's not a composition problem.

Only in that you are considering 'afterlife' recursively now, where I'd considered it as on the one hand as a general case, and then on the other as specific instances of that case.

Not recursively, as I'm not positing an afterlife within an afterlife, but as an individual case that we find the answer to. But in the instance you say there, that would be the case I was referring to when I said we cannot go from composition to whole.

[TigerBoy]

Yes, the definition is correct, but you seem to have misunderstood it a bit.
...
The part you seem to be missing is that natural language sentences are what we get formal expressions from. There are It's saying the inverse, being, that natural language cannot capture all of formal language.

I don't think I have at all - the point is that natural language is quite capable of making grammatically valid and semantically ambiguous or even empty statements where you need the surrounding context to inform you. This also presupposes that the speaker even adheres to strict grammar, which isn't always the case. Formal expression does not "capture" natural language but rather perhaps natural thought: any poet would be horrified at your suggestion. Formal expression reduces ambiguity and creates atomically valid segments, unlike natural language sentences which can contain empty 'waffle' or partial truth and redundancies (like part of this sentence). If you simply try to parse natural language sequentially and stop as soon as you have what you consider a valid statement, you may miss subsequent context that informs that statement further. As people speak they refine their ideas, and inference and innuendo are a key part of natural language, whereas 'reading between the lines' is exactly what formal expression avoid.

This doesn't begin to touch on it, since non verbal communication and situational context are vital too, and simply analysing spoken language would clearly be insufficient. Only if you open your analysis up to include those things will you be able to draw meaningful conclusions.


There are other manners by which you can form a disjunction, but that is just one part of it.
All genuinely interesting stuff, but still unconvinced as to how or indeed why I should apply bivalence to a single term of probability to be honest.


Not recursively, as I'm not positing an afterlife within an afterlife,
Well yes I would call that recursively, but I see that term has a special meaning to logic. I am currently proposing that the broad question of 'afterlife' is only valid from certain perspectives where individualised instances are possible, meeting the broad spirit of being consecutively true and false from the philosophers perspective but admittedly not 'metaphysically' so for any of the subjects.

[Antisthenes]

I don't think I have at all - the point is that natural language is quite capable of making grammatically valid and semantically ambiguous or even empty statements where you need the surrounding context to inform you. This also presupposes that the speaker even adheres to strict grammar, which isn't always the case. Formal expression does not "capture" natural language but rather perhaps natural thought: any poet would be horrified at your suggestion. Formal expression reduces ambiguity and creates atomically valid segments, unlike natural language sentences which can contain empty 'waffle' or partial truth and redundancies (like part of this sentence). If you simply try to parse natural language sequentially and stop as soon as you have what you consider a valid statement, you may miss subsequent context that informs that statement further. As people speak they refine their ideas, and inference and innuendo are a key part of natural language, whereas 'reading between the lines' is exactly what formal expression avoid.

Semantically valid is irrelevant. If it's open to more than one interpretation, then it's still able to be captured in formal expression as a disjunction or conjunction of those multiple interpretations with no issue at all.

Also, it doesn't presuppose that the speaker adheres to grammar. If you don't adhere to the grammar of some sort of language, then you aren't speaking a language at all. (Even if it's your own, modified version of English, for your own linguistic community, you're still speaking a language.) So no, grammar isn't required at all. A linguistic community is still nonetheless a linguistic community.

Further, 'reading between the lines' is not a part of what we've been talking about, but it's still applicable to this same idea. We've been talking about Pierce making a claim, it being incorrect, then showing it as such. If I assert, "dogs don't exist." It's still either correct or is not correct. Regardless of if we read between the lines and I make up some secondary meaning, that secondary meaning is still either correct or incorrect.
So as said, regardless of the situation, if we make a claim, it's still either the case or it isn't the case regardless of how many interpretations you let it have.
The point is not that "I can say a dog is a dog and mean a dog is a cat." The point is, regardless of what I say and mean, at any one point or collective points that I express an idea, even if this idea or these ideas is/are thought of in different ways, those different ways on their own are still either correct or incorrect. Poetry, ambiguity and so forth still withstanding.

Furthermore, if anyone is to intentionally use ambiguity when making our points, and if this is what Pierce is doing, then that's fallacious. So either way you look at this, Pierce has made either one mistake or another mistake, and that's the only point I've been to make the entire time.

This doesn't begin to touch on it, since non verbal communication and situational context are vital too, and simply analysing spoken language would clearly be insufficient. Only if you open your analysis up to include those things will you be able to draw meaningful conclusions.

But we're not going on about non verbal communication or situational contexts. We're going by what pierce actually had given us, which as shown numerous times has problems. Looks like we're going onto tangents now.
Should keep in mind, though. If someone says something or writes something, or communicates any idea, it's still a communication and the content of that communication, if it is proposing something to be the case, is either correct or incorrect.

All genuinely interesting stuff, but still unconvinced as to how or indeed why I should apply bivalence to a single term of probability to be honest.

A probability term asserts X is likely or not likely to be the case. This probability statement in and of itself is either true or false still, because it's either true that "X is likely" or it's true that "X is not likely." Similarly, it's either false that "X is likely" or it is false that "X is not likely." There's no middle space, here. Either something is likely or it isn't. This is a fundamental piece of fuzzy logic. The 'fuzzy' part is not in the case of the matter, it's in what we know of the case. We only bring in probability at all because we don't know which is actually true, but one of them is actually true. That's as far as probabilistic logic goes in the first place.

Well yes I would call that recursively, but I see that term has a special meaning to logic. I am currently proposing that the broad question of 'afterlife' is only valid from certain perspectives where individualised instances are possible, meeting the broad spirit of being consecutively true and false from the philosophers perspective but admittedly not 'metaphysically' so for any of the subjects.

This would be such that, if individualized instances were all true, or partially, then we'd just have a conjunction of "X & Y & Z" being true. It wouldn't be that one is true while the others are false. They'd just all be true if they were all true.

[Texas warrior]

In my opinion when you die your soul is released from your body, so basically we live in the after life. As for contacting the ghost of the departed you can with the right know how, and not some cheep ass weegee board.

[TigerBoy]

If it's open to more than one interpretation, then it's still able to be captured in formal expression as a disjunction or conjunction of those multiple interpretations with no issue at all.
But since you haven't applied this principle to the entirety of Pierce's opinion but only to part you have created an interpretation based on partial data.

Also, it doesn't presuppose that the speaker adheres to grammar. If you don't adhere to the grammar of some sort of language, then you aren't speaking a language at all. (Even if it's your own, modified version of English, for your own linguistic community, you're still speaking a language.) So no, grammar isn't required at all. A linguistic community is still nonetheless a linguistic community.
You have simply shown that grammar is fluid, evolving and often optional, which was my point. By ignoring the second part of my sentence where I stated "this isn't always the case" you've also illustrated my previous point, that comprehending natural language requires that you consider the entire communication and not just select parts.

Further, 'reading between the lines' is not a part of what we've been talking about, but it's still applicable to this same idea. We've been talking about Pierce making a claim, it being incorrect, then showing it as such. If I assert, "dogs don't exist." It's still either correct or is not correct. Regardless of if we read between the lines and I make up some secondary meaning, that secondary meaning is still either correct or incorrect.
Yes, but to do so requires additional data - be it context, body language or whatever. I assert that by ignoring the rest of Pierce's post you are ignoring that additional data.

So as said, regardless of the situation, if we make a claim, it's still either the case or it isn't the case regardless of how many interpretations you let it have.
That isn't contested. My point was that natural language has the possibilities for additional meaning if you look beyond the literal meaning and draw on context, semiology or whatever. Applying logical analysis without considering these things is to again omit significant parts of the authors intent.

Furthermore, if anyone is to intentionally use ambiguity when making our points, and if this is what Pierce is doing, then that's fallacious.
Easy now :) People are not robots talking a precisely defined language. As I already said, it is normal conversational practice to make statements and refine them. It seems unfair to accuse Pierce of being fallacious when there is such an attempt at refinement in his post. If you only choose to look closely at a small portion of the picture, it seems unreasonable to object when you don't see the whole picture.

A probability term asserts X is likely or not likely to be the case. This probability statement in and of itself is either true or false still, because it's either true that "X is likely" or it's true that "X is not likely." Similarly, it's either false that "X is likely" or it is false that "X is not likely." There's no middle space, here. Either something is likely or it isn't. This is a fundamental piece of fuzzy logic. The 'fuzzy' part is not in the case of the matter, it's in what we know of the case. We only bring in probability at all because we don't know which is actually true, but one of them is actually true. That's as far as probabilistic logic goes in the first place.
As I understand it the probability statement is not "X is likely" but that "X is THIS possible" where 'THIS' is a probability calculation. We are measuring 'how likely': using the term likely is misleading because it implies >50% probability and suggests we are dealing with a binary logic system. At the end of a probabilistic evaluation or whatever you call it, I have a probability of 23% x (77% not x). How is bivalence applied? What I originally speculated was that would you consider cases where x < 50% as "false" , x >=50% as "true"?

This would be such that, if individualized instances were all true, or partially, then we'd just have a conjunction of "X & Y & Z" being true. It wouldn't be that one is true while the others are false. They'd just all be true if they were all true.
Hmm ok, which doesn't fit the metaphysical model I was proposing (if I've got that term right?).

[Antisthenes]

But since you haven't applied this principle to the entirety of Pierce's opinion but only to part you have created an interpretation based on partial data.

Not quite. I've applied the principle to all of what he said. However, the only place where he has a problem is in the sentence I have outlined, so there is no interpretation based on partial data going on here. There's an interpretation based on all of the data, and only a problem in one piece of the whole. The problem is not with all of what he said, it's with a piece of it. This is another composition problem. Simply because one premise of a whole is incorrect does not mean the whole is also incorrect. He's fine on all the rest with the principle still applying, because knowledge is a case by case basis.

You have simply shown that grammar is fluid, evolving and often optional, which was my point. By ignoring the second part of my sentence where I stated "this isn't always the case" you've also illustrated my previous point, that comprehending natural language requires that you consider the entire communication and not just select parts.

Yes. Should always consider the entire communication. However, if as above, there is only a problem in one piece of a communication, then that's not a detriment to the whole of it.


Yes, but to do so requires additional data - be it context, body language or whatever. I assert that by ignoring the rest of Pierce's post you are ignoring that additional data.

As said above, it wasn't exactly that I ignored the rest of his post, it was that the rest of his post was fine. The only reason I didn't comment on the rest was due to there not being a problem anywhere but the one piece I commented on. The same way when we replace a single tire on a car, we aren't addressing every single piece to the car at that moment, but this does not mean we only noticed the tire and didn't take the rest of the car into account, it just means the only issue at the time is with that one tire.

That isn't contested. My point was that natural language has the possibilities for additional meaning if you look beyond the literal meaning and draw on context, semiology or whatever. Applying logical analysis without considering these things is to again omit significant parts of the authors intent.

Yes. And we didn't above when going onto pierce's statements. We did premise by premise and there was only an issue with that initial premise he had stated.

Easy now :) People are not robots talking a precisely defined language. As I already said, it is normal conversational practice to make statements and refine them. It seems unfair to accuse Pierce of being fallacious when there is such an attempt at refinement in his post. If you only choose to look closely at a small portion of the picture, it seems unreasonable to object when you don't see the whole picture.

As said before, I only took to mentioning that one piece. This doesn't mean I didn't look at the rest of his post. Further, I didn't accuse him of being fallacious, I said that 'if' he was to be purposely using ambiguity, then he would be. I only ignored the rest in terms of detailing the errors, because the rest was fine, but I did not ignore the rest in terms of reading and considering it.

As I understand it the probability statement is not "X is likely" but that "X is THIS possible" where 'THIS' is a probability calculation. We are measuring 'how likely': using the term likely is misleading because it implies >50% probability and suggests we are dealing with a binary logic system. At the end of a probabilistic evaluation or whatever you call it, I have a probability of 23% x (77% not x). How is bivalence applied? What I originally speculated was that would you consider cases where x < 50% as "false" , x >=50% as "true"?

The term 'likely' has a technical meaning in fuzzy/probabilistic logic as: "a manner for probability." For example of what I mean:

If I say, "X is 20% likely.", this means the probability of X being the case is 20%. The statement "X is likely." is a blanket abstract term to denote any possible probability that X can hold. Also, "X is 20% likely." is logically equivalent to the statement, "X has a 20% chance of being the case." It is also equivalent to, "There is a 20% chance that X is the case." English has a similar double meaning on 'likely.' If I say "It is 20% likely that X." This is not implying the, ">50% probability." The meaning of "It is likely that X." In probabilistic logic is such that, X has a likelihood of any arbitrarily selected probability. It could be 1%, it could be 50%, it could be 90%, could be any probability. But once we say, "It is Y% likely that X." then we have given X a concrete likelihood of Y%.

And for the last sentence, as to whether or not we'd consider "x < 50% as false" and "x > 50% as true." We wouldn't do this and say that x is the case if the likelihood is over 50% and x is not the case if the likelihood is under 50%. The bivalence is not applied so brazenly. The bivalence is only applied to the statement that there is even a probability in the first place. For example:

"X is 50% likely." We don't say that "X" is true from this. Keep careful note of what is being asserted in the following:
"It is the case that, (X is 50% likely.)"

See the bivalence here?
Either it's the case that (X is 50% likely) or it is not the case that (X is 50% likely).
The nature of X's truth in and of itself is still the subject of the probability expressed (but X is still nonetheless considered as either true or false even given the percentages and not both true and false and not neither true nor false.)

Hmm ok, which doesn't fit the metaphysical model I was proposing (if I've got that term right?).

Yeah. You have it right.

The situations possible:

One afterlife is the case. (Represented as a single proposition, P.)
More than one afterlife is the case. (Represented as a conjunction, (P & Q & . . .))
No afterlives are the case. (Represented as a negation of each individual afterlife, (not P & not Q & not . . .))

Now, the statements of what could be the case (the probability of them) is represented by disjunction.
(Either P or Q or . . .) Where the "or" still allows for all possibilities of afterlives to be true at once, being an inclusive "or" and not an exclusive "or."

****With the appropriate percentage chances attached to each one, and the appropriate evidence attached to each percentage chance (for justification of why the percentage is as it is.).

[TigerBoy]

Simply because one premise of a whole is incorrect does not mean the whole is also incorrect. He's fine on all the rest with the principle still applying, because knowledge is a case by case basis.
and
Yes. Should always consider the entire communication. However, if as above, there is only a problem in one piece of a communication, then that's not a detriment to the whole of it.
Yep thats understood - although I assert the problem only exists as a result of attempting to interpret it without the remaining context.


Yes. And we didn't above when going onto pierce's statements. We did premise by premise and there was only an issue with that initial premise he had stated.
and
As said before, I only took to mentioning that one piece. This doesn't mean I didn't look at the rest of his post. Further, I didn't accuse him of being fallacious, I said that 'if' he was to be purposely using ambiguity, then he would be. I only ignored the rest in terms of detailing the errors, because the rest was fine, but I did not ignore the rest in terms of reading and considering it.
It does appear to me that you have ignored the subsequent sentences, by treating them as separate premises rather than refinements to the original (per my view on interpretation of natural language). It is quite valid for Pierce to assert that answers may be in "shades of gray" where things are not known to be true or false: accepting that as you earlier explained how this was only true epistemologically, I argue that the Pierce makes it clear this is what he is talking about. He doesn't assert that his initial statement applies metaphysically.


And for the last sentence, as to whether or not we'd consider "x < 50% as false" and "x > 50% as true." We wouldn't do this and say that x is the case if the likelihood is over 50% and x is not the case if the likelihood is under 50%. The bivalence is not applied so brazenly. The bivalence is only applied to the statement that there is even a probability in the first place. For example:

"X is 50% likely." We don't say that "X" is true from this. Keep careful note of what is being asserted in the following:
"It is the case that, (X is 50% likely.)"

See the bivalence here?
Either it's the case that (X is 50% likely) or it is not the case that (X is 50% likely).
The nature of X's truth in and of itself is still the subject of the probability expressed (but X is still nonetheless considered as either true or false even given the percentages and not both true and false and not neither true nor false.)

So again this is simply applying bivalence to the metaphysical outcome we are considering, which makes total sense. Previously I'd thought you'd said that you apply it to the epistemological, which in the case of probabilistic logic I'm struggling to understand both the method and purpose.

Now, the statements of what could be the case (the probability of them) is represented by disjunction.
(Either P or Q or . . .) Where the "or" still allows for all possibilities of afterlives to be true at once, being an inclusive "or" and not an exclusive "or."

****With the appropriate percentage chances attached to each one, and the appropriate evidence attached to each percentage chance (for justification of why the percentage is as it is.).
Thanks again for that. I think I'm going to have to go and study up more to see if I can concoct a model myself (what's the word for it when you come up with your own set of logic calculations for something? )

[Mortal Coil]

I kind of believe in the afterlife, but not in the conventional sense. I guess you could say I' believe in reincarnation, but that's not quite it. Whatever, it doesn't really matter.

[Antisthenes]

Yep thats understood - although I assert the problem only exists as a result of attempting to interpret it without the remaining context.

Already explained this. The interpretation is with the rest, but it does not change that the original statement he made was incorrect even with consideration of the rest. The same way:

P and Q.

If P is false, even if we consider Q along with it, it does not change that P is false.

It does appear to me that you have ignored the subsequent sentences, by treating them as separate premises rather than refinements to the original (per my view on interpretation of natural language).

Refinements of original premises are themselves still premises. This doesn't change the problem of the original premise. Furthermore, the original premise with conjunction of refinement is still wrong.

For example:

Premise 1: A
Premise 2: B

A with refinement of B: A & B

A in the case of Pierce is still wrong, regardless of it being refined by B.


It is quite valid for Pierce to assert that answers may be in "shades of gray" where things are not known to be true or false:

Actually, that's the entire point where he is incorrect. That's exactly not valid by a matter of reasoning of any sort. Which was what I have been expressing this entire time. That's the whole idea behind my criticism.

The reason being, is that a lack of definitive knowledge does not lead to a lack of it actually being definitive. This is where his problem is. No definitive knowledge does not get us to a "shades of gray" scenario.

accepting that as you earlier explained how this was only true epistemologically, I argue that the Pierce makes it clear this is what he is talking about. He doesn't assert that his initial statement applies metaphysically.

His initial statement was asserted metaphysically because he spoke of it in the absolute sense as that being his answer. From not just a reasoning standpoint, but just from a linguistic standpoint, his language use excluded any other possibility in what he had said. It would be linguistically inaccurate to interpret his proposition otherwise.

Why:
There is no implication in what he said from any standpoint that he was not asserting metaphysical. All of what he had said cannot be applied otherwise, since a claim otherwise was not quantified in what he had said.

So again this is simply applying bivalence to the metaphysical outcome we are considering, which makes total sense. Previously I'd thought you'd said that you apply it to the epistemological, which in the case of probabilistic logic I'm struggling to understand both the method and purpose.

The method: Application due to knowledge either being had or not had, and truth of the content of knowledge either being had or not had.

Purpose: Either something is the case or not the case even in epistemological frameworks. So, to be reasonable, it's necessarily applied.

Thanks again for that. I think I'm going to have to go and study up more to see if I can concoct a model myself (what's the word for it when you come up with your own set of logic calculations for something? )

If your calculation is that of deriving a conclusion by a means of logic, then you're making an argument. Arguments can be theorems, but not always. A theorem needs to be applied to a criteria of two items being the case due to some sort of relation between them necessarily.

[Lost in the Echo]

Well, I hesitantly voted yes. My reasoning is because I do believe in the paranormal and shit like that, and i've heard of people seeing angels and demons, so if that kind of shit can exist, why can't an afterlife?

[Antisthenes]

Well, I hesitantly voted yes. My reasoning is because I do believe in the paranormal and shit like that, and i've heard of people seeing angels and demons, so if that kind of shit can exist, why can't an afterlife?

Well, even if those actually are the case then this doesn't really get us to that there's an afterlife by any means. Further, if there was some sort of connection? We'd need to verify that you have a sufficient justification for believing that there are angels and demons in the first place, to then get our consequent of an afterlife.

[TigerBoy]

Refinements of original premises are themselves still premises.

That may be the case in formal logic, but expression of ideas in everyday communication in natural language routinely expresses complex concepts inefficiently, necessitating a more flexible approach to comprehension.

I don't have any argument with the logic, I disagree with the premise that you should apply it so rigorously to a communication in natural language.


Actually, that's the entire point where he is incorrect. That's exactly not valid by a matter of reasoning of any sort. Which was what I have been expressing this entire time. That's the whole idea behind my criticism.
"Shades of grey" to me is a phrase that simply means there is uncertainty. This is only a problem if you apply logical method that only deals with absolutes. Probabilistic logic can deal with cases where we do not have certainty. Metaphysically, this doesn't apply.

His initial statement was asserted metaphysically because he spoke of it in the absolute sense as that being his answer. From not just a reasoning standpoint, but just from a linguistic standpoint, his language use excluded any other possibility in what he had said. It would be linguistically inaccurate to interpret his proposition otherwise.

Why:
There is no implication in what he said from any standpoint that he was not asserting metaphysical. All of what he had said cannot be applied otherwise, since a claim otherwise was not quantified in what he had said.


I disagree completely. He says "We will never truly know .... you cannot be certain whether it exists or not. " This is clearly a statement about knowledge not reality. He does not assert that the afterlife both exists and does not exist.

The method: Application due to knowledge either being had or not had, and truth of the content of knowledge either being had or not had.
This still doesn't explain how you arrive at a binary value while we can be quite uncertain about the likelihood of a particular proposition being true. We can believe in the logical assertion and say that it is 'true' in its entirety, but this simply seems to be stating that we believe in our own logic.

Purpose: Either something is the case or not the case even in epistemological frameworks. So, to be reasonable, it's necessarily applied.
When you say "something is the case", in probabilistic knowledge we can say "something MAY be the case". That is where I struggle with this.

[Antisthenes]

That may be the case in formal logic, but expression of ideas in everyday communication in natural language routinely expresses complex concepts inefficiently, necessitating a more flexible approach to comprehension.

No no, this is just a matter of linguistics at this point. What he said expresses one thing at one time. When we speak of multiple interpretations, we still are only evaluating one meaning at any individual time. Regardless of logic informal or formal, our speech still is applied to logic as it is linguistically as such. This is just a sophistical argument to try to defend Pierce speciously at this point. And the refinement does not change the incorrect nature of the original statement.

I don't have any argument with the logic, I disagree with the premise that you should apply it so rigorously to a communication in natural language.

Language is linguistic logic. You do get this, right? Language isn't separate from logic, it's the entire backbone within logic. The rigorous application is in him speaking in the first place. Point is, if you don't want to be shown incorrect, then don't speak. You can't just weasel out of being incorrect by saying you can't fit it to reason. If you can't fit it to reason, then the proposition is immediately incorrect to begin with. So either it can to fit to reason or it can't, if it can, then in this case it's incorrect. If it can't, then it's also incorrect. Thus, it's incorrect. What I keep being given is getting to be a bit of weak-grade sophistry at this point. Already addressed every piece in detail and it just keeps getting reiterated as if it's new sophistry. An assertion was made. It was incorrect. That's the end of that story. The assertion in all valid interpretations was incorrect. It wasn't somewhat correct and otherwise incorrect by any means.

"Shades of grey" to me is a phrase that simply means there is uncertainty. This is only a problem if you apply logical method that only deals with absolutes. Probabilistic logic can deal with cases where we do not have certainty. Metaphysically, this doesn't apply.

And there is no uncertainty. That's the entire point. The certainty is not what probabilistic logic deals with. Certainty is had regardless. Probabilistic logic is dealing with knowledge of what the case is. Certainty is still there in probabilistic logic in the form of probabilities. The probabilities are still certain cases. So again, yes. It still does apply metaphysically. That's the only way it at all applies. Probabilistic logic is just that. A metaphysical approach to the truth of propositions whose truth value is not yet known. NOT and I can't stress this enough, not a metaphysical approach to the truth value of propositions whose truth value is not certain.

I disagree completely. He says "We will never truly know .... you cannot be certain whether it exists or not. " This is clearly a statement about knowledge not reality. He does not assert that the afterlife both exists and does not exist.

Now you're going into the sophistry again which I can't condone. You're now strawmanning and providing the statement that was not even the problem in the first place. Keep your eye on what I've been saying, not on what I have not been saying. I have no problem with his later statements, only his initial statement.

This still doesn't explain how you arrive at a binary value while we can be quite uncertain about the likelihood of a particular proposition being true. We can believe in the logical assertion and say that it is 'true' in its entirety, but this simply seems to be stating that we believe in our own logic.

There is no logical assertion. There are only assertions. Logical assertion is a meaningless phrase because to have something be 'logical' it applies to reason, and an assertion on it's own has no reason built into it, you need premises to establish something. Reason is a relation of ideas, not a single idea. So we can't have a single logical assertion. That makes no sense to say, based on what it would mean.


As an edit:

When you say "something is the case", in probabilistic knowledge we can say "something MAY be the case". That is where I struggle with this.

In probabilistic logic and knowledge we're not saying something may be the case. That's not the purpose behind probabilistic logic. We're saying something IS the case, and the chances dictate which case it is most likely to be (Different entirely from something may be so). The difference is crucial. We're not saying X may be the case or Y may be the case. When we make probabilistic logic assertions, we're saying (X or Y) IS the case, and chances are dictating which. There is no actual point where the probabilistic logic gets us to "X may be the case." or "Y may be the case." The entire point is to get away from those statements of may or may not, and only deal strictly with the concept of probability. The point in probability theory at all is not that something may be the case. We have an out of 100% chance that something is necessarily the case. That's always been the fundamental piece to probability.


I'll be back in about an hour or two, if you have any questions regarding anything I've mentioned above.

[TigerBoy]

No no, this is just a matter of linguistics at this point. What he said expresses one thing at one time. When we speak of multiple interpretations, we still are only evaluating one meaning at any individual time. Regardless of logic informal or formal, our speech still is applied to logic as it is linguistically as such. This is just a sophistical argument to try to defend pierce and this point. And the refinement does not change the incorrect nature of the original statement.
My objection continues to be with the application of rigorous logical analysis to an opinion that seemed perfectly clear and reasonable to me when read in its entirety. It would only be sophistry if I was contending the logic itself with spurious arguments, which as I've already acknowledged I have no issue with since you have explained it.


Language is linguistic logic. You do get this, right? Language isn't separate from logic, it's the entire backbone within logic. The rigorous application is in him speaking in the first place. Point is, if you don't want to be shown incorrect, then don't speak. You can't just weasel out of it by saying that you're speaking and thus somehow because you think you can speak ambiguously and not be called out it - therefore you can't be incorrect. This is getting a bit pathetic in the sophistry at this point. An assertion was made. It was incorrect. That's the end of that story. The assertion in all valid interpretations was incorrect. It wasn't somewhat correct and otherwise incorrect by any means.

Again - people are not robots. Language is a means of expressing thoughts, which may well evolve and develop during the course of speaking or writing. In as short a communication as this was, making a statement and developing it is hardly 'weaselling out' of anything. If he's made a simple statement limited to his first sentence which was challenged and then he attempted to argue I would agree.


And there is no uncertainty. That's the entire point. The certainty is not what probabilistic logic deals with. Certainty is had regardless. Probabilistic logic is dealing with knowledge of what the case is. Certainty is still there in probabilistic logic in the form of probabilities. The probabilities are still certain cases.
No uncertainty about the concept (afterlife is true OR afterlife is false), no. My statement was based on my view that Pierce was talking about certainty of our knowledge, which apparently is the concern of probabilistic logic (such "confidence rankings" in systems such as Pei Wang's Non-Axiomatic Reasoning System (NARS) or Ben Goertzel's Probabilistic Logic Networks (PLN), or the theory of probabilistic argumentation which provides values for "degree of support" and "degree of possibility", according to my limited wikipedia based reasearch).
These mechanisms appear to give a means to describe uncertainty of truth of a proposition, as well as likelihood of a proposition, if I understand correctly.


Now you're going into the sophistry again which I can't condone. You're now strawmanning and providing the statement that was not even the problem in the first place. Keep your eye on what I've been saying, not on what I have not been saying. I have no problem with his later statements, only his initial statement.
That wasn't my intention - my knowledge has moved on considerably during this conversation, which is the only grounds for any shift in emphasis of discussion. In the same vein I should point out that I've already several times acknowledged no problem with the logic as applied, since you have more than adequately explain that. My current issue is with doing so in this manner to the exclusion of everything else that was said, but we don't have to talk about that if you don't want :P


There is no logical assertion.

LoL ok good explanation. Again with the precise meanings in the context of philosophy :-D Allow me to rephrase:

This still doesn't explain how you arrive at a binary value while we can be quite uncertain about the likelihood of a particular proposition being true. We can believe in epistemological validity* the statement / proposition and say that it is 'true' in its entirety (such as inevitable truth of the disjunction of the single term with its inverse), but this simply seems to be stating that we believe in the structure our own logic rather than the content of it.

(*by which (in case I'm misusing new words) I'm trying to say, our concepts are expressed correctly in the particular scheme of logic we are using)


As an edit:

That is an excellent clarification of the common purpose of probabilistic knowledge, but what has perhaps been confusing things (me, at any rate) is learning about schemes that ALSO allow for a value to be placed on confidence of the knowledge itself.

[Antisthenes]

My objection continues to be with the application of rigorous logical analysis to an opinion that seemed perfectly clear and reasonable to me when read in its entirety. It would only be sophistry if I was contending the logic itself with spurious arguments, which as I've already acknowledged I have no issue with since you have explained it.

I don't understand this objection. An opinion is still either reasonable or it isn't, and by a matter of reason, that opinion that Pierce expressed wasn't well-formed. Explain precisely for me what the problem is with pointing out incorrectness where it lay? I'd like to understand what the basis of this objection is, so that we may see if it's a decent one.

Again - people are not robots. Language is a means of expressing thoughts, which may well evolve and develop during the course of speaking or writing. In as short a communication as this was, making a statement and developing it is hardly 'weaselling out' of anything. If he's made a simple statement limited to his first sentence which was challenged and then he attempted to argue I would agree.

I wouldn't consider that to be weaseling out at that point. He's just defending himself if he were to do that. There's certainly a difference between defending yourself and trying to get out of a problem, I'd say.

Also, nothing about people was said that they are robots. However, if they're to make statements, their statements are based in reasoning. That reasoning is either good or it is poor. We've only seen an example of a poor one. If, however, a person did not want to have their statements open to scrutiny, then it's their responsibility to not voice those opinions, because once they do so, those opinions are open to public criticism.

No uncertainty about the concept (afterlife is true OR afterlife is false), no. My statement was based on my view that Pierce was talking about certainty of our knowledge, which apparently is the concern of probabilistic logic (such "confidence rankings" in systems such as Pei Wang's Non-Axiomatic Reasoning System (NARS) or Ben Goertzel's Probabilistic Logic Networks (PLN), or the theory of probabilistic argumentation which provides values for "degree of support" and "degree of possibility", according to my limited wikipedia based reasearch).
These mechanisms appear to give a means to describe uncertainty of truth of a proposition, as well as likelihood of a proposition, if I understand correctly.

Well, we wouldn't say "likelihood of a proposition." for the following reason:

A proposition is just that. It's something being proposed. There's no real likelihood applied to a proposition because it's an entity. We would have to instead say, "likelihood of the truth of a proposition" which is what I suppose you mean. To say, "likelihood of a proposition" is akin to saying "likelihood of a rock", it just doesn't really make any sense, because it's not saying much. Likelihood of a rock, what does this mean? Does it mean the likelihood of us having one? Of a rock being a rock? Of a rock existing? It's a nonsensical statement. The same for "likelihood of a proposition."

And we wouldn't say, "uncertainty of truth of a proposition" because this statement is quantified absolutely. This means that when we say that, we're asserting that somehow a proposition, in and of itself, is uncertain with it's own truth or falsity. What I mean by this:

"It is raining in Boston City, New York."

Is a proposition. If we say, 'uncertainty of truth of this proposition' this doesn't mean that we are uncertain as to whether it's actually the case, that statement would actually be saying that somehow there is an uncertainty in the actuality. Such that, it can somehow be simultaneously raining and not raining, or a mix of raining and not raining at the same time, so there is no clear actuality happening here. We would need to fix the use of terms to say instead, "uncertainty in our comprehension of the truth of the proposition."
Because the proposition itself is very certain as to it's truth or falsity. Just because we ourselves may be clueless of the case does not mean that the case itself is uncertain of itself being the case, right?

Aristotle once said, "A proposition of, "A man is alive." does not make it true that a man is alive, but instead a man is alive, and this is why the proposition, "A man is alive." is a true one."

Felt relevant here, as we're speaking of the nature of propositions.

That wasn't my intention - my knowledge has moved on considerably during this conversation, which is the only grounds for any shift in emphasis of discussion. In the same vein I should point out that I've already several times acknowledged no problem with the logic as applied, since you have more than adequately explain that. My current issue is with doing so in this manner to the exclusion of everything else that was said, but we don't have to talk about that if you don't want :P

Curious as to what the underlined part means exactly. The same type of question I have for the original statement I asked of. What do you mean by exclusion of everything else that was said? I did consider it all when I read his post, and I mentioned this previously when you said something similar, so what are you referring to now?

LoL ok good explanation. Again with the precise meanings in the context of philosophy :-D Allow me to rephrase:

This still doesn't explain how you arrive at a binary value while we can be quite uncertain about the likelihood of a particular proposition being true. We can believe in epistemological validity* the statement / proposition and say that it is 'true' in its entirety (such as inevitable truth of the disjunction of the single term with its inverse), but this simply seems to be stating that we believe in the structure our own logic rather than the content of it.
(*by which (in case I'm misusing new words) I'm trying to say, our concepts are expressed correctly in the particular scheme of logic we are using)

We do this in logic because the bivalence isn't applied to how certain we are about the likelihood of a particular proposition being true. Bivalence applies to the proposition, in the end, either being true or false, and this is the case for any proposition that we can make at any point. Probabilistic logic propositions, modal logic propositions, epistemic logic propositions, propositional logic propositions, predicate logic propositions, temporal logic propositions, etc, etc, all in and of themselves are either true or they are false. When logicians refer to an item not being applied to the principle of bivalence, this can occasionally be misleading for onlookers who don't understand the exact technicalities of what this means.

For example, if a conversation is had with a logician about, say, the "This very statement is false." the logician, if he is a competent one, will say that the statement is not applicable to bivalence nor the law of non-contradiction, but this does not mean it is beyond it. The reason the logician will say this is because that 'statement', even though appearing to represent something coherent, in actuality does not say anything at all. The sentence has no real meaning.

It is stating nothing in any terms both linguistically and logically. Many logicians, such as Kurt Godel and Gottfried Leibniz explained this in great detail in their works, but I can explain it gently here, so not to make this post an essay:

"This very statement is false."

It's self-referential and that's where the problem lays. The statement's content is saying that the content is false, but the content itself is that very idea, so it is absolutely vacant as to asserting that anything actually is the case. This statement, like any 'paradoxical' statement is thought to be true, but also contradict with the way the world works. However, also like any 'paradoxical' statement, this statement pretends to say something, while not saying anything at all, thus giving a logically uneducated reader the idea that it's a valid assertion.

To use rocks yet again as a subject to demonstrate the logic issue with another subject:

"This rock is false."

Again, it's a nonsense phrase. What does this mean? It makes absolutely no sense. Does this mean the rock doesn't exist, or that it isn't actually a rock by black magic of some kind? It's complete nonsense. The same for the 'paradox' mentioned above. This should help towards understanding the application of bivalence here. It's applicable to any statement that's actually a statement. The sentences, "This rock is false." and "This very statement is false." are not even sentences to begin with because they aren't saying anything at all about the subjects in relation to the predicates.

Otherwise, though, when we speak of probabilities of any type, we're still speaking of a proposition that is either true or false. Either the likelihood is for X or against X, and so the probability statement in and of itself is still either true or it isn't.

Let me know if you need more information as to the nature of bivalence applied to uncertainties in knowledge.

That is an excellent clarification of the common purpose of probabilistic knowledge, but what has perhaps been confusing things (me, at any rate) is learning about schemes that ALSO allow for a value to be placed on confidence of the knowledge itself.

Could you clarify what you're referring to exactly here in the bold and underlined piece?

I'll try and presuppose you mean that, when we place value on the justification for a knowledge claim?

Such that, I can believe the Earth orbits the Sun, and a value can be placed on whether or not there is sufficient evidence for being confident about this belief?

Edit:

After this long dialogue, I may make a thread in this section to discuss logic and reason. The topic has been going on for quite a long time and there's still a fair bit that can be said on logic in general from even just what we've been discussing of it.

[TigerBoy]

I don't understand this objection. An opinion is still either reasonable or it isn't, and by a matter of reason, that opinion that Pierce expressed wasn't well-formed. Explain precisely for me what the problem is with pointing out incorrectness where it lay? I'd like to understand what the basis of this objection is, so that we may see if it's a decent one.

Two reasons really. As I've already attempted to explain, it is the idea of "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". Looking so closely at a small piece of the whole communication risks missing the point being made by the entire communication. The second basis for raising this point is simply that in a forum of teenagers as young as 13 where English is not always a first language, it isn't helpful to the overall debate (in my view) to approach a discussion by challenging select portions that represent an in-progress expression of an idea (and yes, it would be preferable for the poster to review and edit to reduce confusion). None of which is to say it hasn't been an interesting discussion, but it has rather strayed. With hindsight I'd perhaps simply have stated your point that the question of the existence of the after life is not itself a 'grey area' in that it either 'is' or 'is not' and explained how this is so (not that I'm complaining as the 'journey' has been educational).

Well, we wouldn't say "likelihood of a proposition." for the following reason:
Ok likelihood was the wrong term perhaps - the schemes I mention use "confidence ranking" and "degree of support".

Ok I've read into the schemes I mentioned earlier. So in these schemes we can calculate the probabilities that the cat in the box is alive or dead , however we can also express a greater or lesser degree of confidence (or certitude) of our proposition. Autoepistemic logic schemes allow you to express this (which the probabilistic logic network scheme mentioned earlier incorporates this for the particular purpose of programming AI systems apparently, so that they can amongst other things draw inferences and maintain a "confidence" value on that inference).

So bringing this back to my original point - since there are logic schemes in which we can express 'confidence' about our knowledge, and in some implementations this could well translate to a 'shades of gray' situation with regards to that knowledge.

We do this in logic because the bivalence isn't applied to how certain we are about the likelihood of a particular proposition being true. Bivalence applies to the proposition, in the end, either being true or false, and this is the case for any proposition that we can make at any point.
Ok great that answers the question, thanks. We aren't trying to apply this to the probability term, just to the proposition.

[Mirage]

I do believe only because people communicate with the dead which means they have to go SOMEWHERE after death, right?

[TigerBoy]

I do believe only because people communicate with the dead which means they have to go SOMEWHERE after death, right?

The trouble with that is that no one has proven that there is such a thing as the ability to communicate with the dead, whereas there have been many cases of those claiming to do so as being frauds. I remember Derren Brown for one showing exactly how this could be faked.

[Mirage]

The trouble with that is that no one has proven that there is such a thing as the ability to communicate with the dead, whereas there have been many cases of those claiming to do so as being frauds. I remember Derren Brown for one showing exactly how this could be faked.

Can you link me to the Derren Brown thing? I am very interested in seeing that.

[TigerBoy]

Can you link me to the Derren Brown thing? I am very interested in seeing that.

General episode guide (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/derren-brown-investigates)

There are two you might be interested in, "Derren Brown Investigates: The Man Who Contacts The Dead" and "The Ghosthunter"

[xXoblivionXx]

I do believe in an afterlife

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Well....if you brain, heart is still functioning, then one isn't dead, correct? And afterlife refers to the person's soul? or w/e leaving their body, and contiune as a spirit, and all that jazz, etc.

Death stops that function. point proven.

[Antisthenes]

Two reasons really. As I've already attempted to explain, it is the idea of "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". Looking so closely at a small piece of the whole communication risks missing the point being made by the entire communication. The second basis for raising this point is simply that in a forum of teenagers as young as 13 where English is not always a first language, it isn't helpful to the overall debate (in my view) to approach a discussion by challenging select portions that represent an in-progress expression of an idea

Each sentence is on it's own, an expression of an idea. Then, if you have more than one sentence, you can at most have a relation between ideas. However, if one of the sentences is false, then even if there is a relation of ideas, it doesn't change the fact that that one sentence is false.

(and yes, it would be preferable for the poster to review and edit to reduce confusion). None of which is to say it hasn't been an interesting discussion, but it has rather strayed. With hindsight I'd perhaps simply have stated your point that the question of the existence of the after life is not itself a 'grey area' in that it either 'is' or 'is not' and explained how this is so (not that I'm complaining as the 'journey' has been educational).

I did this, repeatedly. Do you mean for you to have said it instead? If so, I'm confused by why you would state my point in my place.

Ok likelihood was the wrong term perhaps - the schemes I mention use "confidence ranking" and "degree of support"

Ok I've read into the schemes I mentioned earlier. So in these schemes we can calculate the probabilities that the cat in the box is alive or dead , however we can also express a greater or lesser degree of confidence (or certitude) of our proposition. Autoepistemic logic schemes allow you to express this (which the probabilistic logic network scheme mentioned earlier incorporates this for the particular purpose of programming AI systems apparently, so that they can amongst other things draw inferences and maintain a "confidence" value on that inference).

So bringing this back to my original point - since there are logic schemes in which we can express 'confidence' about our knowledge, and in some implementations this could well translate to a 'shades of gray' situation with regards to that knowledge.

Not exactly. This still doesn't get us to any sort of 'shades of gray' in regards to knowledge. However, if you'd like to try and explain exactly how you say it is so, I will wait for the explanation and we'll see if it actually does work. However, from just what you said above, we couldn't get from there to any sort of 'shades of gray' in regards to the knowledge, so I ask for an explanation that either expands on what you already gave, or is different entirely.

Ok great that answers the question, thanks. We aren't trying to apply this to the probability term, just to the proposition.

Yes.

Death stops that function. point proven.

No, it does not. You're doing what's called, 'getting the cart before the horse'. A man who is stabbed in the heart dies. This death is not what causes his heart to stop functioning. His heart stops functioning and then he dies. You're incorrectly applying the consequent as the antecedent, which is invalid reasoning.

[TigerBoy]

Each sentence is on it's own, an expression of an idea. Then, if you have more than one sentence, you can at most have a relation between ideas. However, if one of the sentences is false, then even if there is a relation of ideas, it doesn't change the fact that that one sentence is false.

Yes, a sentence can be false. It can also be meaningless as we've both already pointed out. It can also be ambiguous (and require the ability of the reader to deduce all possible alternate meanings in order to express it in a formal logic scheme). These are reasons why I maintain a sentence isn't necessarily sufficiently complete for the purposes of natural language communication without also considering the rest of its context, and synthesising a concept only from the entire piece. It isn't efficient or logical, but it is how human beings routinely communicate ideas. Additional tolerance is indicated when dealing with immature intellects or those speaking a foreign language :P

I did this, repeatedly. Do you mean for you to have said it instead? If so, I'm confused by why you would state my point in my place.
Perhaps you've just missed where I've agreed with this specific point several times previously and credited you with explaining it. What I'm suggesting here is simply that your point might have been better communicated to Pierce without drawing it into a discussion of logic method (simply because its ended up with the pair of us straying from the spirit of the debate). At the same time for my part I'm grateful you didn't :)

However, if you'd like to try and explain exactly how you say it is so
For the reason I've already stated - the schemes I've mentioned include measurements of 'confidence' (or whatever terminology is used in each scheme). There is also mention of the idea of 'uncertain inference' (used in a scheme devised by C. J. van Rijsbergen). Partial confidence implies that we are not 'entirely confident' or otherwise, hence shades of grey regarding our confidence in our knowledge. I believe this is what is also described as a non-monotonic logic scheme, i.e. one that doesn't just deal in 'truth' or 'falsehood'
As a complete novice to this whole field I'm not going to try to defend logic schemes devised by people with doctorates, but I note they exist.

[Brice]

Woah!!! Holy crap!!!! Yall go waaaaaaaaay into your arguments!!!!! :)

[TigerBoy]

Woah!!! Holy crap!!!! Yall go waaaaaaaaay into your arguments!!!!! :)

Its not called 'ramblings' for nothing :P

[Antisthenes]

Yes, a sentence can be false. It can also be meaningless as we've both already pointed out. It can also be ambiguous (and require the ability of the reader to deduce all possible alternate meanings in order to express it in a formal logic scheme). These are reasons why I maintain a sentence isn't necessarily sufficiently complete for the purposes of natural language communication without also considering the rest of its context, and synthesising a concept only from the entire piece. It isn't efficient or logical, but it is how human beings routinely communicate ideas. Additional tolerance is indicated when dealing with immature intellects or those speaking a foreign language :P

Yes. But the context does not change the nature of an individual proposition's truth or falsity.

1. A.
2. If A then B.
3. C.
4. D.
5. E.
_________
3. B.

Even if "B." is true, and "If A then B." is true, this doesn't change that "A." is false, if A happens to be so. So even when we take to contexts, it's still irrelevant to what's being said of A, because we're not criticizing the whole when we criticize A, we're only going after A. The point being, when we're not speaking of the whole, the whole doesn't matter. If we're talking of A, the context of "If A then B." is irrelevant, and the same for the context of "B.", "C.", "D." and "E." Regardless of what they are, it matters not one bit for the nature of A's truth. This is the case for natural and formal languages, because the entire basis of this in formal languages was derived from the natural ones themselves. The entire reason as to why there are formal ones is because this property is the case from linguistics of natural ones.


Perhaps you've just missed where I've agreed with this specific point several times previously and credited you with explaining it. What I'm suggesting here is simply that your point might have been better communicated to Pierce without drawing it into a discussion of logic method (simply because its ended up with the pair of us straying from the spirit of the debate). At the same time for my part I'm grateful you didn't :)

I misunderstand how I drew it into a discussion of logic. Only when I later was explaining other points in response to you did it delve into a discussion of logic. Not when I wrote to Pierce:

I understand everything except the first sentence.
How is it that it's "not just black and white or yes and no"?

Certainly, either there is an afterlife or there isn't, correct? There isn't some manner by which we both have an afterlife and do not have an afterlife, and neither is there some manner by which we neither have an afterlife nor do not have an afterlife.
So explain the first sentence for me, would you?

As seen, this is all I had ever said to Pierce, and nothing in that indicates anything regarding a method of logic. All it does it ask him how it's so that the afterlife doesn't either exist or not exist, which was his original proposition that I targeted as having an issue. When I responded to you, though, it did end up becoming that of logic, so to say that I drew the communication to Pierce in such a way doesn't exactly fit.

For the reason I've already stated - the schemes I've mentioned include measurements of 'confidence' (or whatever terminology is used in each scheme). There is also mention of the idea of 'uncertain inference' (used in a scheme devised by C. J. van Rijsbergen). Partial confidence implies that we are not 'entirely confident' or otherwise, hence shades of grey regarding our confidence in our knowledge. I believe this is what is also described as a non-monotonic logic scheme, i.e. one that doesn't just deal in 'truth' or 'falsehood'
As a complete novice to this whole field I'm not going to try to defend logic schemes devised by people with doctorates, but I note they exist.

But this then doesn't get us to shades of grey, for the reason being:

1. I am uncertain about X being the case.

Not leading us to:

2. There is neither a black nor white(certain of either one or the other), but a mix of the two between our knowledge (a shade of grey; a mix between certainty one way and certainty the other).

We can't say #2 from #1, because the shade of grey entails that there is a certainty in both cases simultaneously to allow for a mix between the two, which isn't the case. So in the end we have a dilemma before us:

The analogy can only be made by this manner, because grey is a mix between white and black, not anything else. So to say there are shades of grey, we must say that black is the case and white is the case in a mix, meaning there is both the knowledge certainty in one and knowledge certainty in the other, which isn't the case by probabilities, that's the point of them. By this, either there is no shade of grey in what we're speaking of, or we're dealing with a faulty analogy in the first place, in which case there still is no shade of grey here.

As we can see, we just can't get to shades of grey by a matter of what it means to have it in any context here. Also, this is again the fundamental piece to probability as to why bivalence applies.

I'll be back later.

[TigerBoy]

I'm afraid we are just going to keep going in circles here, I can only repeat what I have already said at this point, and seem to have doomed you to repeating explanations of things I've stated many times are moot.

My point is merely that rigorously applying particular logic systems to portions of a communication is not a universally legitimate or helpful process. It is not the expression of the logic itself that is being questioned. Nor is this intended to be a personal criticism.

Regardless of what they are, it matters not one bit for the nature of A's truth.
Only if your terms are discrete and unrelated and you apply monotonic propositional logic. If C informs A, alters it or corrects because A is just plain wrong, then A becomes completely irrelevant and can be disregarded. This is another situation that the logic schemes I quoted appear to address, and seems to relate to the concept of "belief revision" within non-monotonic logic schemes.


This is the case for natural and formal languages, because the entire basis of this in formal languages was derived from the natural ones themselves.
Unfortunately again, we seem to be going in circles. I believe that the origin is irrelevant, it is the implementation and use that is the significant issue in this case.
Allowing the strawmanning, you may as well say formal logic schemes were derived from natural thought as much as natural language as I have already said. I do not need to understand greek to understand Aristoelean logic any more than I need a particular language to understand calculus.


But this then doesn't get us to shades of grey, for the reason being:

There is neither a black nor white(certain of either one or the other), but a mix of the two between our knowledge (a shade of grey; a mix between certainty one way and certainty the other).

Earlier I expressed my opinion Pierce clarified that his 'grey' comment applied to knowledge. These schemes DO claim to provide a range of confidence values with regards to knowledge, hence "shades of grey" works for me. If you want to bring sophistry about colour theory into it, you are using subtractive mixing, I am using additive mixing :)

Futhermore, I read that there is a form of logic called paraconsistent logic (and the school of dialetheism) which appears capable of your 'subtractive colour mixing' method of arriving at grey in the sense that it can maintain contradictions and can express these in multi-valued logic systems. At some point presumably one has a proposition capable of expressing concepts such as quantum properties.

[Skezra]

No, I don't believe there is an afterlife.

[Antisthenes]

I'm afraid we are just going to keep going in circles here, I can only repeat what I have already said at this point, and seem to have doomed you to repeating explanations of things I've stated many times are moot.

My point is merely that rigorously applying particular logic systems to portions of a communication is not a universally legitimate or helpful process. It is not the expression of the logic itself that is being questioned. Nor is this intended to be a personal criticism.

And I have yet to see why, and have explained in numerous manners as to how it is so available regardless. So unless there is a reason why that is to be presented, I see nothing here to help that idea. In any possible way you express an idea, you are using a manner of reasoning. Being so, it's applied to reason regardless, and the sophistry you try to apply here is meaningless and not withstanding.

Only if your terms are discrete and unrelated and you apply monotonic propositional logic. If C informs A, alters it or corrects because A is just plain wrong, then A becomes completely irrelevant and can be disregarded. This is another situation that the logic schemes I quoted appear to address, and seems to relate to the concept of "belief revision" within non-monotonic logic schemes.

In any logics, any sort of 'belief revision' as you call it, is still not to change anything of A's truth in any possible way if it is false. If it's false, then it's false. Regardless of context of C, B, or E, because A is a separate proposition in any logic. Pierce's initial proposition is false, and no amount of clarification afterwards will make it non-false, due to what it asserts.

Unfortunately again, we seem to be going in circles. I believe that the origin is irrelevant, it is the implementation and use that is the significant issue in this case.
Allowing the strawmanning, you may as well say formal logic schemes were derived from natural thought as much as natural language as I have already said. I do not need to understand greek to understand Aristoelean logic any more than I need a particular language to understand calculus.

First, what strawmanning? I explained to you the necessity of understanding logic. Second. You misunderstand what was said. Nothing about understanding Greek has anything to do with understanding Aristotle's logic. However, you do need to understand a logic to understand Aristotle's logic, because Aristotle's logic uses natural language precepts in it's quantification and qualification. There is a difference. Simply because you need a language does not mean you need a specific language. Poor reasoning seen yet again.

Earlier I expressed my opinion Pierce clarified that his 'grey' comment applied to knowledge. These schemes DO claim to provide a range of confidence values with regards to knowledge, hence "shades of grey" works for me. If you want to bring sophistry about colour theory into it, you are using subtractive mixing, I am using additive mixing :)

Sophistry? You're the one bringing in the shades of grey. That's the entire problem I have with your whole point of shades of grey. You're attempting to analogize confidence, (which, might I add, you fallaciously changed from the original assertion) to colors. If you hadn't, I would never have mentioned shades of grey in the first place. Now that you have used it many times, I pointed out that this analogy is atrocious in every possible way and does not even hold the idea correctly. Also, you are not using additive mixing, I just did, which you just called as a problem. So, not only did you improperly call sophistry, you also engaged in sophistry as you did so. That's poor form.

Two possibilities, either you're analogizing or you're not. If you are not, then you're incorrectly applying colors to where it's nonsense. If you are, then your analogy is incorrect due to it not representing the case properly. So, in either case, you're incorrect in at least one respect.

Futhermore, I read that there is a form of logic called paraconsistent logic (and the school of dialetheism) which appears capable of your 'subtractive colour mixing'

Ah, and are we to misunderstand more fundamentals to that, now, and think it supports us when it contradicts?

method of arriving at grey in the sense that it can maintain contradictions and can express these in multi-valued logic systems. At some point presumably one has a proposition capable of expressing concepts such as quantum properties.

We are to do this apparently. Maintaining contradictions is done in every logic. You misunderstand what this means. The "quantum properties" are not of the proposition, they are of the content. Furthermore, the proposition's content does not 'maintain' a contradiction in the sense of two opposites being the case at once, but instead it allows for the possibility of two opposites being true in different respects at the same time in the same item. This brings to, "It is the case that X." and "It is not the case that X.", but not in the same respect, and thus not taking the form of a complete contradiction. Paraconsistent logic deals with the contradictions in a manner of exclusions and discrimination. Not the same as asserting something to be both so and not so in the same respect. There is a key difference.

Now to detail that you not only poorly accuse of sophistry, and misrepresent logical concepts, and use them incorrectly when forming arguments, and strawman, but further, ontop of this, you also are now furthering to completely irrelevant logic studies in attempts to prove a point that is entirely unprovable within those logic studies. You need to keep to the logic that fits the context provided. However, even if we were in paraconsistent logic domain at the moment, you would still not be correct, due to misunderstanding the application of the terms. This is why wikipedia is a poor study reference, because people don't understand the technical terms but still try to use them sophistically, as seen here many a time now. Some things should be studied in a classroom first. Too many things you've misunderstood here.
Further, you need to also explain why something is sophistry, as I have done each time I pointed out yours, but which you have failed to do even once, else, you yourself are fallacious, which is just a cruel irony for you.
Also, I'd like to know if you've even taken to understanding basic propositional logic, or if you're just spouting out uneducated from even the absolute basics.
So I ask,
1. "I will fall asleep unless I drink coffee."
2. "I drank coffee."
__
3. "Therefore, I will not fall asleep."
Valid or invalid? If valid, why? If invalid, why?

And I ask, what is the reason for the conditional's (False antecedent) & (True consequent) -> (True Conditional)?
And I ask, if an argument contains a contradictory premise, is it a valid argument?
And I ask, what is an argument's truth value if the premises are all true and the conclusion is false?
And I ask, what is consistency on a truth table?

Should be able to answer those easily if you have the slightest competency of logic, and if not, then the spouting off of even more advanced logics, which build off of propositional, is necessarily invalid and we're done here by the basic precepts of the fundamental logic being poorly understood.

[Matt_2012]

Yeah i think theres a afterlife.. But we'll never know till we die.

[TigerBoy]

So unless there is a reason why that is to be presented,
I have stated my reasons several times. You simply continue to ignore or reject them because you are dogmatically pursuing a particular manner of interpretation. Accusing me of sophistry because you are ignoring my reasons is pretty lame at this point.


In any logics, any sort of 'belief revision' as you call it,
No. I do not call it anything. The people who devised the systems you are dismissing call it that.


Pierce's initial proposition is false, and no amount of clarification afterwards will make it non-false, due to what it asserts.

You only consider that proposition to be false because you are only considering one interpretation. As you acknowledged earlier this necessitates the generation of multiple propositions to cover all interpretations which you have not done. So once again, you are assuming that the 'false' proposition applies to the existence of the afterlife, and not to the knowledge of it as already explained.

it is possible to understand proposition A completely if you ignore everything else.
But what you keep referring to as 'proposition A' appears to just be one interpretation of a sentence that I interpret differently. The opening sentence NEEDS the context of the rest in order to form an interpretation and arrive at a discrete proposition in the first place.

There really is no point in continuing this, you seem to have completely closed your mind to any of the points I have made.


First, what strawmanning?
Strawmanning because as I already stated "I believe that the origin is irrelevant". You could have answered that question for yourself, even if you disagreed.


However, you do need to understand a logic to understand Aristotle's logic, because Aristotle's logic uses natural language precepts in it's quantification and qualification.

Notice how by using CONTEXT I can interpret your apparent misuse of the first appearance of the word "logic" and infer that you meant the word "language". This has nothing to do with the logic of the statement, and everything to do with interpreting natural language. I can synthesise your meaning even though you've apparently made an error in expressing it.

Simply because you need a language does not mean you need a specific language.
Already understood, since it was my point: " I do not need to understand greek to understand Aristoelean logic any more than I need a particular language to understand calculus."
You are still missing the point that you need an appropriate language: the right tool for the job. Bringing formal logic into a forum where no one else understands it isn't a great way to communicate your ideas, interesting though it has been to some of us.

Poor reasoning seen yet again.
This is just getting rude. I could just as easily accuse you of poor expression of your ideas and failure to understand mine.


Sophistry? You're the one bringing in the shades of grey. That's the entire problem I have with your whole point of shades of grey.
Well then what else lays between black or white as Pierce stated?


Also, you are not using additive mixing, I just did, which you just called as a problem.
No. Don't accuse me your own mistakes in understanding.
Subtractive colour mixing refers to pigments. You referred to combining two values regarding certainty: to get grey in the manner you are describing requires two pigments (values) being black and white. Vary the quantities for shades of grey. I am using additive mixing which refers to the behaviour of light, whereby I am not mixing pigments but varying a quantity of one variable, namely light (or 'degree of confidence'). You may not like the analogy, but please don't distort it and use that as a basis for rejecting it and at the same time criticise me for making an attempt to explain my position in different terms.


This is why wikipedia is a poor study reference, because people don't understand the technical terms but still try to use them sophistically, as seen here many a time now. Some things should be studied in a classroom first. Too many things you've misunderstood here.

Exactly why I have been trying to make the point that approaching the debate with what is apparently a university level education in a particular logic system isn't appropriate in a forum mostly contributed to by those of us still at school.


You're attempting to analogize confidence,

Yes, and whether you accept my analogy or not I note that you've gone quiet on the point of quantifying confidence in knowledge I was trying to explain (which itself was necessitated by having had you ignore, misinterpret or sidestep that point several times previously). The rest of your response reads simply as a poor attempt to create a smokescreen, and is becoming increasingly personal. That seems "poor form" to me.

[canadaski]

All throughout life, people connect with your physical form. They associate you with your body and thoughts, not your spiritual existence. Once the physical form no longer exists, there isn't anything left. If there is, nobody has been or is connected to in in any special way. The whole concept of an afterlife becomes quite moot, therefore I cannot force myself to believe in it.

[Antisthenes]

I have stated my reasons several times. You simply continue to ignore or reject them because you are dogmatically pursuing a particular manner of interpretation. Accusing me of sophistry because you are ignoring my reasons is pretty lame at this point.

All the reasons you have presented, I have taken apart. It has yet to be shown that it is the case, it if had, there would be no issue.


No. I do not call it anything. The people who devised the systems you are dismissing call it that.

Sophistry again. I was referring to your own statements before you began to call on irrelevant logic studies. You are now trying to move the goalposts as if you had been speaking of their technical use this entire time, which was not the case, as you first were drawing from Pierce's original assertion. So, now. You can either choose to be incorrect by changing the analogy to be in the context of an irrelevant, red herring, or you can keep it as it was when you were speaking of Pierce's post, which has been shown to be incorrect numerous times by a misuse of conjunction in pairing propositions. Pick your manner of wrong, and proceed from there. Can't dance between the two, as you seem to want to.

You only consider that proposition to be false because you are only considering one interpretation.

Nope. Any possible valid interpretation (one that captures the linguistics actually being used, and not made-up systems of language that you invent as you go along to attempt to be correct) details it as incorrect and invalid. Regardless of what you have said on the interpretations thus far, the only interpretations available render it false. I've shown this for every single one you've provided. Further, I have detailed precisely why this particular sentence is not going to be true in any interpretation multiple times, but you apparently just want to ignore that the conjunction inference Pierce is trying to use is invalidly applied, thus rendering it wrong on that alone. You have yet to provide an interpretation that both:
A: Fits the sentence.
and
B: Is not invalid.

Thus, it has yet to be shown to either fit the sentence or be valid. Further, since I have provided sound reason as to why it is not even able to be valid due to the poor use of the conjunction inference that Pierce attempted, it's also not the case.

As you acknowledged earlier this necessitates the generation of multiple propositions to cover all interpretations which you have not done. So once again, you are assuming that the 'false' proposition applies to the existence of the afterlife, and not to the knowledge of it as already explained.

I do not think you quite understand what I am asserting after all this time. The proposition is false due to invalid reasoning that attempts to infer it. So, regardless of if he was talking of turtles being in shades of grey or knowledge or the nature of it, he's incorrect simply due to improperly applying the inference. Until he at least has a valid inference, the inference is not even validly derived, much less true. So, as seen, I have provided the multiple propositions in that the abstraction available due to what he said is incorrect on the level of reasoning to his conclusion. Thus, by a manner of deduction, his proposition is incorrect, being necessarily so as any form of the given proposition. Since he, as detailed many times, improperly applied the conjunction of shades of grey (either in analogy or in actuality) he is incorrect. Since, as also said before, either it's analogy or it isn't, if it is, it's incorrectly applied, if it isn't, it's also incorrectly applied. Thus, it's incorrectly applied. (it, being the shades of grey idea).

But what you keep referring to as 'proposition A' appears to just be one interpretation of a sentence that I interpret differently. The opening sentence NEEDS the context of the rest in order to form an interpretation and arrive at a discrete proposition in the first place.

Not quite. Proposition A, as spoken of above, refers not to one interpretation, but to all available interpretations. The point is of A's relation. The relation is invalid, thus rendering it an invalid inference due to being derived by falsity.

Check the following:

1. A
2. B
3. A & B

If A is false, then #3, A & B is also false regardless of A or B. It's simply an invalid inference when A is false. The same for asserting either by analogy or not by analogy that there are shades of grey, (either analogizing that two opposites are mixed or asserting without analogy that two opposites are mixed). Due to at least one of those being the case, it is not a valid inference due to one false piece at any given time. Thus, as seen by not a guess, not an opinion, but necessity of deduction, Pierce is still wrong and your 'points' detailing him not so have yet again been shown wrong as well.

There really is no point in continuing this, you seem to have completely closed your mind to any of the points I have made.

Considered them all, evaluated them all, and none withstand the same point I've been providing thus far. You keep ignoring the point and bringing in irrelevance which I point out as such. However, whenever you do bring in a relevant point, I also detail how it does not change the falsity of his proposition due to the problem in the inference.

Strawmanning because as I already stated "I believe that the origin is irrelevant". You could have answered that question for yourself, even if you disagreed.

When did we go on to origin? Also, origin of what? The sentence? Explain this piece. I genuinely do not know what you are speaking of when you say 'origin' being irrelevant. You may have said it before, but the term 'origin' here doesn't seem to make sense with what I had responded to before this response of yours.

Notice how by using CONTEXT I can interpret your apparent misuse of the first appearance of the word "logic" and infer that you meant the word "language".

This has nothing to do with the logic of the statement, and everything to do with interpreting natural language. I can synthesise your meaning even though you've apparently made an error in expressing it.


Incorrect. Interpreting natural language has everything to do with logic. Every time you interpret, you are reasoning your way to a given intepretation, hence it has everything to do with logic, hence if you have poor logic you have poor interpretation, as seen in your case. Further, I did not make an error in expressing it. I said exactly what was intended. You made an error by interpreting it poorly. Poor reading comprehension of the self is not equivalent to poor writing of the other.

My original statement:

Originally Posted by Antisthenes:
Regardless of what they are, it matters not one bit for the nature of A's truth. This is the case for natural and formal languages, because the entire basis of this in formal languages was derived from the natural ones themselves. The entire reason as to why there are formal ones is because this property is the case from linguistics of natural ones.

Notice how it says, "derived from the natural ones." No specific language is provided. I did not say Greek. I did not say English. I said natural ones, indicating, some natural language, indicating some non-specific one being necessary. Thus, as just shown here, it's your interpretation that is the problem here. The language I used could not be clearer.

This is just getting rude. I could just as easily accuse you of poor expression of your ideas and failure to understand mine.

You can accuse this if you want to, but because I did not have poor expression, you'd be accusing wrongly and I'd have to show it as such, as I have just done with your other accusations that I just showed to be erroneous. Further, I read only what you said and responded to it as such. If you wrote it, I responded only to that. If you intended for what you said to mean otherwise, then that's your error in expression. As seen above, I expressed my points and showed you why your interpretation was in error. I have yet to see you provide this courtesy.

Well then what else lays between black or white as Pierce stated?

Between black or white? Nothing, because that statement allows both to be the case at once - Note, though, this does not get us to there being grey, it only gets us to black and white both being the case, so both by analogy and by actuality, it's still flawed.

No. Don't accuse me your own mistakes in understanding.
Subtractive colour mixing refers to pigments. You referred to combining two values regarding certainty: to get grey in the manner you are describing requires two pigments (values) being black and white. Vary the quantities for shades of grey. I am using additive mixing which refers to the behaviour of light, whereby I am not mixing pigments but varying a quantity of one variable, namely light (or 'degree of confidence'). You may not like the analogy, but please don't distort it and use that as a basis for rejecting it and at the same time criticise me for making an attempt to explain my position in different terms.

Incorrect. Grey does not get you to black and white. Nor does black and white get you to grey. So again, you misunderstand. I will accuse you of your mistakes, when you have made them, as here. (Black quantity & white quantity) does not lead us then to a (grey quantity). This is the problem in Pierce's statement which you seem to still not have a grasp on. The whole idea of the problem he has is that you cannot make this conjunction from grey, nor can you get grey from this conjunction. ('this' referring to (black and white).

Exactly why I have been trying to make the point that approaching the debate with what is apparently a university level education in a particular logic system isn't appropriate in a forum mostly contributed to by those of us still at school.

So you are telling me that approaching a debating section with the application and study of reason....is not appropriate? A debating section being a place where people go to....debate. Debates being a sequence of back and forth arguments between opposing parties. Arguments being the cornerstone to the applications of reason and the study of reason....

I also like how you said that the university education is part of it. Indicating that there is no immediate problem with a complete incompetence in logic being expressed here. That's amusing. Proper education in reasoning is no good, but using poor reasoning, that has yet to be said as a problem. Probably because poor reasoning is the entire basis of the idea that university education should not be applied here. Convenient how that works.

Yes, and whether you accept my analogy or not I note that you've gone quiet on the point of quantifying confidence in knowledge I was trying to explain (which itself was necessitated by having had you ignore, misinterpret or sidestep that point several times previously). The rest of your response reads simply as a poor attempt to create a smokescreen, and is becoming increasingly personal. That seems "poor form" to me.

Accept your analogy? The analogy is atrocious, for the conjunction problem I have explained numerous times before and in the post above. Further, I already explained the point of confidence in knowledge to be another example of incorrect use of conjunction.

Just read the previous posts where I explain how, if you're not certain in the knowledge either way, this does not translate to being a mix between certain and not certain.

And, if you are to say that the knowledge when you're not certain either way is not a mix, then your analogy is yet again proven false, as grey's place in the analogy is that of a mix. So, as seen yet again, either the analogy is false and so you're incorrect there, or you're incorrect in the presentation of knowledge certainty as grey, being the mix.

Furthermore, I have explained above how I have not misinterpreted. In addition to that, I also explained how, if any problem is had, you're simply expressing the ideas poorly, as, I only went off of what you have said, not what you have not, but may have intended to say. Be clearer and there will be no problem. I have shown that the problem you have with what I said is not a problem in my expression, but a problem in your reading comprehension. The proof is in the quotes above of what I said.

So, as seen, there is no smokescreen, you're simply ignoring the proof in front of you and insist on providing no counter, but instead just reiterate that exact same invalid point, then you say we go in circles when I give the exact same response to what you said, even though it entirely disassembles your point, and even though you have not even countered it yet. Yet again, that's poor form on your part, not mine.

Also, as expected, none of the questions I asked were answered. Well, that does in all of those red herrings from earlier. This was easy. Let me know if you have an actual response, instead of just a dragging of the same already beaten baggage out here time and time again.

As well, if you do choose to stop due to considering this pointless, as you hinted at before, I'll respect the decision.

[TigerBoy]

During the course of replying to you I have sadly had to conclude that your motivation for responding at this point has degenerated into cheap point scoring, rudeness, massaging your ego and nothing to do with a debate of the issue for the intellectual fun of it.

All the reasons you have presented, I have taken apart. It has yet to be shown that it is the case, it if had, there would be no issue.

Is this one called 'playground logic' ? Saying it doesn't make it true.

You are now trying to move the goalposts as if you had been speaking of their technical use this entire time,
Then you really haven't been paying attention as I suspected.

You can either choose to be incorrect by changing the analogy to be in the context of an irrelevant, red herring,
Or from my perspective, perfectly relevant point that you have decided to misinterpret, that itself was a further attempt to explain something in different terms in the hope you might genuinely want to see the point I was making.

Pick your manner of wrong, and proceed from there. Can't dance between the two, as you seem to want to.
Its is sad how the more this proceeds the more pompous and aggressive you are becoming. It really isn't conducive to what had been a bit of intellectual fun.


Nope. Any possible valid interpretation (one that captures the linguistics actually being used, and not made-up systems of language that you invent as you go along to attempt to be correct) details it as incorrect and invalid. Regardless of what you have said on the interpretations thus far, the only interpretations available render it false.
This is utterly egotistical. You seem to believe that you the only person who is "allowed" to draw interpretations from a sentence and it is somehow up to you to rule on which ones are valid and which ones aren't.
In my view you are cherry picking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_%28fallacy%29) , leading you into a hasty generalisation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization) .

I do not think you quite understand what I am asserting after all this time. The proposition is false due to invalid reasoning that attempts to infer it.
And AGAIN here we go with the same tired explanation of something based on your particular interpretation which I keep stating is a) understood and b) NOT RELEVANT to the point I am making. it seems that by this repetition you are attempting to convince me through the fallacy of "Argumentum verbosium" (or the fallacy of 'proof by verbosity').

When did we go on to origin? Also, origin of what? The sentence?
Now you seem to be wilfully claiming ignorance a point you raised yourself:
"As said before, formal language comes from natural language."



Incorrect. Interpreting natural language has everything to do with logic. Every time you interpret, you are reasoning your way to a given intepretation, hence it has everything to do with logic, hence if you have poor logic you have poor interpretation, as seen in your case.
Again with the rudeness and arrogance. If there wasn't the opportunity for ambiguity in natural language, then we would have no need for formal logic. Ambiguity brings you back to needing context within natural language to narrow the interpretation. Your own failure to interpret something has no correlation to my ability to make that interpretation.

I said exactly what was intended.
Oh of course you did, how silly of me. So when talking about natural language you meant to state that "you do need to understand a logic to understand Aristotle's logic," and you didn't mean to state "you do need to understand a language to understand Aristotle's logic."
Seems to me you would rather score another cheap point by claiming to be 'right' even if it leaves you on record as making a dubious statement containing circular reasoning.
So considering your alleged original intent: it is not the language that enables one to learn logic but the possession of logic as a mental faculty in the first place. How else can logical deduction and problems solving be seen in nature in creatures that have no language? Furthermore according to you logic is 'everything' to language, in which case I could therefore not learn a language if I had no language either, so babies could not learn their mother tongue. Or perhaps, more reasonably, language and logic are similar but 'everything' is in fact hyperbole and exaggeration as already pointed out.


The language I used could not be clearer.
Actually it really could.


You can accuse this if you want to, but because I did not have poor expression

Funny how that works - you are allowed to misinterpret my words and lay the blame on me, but this rule doesn't apply in reverse.


Between black or white? Nothing, because that statement allows both to be the case at once - Note, though, this does not get us to there being grey, it only gets us to black and white both being the case, so both by analogy and by actuality, it's still flawed.

Oh how convenient grey doesn't exist now. You have mis-attributed what my analogy was referring to and surprise surprise it doesn't work now you've done that.


Grey does not get you to black and white. Nor does black and white get you to grey. So again, you misunderstand. I will accuse you of your mistakes, when you have made them, as here. (Black quantity & white quantity) does not lead us then to a (grey quantity).
You are implying that I have said things I have not, and furthermore making a non sequitur to imply I don't understand colour theory itself as opposed the subject of the analogy. Meanwhile you are insisting that you are still right on that point, and established colour theory is wrong. Fascinatingly arrogant, or very muddled thinking.


So you are telling me that approaching a debating section with the application and study of reason....is not appropriate? A debating section being a place where people go to....debate. Debates being a sequence of back and forth arguments between opposing parties. Arguments being the cornerstone to the applications of reason and the study of reason....
You're starting to get it. When you are dealing with people who don't speak your language, express yourself in terms they understand. You have demonstrated argumentum verbosum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity) time and time again, in spite of me suggesting each time that you don't need to repeat yourself. Logic is a useful tool, but only if you can apply it appropriately.


I also like how you said that the university education is part of it. Indicating that there is no immediate problem with a complete incompetence in logic being expressed here. That's amusing. Proper education in reasoning is no good, but using poor reasoning, that has yet to be said as a problem. Probably because poor reasoning is the entire basis of the idea that university education should not be applied here. Convenient how that works.

Sophistry, plain and simple. You are drawing your own conclusions, presenting them as though they were mine and creating a red herring argument. So hypocritical.

So you've had what, a mere year of university education in a particular language and now you hold that those who can't speak that language are incapable of valid ideas, thought or expression without using that language on your terms. Other languages are even dismissed with equal flippancy. A wise man would try to debate on common ground, you prefer to only do so on your own rigid terms and within the limitations of your own preconceptions it seems.


Accept your analogy? The analogy is atrocious, for the conjunction problem I have explained numerous times before and in the post above.

Only because you keep misinterpreting and trying to change it, and apparently still don't understand the technical basis for the analogy in colour theory. A strange bit of game-playing that doesn't actually help the discussion.


Further, I already explained the point of confidence in knowledge to be another example of incorrect use of conjunction.
No you haven't. You have chosen to dismiss several formal logic systems that pertain to the interpretation of the original sentence that you refuse to consider.


Just read the previous posts where I explain how, if you're not certain in the knowledge either way, this does not translate to being a mix between certain and not certain.

Equally, "just read" up on the logic systems I mentioned that claim to measure confidence.


Also, as expected, none of the questions I asked were answered. Well, that does in all of those red herrings from earlier. This was easy. Let me know if you have an actual response, instead of just a dragging of the same already beaten baggage out here time and time again.

Talk about sophistry! It seems now that your entire purpose for being here is for cheap point scoring and inflating your own ego. You want to set me a little test in one specific logic system as though that will somehow disprove the validity of an argument that I've proposed using a completely different logic system. A total smokescreen, and demonstrating your own lack of understanding and inability or unwillingness to apply logical thought to an argument that is not your own.

[Antisthenes]

During the course of replying to you I have sadly had to conclude that your motivation for responding at this point has degenerated into cheap point scoring, rudeness, massaging your ego and nothing to do with a debate of the issue for the intellectual fun of it.

Point scoring? Rudeness? Just because I'm pointing out when you have a problem doesn't mean I'm trying to "score points" or be rude. Further, where did you get that I'm trying to massage my ego?

Is this one called 'playground logic' ? Saying it doesn't make it true.

Saying it doesn't make it true, but it being true makes it true. Just pay attention. I've explained it multiple times.

1. A
2. B
3. A & B

The above is logically valid if and only if A is true and B is true at once. In Pierce's original, A is false, and so, A & B is false (the shade of grey that's bee reiterated again and again)

Then you really haven't been paying attention as I suspected.

Have been. You just insist on ignoring logical proof as given above.

Or from my perspective, perfectly relevant point that you have decided to misinterpret, that itself was a further attempt to explain something in different terms in the hope you might genuinely want to see the point I was making.

Yet again, you failed to note that regardless of the point, it either fits being an analogy or it doesn't, and if it does, you're incorrect and if it doesn't you still are due to the conjunction flaw I pointed out above as well as in my last post, which you still have ignored. Further, you have yet to even show how it's relevant, which is also something I asked you to do that you ignored. Until that's done, then I have yet to see it be so. I, however, have shown numerous times the relevance.

Its is sad how the more this proceeds the more pompous and aggressive you are becoming. It really isn't conducive to what had been a bit of intellectual fun.

I don't recall saying this was fun. And just by looking at the posts I've had to respond to over and over, this is far from intellectual.

This is utterly egotistical. You seem to believe that you the only person who is "allowed" to draw interpretations from a sentence and it is somehow up to you to rule on which ones are valid and which ones aren't.

You seem to not understand what validity actually means. Validity isn't my opinion, it's the relation between the sentence and the conclusion. I'm not the one interpreting it to one specific interpretation and evaluating validity from there. I'm saying that it is entirely invalid necessarily due to the poor relations between the ideas. This isn't a matter of opinion. You'd be taught this in basic logic classes. Validity has nothing to do with your interpretation, my interpretation, or anyone's interpretation. It is mechanical and either the case or not the case necessarily by the relation of ideas.

If A then B
B,
Therefore, A.

Is always invalid. It does not matter in the slightest bit what you think A means or what you think B means, it's still invalid. So, no. You're confused on what is actually going on, still.

In my view you are cherry picking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_%28fallacy%29) , leading you into a hasty generalisation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization).

And you actually do need to explain as to why this is the case. You can't just go, "you're doing: random fallacy from wikipedia which I will not explain how it applies leading to another randomly selected fallacy from wikipedia which I will also not explain how it applies." That, sir, is a fallacy. The application being, you're doing it as we speak by not providing any basis for your assertions. Nice try.

And AGAIN here we go with the same tired explanation of something based on your particular interpretation which I keep stating is a) understood and b) NOT RELEVANT to the point I am making. it seems that by this repetition you are attempting to convince me through the fallacy of "Argumentum verbosium" (or the fallacy of 'proof by verbosity').

If you understood it, then you wouldn't possibly be still going after it. Since, understanding it entails that you see the problem in everything you've been saying up until now. Further, it is entirely relevant due to the nature of it being reason, and to the fact that, if you have a point, you are also attempting to apply it to reason.

Further, you ignorantly apply argumentum ad verbosum. That argument is for when someone provides, well, an argument that is too long and verbose artificially, in order to try and push the other out of the conversation due to the other not wanting to have to go through all of it. Repetition does not apply to this, as, my argument is very simple, but you're just ignoring what it says every single time. So, as seen, you don't even know what this fallacy actually is, but still try to naively use it. It's cute to go to wikipedia and look up fallacies and pretend they apply to make yourself look correct, however, whenever they do not, I promise you I will let you now as I have done for every other false application you've tried thus far. It also amuses me how you are now taking to pointing out fallacies when you simultaneously deny the precepts of logic that I have been presenting this entire time which show your position wrong. It is just silly how you take to using logic, but only selectively. It's also nice how, since you don't understand the basics of logic, you couldn't explain to me exactly why any of those behaviors are invalid in a logic setting, but you still take to using exactly what you say does not work for me, for yourself. The irony is overwhelming here.

Now you seem to be wilfully claiming ignorance a point you raised yourself:
"As said before, formal language comes from natural language."

I expected that you were writing of that, but I wasn't sure, which is why I asked you. However, it is relevant as to the origin. You have yet to explain why you say it is not, I have however explained why it is numerous times before.

Again with the rudeness and arrogance. If there wasn't the opportunity for ambiguity in natural language, then we would have no need for formal logic. Ambiguity brings you back to needing context within natural language to narrow the interpretation. Your own failure to interpret something has no correlation to my ability to make that interpretation.

Ambiguity does not require context. Ambiguity is fallacious. It's known as amphibology. However, if you'd like to be ambiguous, you can be fallacious and I won't hold it against you. However, if you do feel like applying what's said to reason, I'll gladly accept that, too.

Oh of course you did, how silly of me. So when talking about natural language you meant to state that "you do need to understand a logic to understand Aristotle's logic," and you didn't mean to state "you do need to understand a language to understand Aristotle's logic."

The latter is what was said originally. You need to understand a language to understand Aristotle's logic. You do, however, also obviously need to understand logic to understand logic, that's a tautology, that's why I said that piece earlier as well. You need to both understand a language and a logic to understand any logic. So, no. I did mean to say you need to understand a language, and I did say this as well as I said that you need to understand a logic. Both are the case.

Seems to me you would rather score another cheap point by claiming to be 'right' even if it leaves you on record as making a dubious statement containing circular reasoning.

Failure to display circular reasoning. Further, there is no circular reasoning provided above. Sophistry not withstanding. You need to back claims in order to make them. No claim I've made on your sophistry has had no backing. I would expect a similar courtesty. Circular reasoning is:

A, so B, so A. Which, might I add, isn't actually invalid. Furthermore, dubious statements cannot contain circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is not within individual statements, it's in the relation of them, so incorrect on two accounts.

So considering your alleged original intent: it is not the language that enables one to learn logic but the possession of logic as a mental faculty in the first place.

No, you do need both language and logic to understand logic. Logic is, as said, based on natural language. However, to understand any logic, you first need to understand basic propositional logic, because every single logic in existence goes off of the fundamentals of propositional logic, whether to use them and see if it can build on those fundamentals, or to see if it can work around those fundamentals.

How else can logical deduction and problems solving be seen in nature in creatures that have no language?
Why are you now abducting my original point? I've been saying this entire time that language is required for logic, to which you've previously been saying it's irrelevant as to the origin.

Furthermore according to you logic is 'everything' to language, in which case I could therefore not learn a language if I had no language either, so babies could not learn their mother tongue. Or perhaps, more reasonably, language and logic are similar but 'everything' is in fact hyperbole and exaggeration as already pointed out.

Failure to point out why it is exaggeration or hyperbole, you just asserted it, nothing more. So, it's not a fact. Since, you have no justification for it.

Also, you do need logic to understand language, regardless of if it is formal or informal, a child who understands language still is understanding the linguistics of the language and the logic of the grammar. This is because logic is based in language. Even if you do not have a formal understanding of logic, you still will have an informal understanding of it. That's absolutely necessary for any and all thoughts we have. We use some form of reasoning or another. No thought is without reason. The only difference is, it's either good or bad.

Actually it really could.

Unfortunately not, by a matter of necessity. My statement was exactly my statement, correct? And it was no attempt to be otherwise, so thus, it could not have been any different than it was. So, unless you'd like to explain to me the details of your statement, my tautology presented says that you are incorrect necessarily.

Funny how that works - you are allowed to misinterpret my words and lay the blame on me, but this rule doesn't apply in reverse.

No, it does. However, I am not misinterpreting. I am going through your statements exactly and only how they are written, not in how you may have thought they are written. If you are speaking ambiguously, that's fallacious on your part, however, I have carefully constructed each statement I have made with linguistic precision, as any decent logician ought. Misinterpretation is not the case here. The only possibility is for you to be incorrectly stating what you don't mean, since, I am only going off of exactly, word for word, what you are saying. Which is why I quote entirely what you say, not pieces.

Oh how convenient grey doesn't exist now. You have mis-attributed what my analogy was referring to and surprise surprise it doesn't work now you've done that.

Nope. Didn't mis-attribute anything. I simply said that, analogy or not, it's wrong, by a necessity of logic. As I've shown above, your analogy or non-analogy fails in it's use of the conjunction inference. So, as said before, regardless of the type of your analogy, you're still wrong for using it, as it fails in it's basic logical form.

You are implying that I have said things I have not, and furthermore making a non sequitur to imply I don't understand colour theory itself as opposed the subject of the analogy. Meanwhile you are insisting that you are still right on that point, and established colour theory is wrong. Fascinatingly arrogant, or very muddled thinking.

The underlined part amuses me, because anyone with sense can read above where I did not say this, so as you are saying that I imply you say things you haven't, you do so yourself. However, I did not say color theory is wrong, I simply said that your analogizing, whether or not applied to color theory, is wrong by it's attempt at conjunction. Good try again though, but the sophistry is not withstanding.

You're starting to get it. When you are dealing with people who don't speak your language, express yourself in terms they understand. You have demonstrated argumentum verbosum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity) time and time again, in spite of me suggesting each time that you don't need to repeat yourself. Logic is a useful tool, but only if you can apply it appropriately.

You again misunderstand what proof by verbosity actually is. It is not repetition, it is the argument itself being extraneously long. My argument is not long at all, it's very small. You just keep refusing to acknowledge it. Which I don't understand, because you seem to not have a problem with logic, only when it proves you wrong necessarily do you have a problem.

Argument is that, Pierce's original point attempts to use conjunction but it fails to do so.

This is simply the case based on what he said. My argument fit into one sentence and one sentence only, and that entirely avoids any verbosity. So, as shown again, you're falsely accusing of sophistry. Let's see if there's any other attempts to falsely accuse of sophistry that you obviously know nothing of.

Sophistry, plain and simple. You are drawing your own conclusions, presenting them as though they were mine and creating a red herring argument. So hypocritical.

Immediately after? That's adorable. Further, that's not a red herring, as red herring is a fallacy of irrelevance, which that would not be an example of, it'd be relevant but just not properly showing your point. Second, I have not drawn my own conclusions as your own in the first place. I have been explaining how, regardless of your conclusion here, it's still wrong by a necessity of logic (which you seem to like to use only when falsely accusing of fallacies, but when we speak of the foundation as to why those fallacies are the way they are, then you dislike it. That logic stuff is no good when it proves you wrong, is it? What a shame that you are so keen on falsely accusing of fallacy, but you are ignoring the entire argument I'm making that is wholly based on Pierce misusing logic) Stop warping what I'm doing. I am not misinterpreting what you're saying, I'm saying that regardless of interpretation, you're still wrong by a logical flaw of misuse of conjunction.

So you've had what, a mere year of university education in a particular language and now you hold that those who can't speak that language are incapable of valid ideas, thought or expression without using that language on your terms.

No, I have no single year of university education. I work in university education. Which is why I still am sitting here trying to explain to you basic logic fundamentals that you ignore time and time again. People use logic if they realize it or not. They either use it poorly or well, and the reason I'm still here is to try and get you to use it well. If you'd just pay attention, it'd be over already. Would you? I've paid attention to you.

Other languages are even dismissed with equal flippancy. A wise man would try to debate on common ground, you prefer to only do so on your own rigid terms and within the limitations of your own preconceptions it seems.

Again you don't seem to understand that to debate at all is to use logic in the first place. You either use it correctly or you don't. You don't just not use it at all. You're using it as you try and evaluate what I'm saying. This is equal ground because it is the only ground available. You either use reason right, or don't use it right. But, you are always using it in some way or another.

Only because you keep misinterpreting and trying to change it, and apparently still don't understand the technical basis for the analogy in colour theory. A strange bit of game-playing that doesn't actually help the discussion.

There is no need for even an interpretation in the first place when the logic of it is faulty. That's what I've been going on about. Pay attention to what is actually going on. I have no issue with any particular interpretation, I have an issue with, any interpretation you give is still wrong due to a misuse of conjunction in the logical form. That's all.

No you haven't. You have chosen to dismiss several formal logic systems that pertain to the interpretation of the original sentence that you refuse to consider.

No. Some logic systems are irrelevant. For example, if you are not dealing with the predicates of a proposition, then you will not use predicate logic. If you are not dealing with theoretical physics or quantum mechanics, you will not use paraconsistent logic. If you are not dealing with statements of necessity and possibility, you will not use modal logic. We are dealing with propositions here and propositions only, so it is incorrect to use any other logic. Please, do yourself a favor and understand that, at least. Propositional logic is always used when evaluating propositions, which is what Pierce was doing here. There is no way around this. That's precisely why it's called propositional logic in the first place. Don't incorrectly apply irrelevant logic systems, please. That's a disrespect to every logician who has ever lived.

Equally, "just read" up on the logic systems I mentioned that claim to measure confidence.

I don't need to go to possibly false wikipedia articles, Olly. Logic is my profession to begin with. Thanks, though.

Talk about sophistry! It seems now that your entire purpose for being here is for cheap point scoring and inflating your own ego.

I'll ignore this ad hominem attack, since it is just too amusing to see you mention sophistry as you use a fallacy.

You want to set me a little test in one specific logic system as though that will somehow disprove the validity of an argument that I've proposed using a completely different logic system.

Oh, wow. You really do have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Let me explain this to you, being a logician by profession. Ignore that we're in dispute right now.

All logical systems branch off from basic propositional logic.
Some logical systems try to find manners by which we can use propositional logic to further a given concept (paraconsistent, modal).
Some logical systems try to find manners by which propositional logic can be more specific (predicate, epistemic) to a given subject.
But, all logical systems do use propositional logic as their fundamental one. The entire reason we have other logical systems is because we go on using propositional logic into more advanced work. So the reason I asked you about propositional was to see if you even had a clue about the fundamentals of logic in the first place, because all other logical systems work off of propositional. So, if you don't understand propositional, you cannot then understand what any of the others are saying, because they are all working off of the same terminology and ideas that basic propositional logic gives us to begin with. Understand?

A total smokescreen, and demonstrating your own lack of understanding and inability or unwillingness to apply logical thought to an argument that is not your own.

Hopefully you understand the error in this quote now that I've explained to you why I asked you those questions before. Thank you for taking the time to still continue. Let me know if you have any questions. I now see that your problem is only that you misunderstand exactly what logic systems you're referring to are actually doing. I was under the impression at first that you were trying to ignore them entirely for your own benefit, which is obnoxious. But now I see that you just misunderstand what's going on as far as the logic systems go.

Would you like me to go on in even more detail as to the nature of the other logics in regards to propositional? I will gladly do so now in great detail, especially since I see exactly the issue you're having with the point I've been making. You're genuine, just misunderstanding what the case is here. However, if you'd like to continue on in this manner of dispute due to only a misunderstanding, I won't stop you there, either. I would like it if you'd like to calm the discussion down, though, since now it's clear as to the problem being had.

I will be leaving soon, but if I'm here by the time you respond, I'll respond back in order to acknowledge, and then edit my post later when I get back from my class. If you don't respond in time, I'll just get back to you as soon as I'm done. Have a good day, either way.

[TigerBoy]

Yes "rude." I'd point you to a dictionary but you would no doubt tell me it was wrong.


Saying it doesn't make it true, but it being true makes it true. Just pay attention. I've explained it multiple times.

And still I don't know why you keep doing so.


Yet again, you failed to note that regardless of the point, it either fits being an analogy or it doesn't, and if it does,
At this point I really have little interest if you accept the analogy or not. I was pointing out that you were quite wrong about colour theory and were apparently using that failure to misconstrue my argument (and it now seems you've managed to misconstrue that too!).


I don't recall saying this was fun. And just by looking at the posts I've had to respond to over and over, this is far from intellectual.
Again with the pompous insults. I was personally here for the fun of a debate and to learn. And why are you here? To educate you say? Then perhaps on that basis alone you should indulge my interpretation on which I'm basing my concept? How are you not indulging in the fallacy known as Loki's wager (unreasonable insistence that a concept cannot be defined)?


You seem to not understand what validity actually means. Validity isn't my opinion, it'... This isn't a matter of opinion.

More patronising nonsense. You are denying the existence of the more probable interpretation of Pierce's statement, and making it a matter of opinion youself by excluding this interpretation. You are also again ducking this point by equivocating about my particular use of a word , and trying to invest it with your own specific interpretation and furthermore using your misunderstanding to discredit my original statement.


And you actually do need to explain as to why this is the case. You can't just go, "you're doing: random fallacy from wikipedia which I will not explain how it applies leading to another randomly selected fallacy from wikipedia which I will also not explain how it applies." That, sir, is a fallacy. The application being, you're doing it as we speak by not providing any basis for your assertions. Nice try.

This is now the equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears. A man of your apparent education should have no difficulty interpreting my comments (but I suspect you will still manage to find some). A weak attempt to sidestep earned criticism.


Why are you now abducting my original point? I've been saying this entire time that language is required for logic, to which you've previously been saying it's irrelevant as to the origin.

Why are you quoting me out of context to make it appear I'm saying something I'm not?
What I said prior to this was "it is not the language that enables one to learn logic but the possession of logic as a mental faculty in the first place." Yet another fallacious attempt on your part ... but you knew that already.

I'm still of the opinion you have the cart before the horse with your view of logic and language. Logic, reasoning and problem solving has been shown in creatures without language (excepting the case of great apes which have shown capacity for sign language). Already said this, you've ignored it.


No, it does. However, I am not misinterpreting. I am going through your statements exactly and only how they are written, not in how you may have thought they are written.
No, you are equivocating. Furthermore you are showing incredible arrogance by trying to suggest that your misinterpretation is my error each time you do so.


Misinterpretation is not the case here.

Proven false many times already. Yawn.


Which is why I quote entirely what you say, not pieces.
Except where you don't, as above.


The underlined part amuses me,

Careful, sounds like you are having fun now.


because anyone with sense can read above where I did not say this,
Implying I do not have sense, fallacy of argumentum ad hominem (I won't bother with the wikipedia links this time - you'll just have your fingers in your ears again).


My argument is not long at all, it's very small.

And yet your words per explanation are extraordinary. Hence argumentum verbosum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_verbosium)- lots of words, jargon, and the hope that this impresses sufficiently to hide the flaws in your argument. Incidentally, I provided a link if you had any doubt over MY meaning of that phrase, yet rather than use this, you ignored it in preference of your own. Again. All definitions and interpretations on your terms only eh?


Argument is that, Pierce's original point attempts to use conjunction but it fails to do so.

No. That is only as a result of your particular interpretation. The vast majority of your so called 'explanation' does not even address the point I am making.


This is simply the case based on what he said. My argument fit into one sentence and one sentence only, and that entirely avoids any verbosity. So, as shown again, you're falsely accusing of sophistry.
It is simply the case? What on earth? Are you really stating "My interpretation is the only one because I say so, and therefore only I can be correct"? . Sheer arrogance, if so.
I have provided a more probable interpretation, supported it and still you sidestep it.

Let's see if there's any other attempts to falsely accuse of sophistry that you obviously know nothing of.
Immediately after? That's adorable.
That logic stuff is no good when it proves you wrong, is it?
What a shame
Stop warping what I'm doing.
I am not misinterpreting what you're saying,

Oh look, more ad hominem attacks and attempts at theatre to bolster your postition.
In order: patronising, patronising (but possibly creepy :P), sarcastic and patronising, hypocrisy, fallacy.

So the reason I asked you about propositional was to see if you even had a clue about the fundamentals of logic in the first place, because all other logical systems work off of propositional. So, if you don't understand propositional, you cannot then understand what any of the others are saying, because they are all working off of the same terminology and ideas that basic propositional logic gives us to begin with. Understand?
"Eppur si muove"
And yet these schemes still exist. Auto-epistemological logic allows for confidence to be rated, supporting my interpretation of the original comment.

Would you like me to go on in even more detail as to the nature of the other logics in regards to propositional?
Prior to your last few posts I would have gratefully accepted, but since you became antagonistic and rude (and by all means yes 'lets' calm down) this has gone on 'ad nauseum'.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

No, it does not. You're doing what's called, 'getting the cart before the horse'. A man who is stabbed in the heart dies. This death is not what causes his heart to stop functioning. His heart stops functioning and then he dies. You're incorrectly applying the consequent as the antecedent, which is invalid reasoning.
Exactly. This still proves my own point that the heart and brain stop functioning before (i dont know why I thought upon was right thanks for correcting me there) he dies.

This is practically why I think that the afterlife doesnt exist, and its absolute bull**** that people ever thought that.

[Apollo.]

This has nothing to do with the thread but I'm just going to say, I'm absolutely terrified of getting into an argument/debate with either Olly or antisthenes after reading all this!

[Antisthenes]

Yes "rude." I'd point you to a dictionary but you would no doubt tell me it was wrong.

Presumptuous and incorrect. I've only told you you're wrong, not that anything you've read it wrong. You're just continuously misconstruing the logical principles.

And still I don't know why you keep doing so.

I don't know, perhaps I give you the benefit of the doubt in hoping you'd pay attention to reason.

At this point I really have little interest if you accept the analogy or not. I was pointing out that you were quite wrong about colour theory and were apparently using that failure to misconstrue my argument (and it now seems you've managed to misconstrue that too!).

Again, this isn't about accepting any analogies. This is about the logic of the statements not being valid whether analogy or not, understand?

Further, I was not speaking of color theory being wrong at all during this, I was speaking of you being wrong. Don't bring color theory into this as if I have a problem with that.

Again with the pompous insults. I was personally here for the fun of a debate and to learn. And why are you here? To educate you say?

No, not quite here to teach by any means. I notice poor arguments, I point them out. Then I go on my way.

Then perhaps on that basis alone you should indulge my interpretation on which I'm basing my concept? How are you not indulging in the fallacy known as Loki's wager (unreasonable insistence that a concept cannot be defined)?

I did indulge it, the problem is not with your interpretation, as I keep telling you, the problem I have is with the reasoning behind it.

How am I not? I have yet to even hint at the idea that anything here under discussion cannot be defined. That's how. I'll await your next false accusation of fallacy.

More patronising nonsense. You are denying the existence of the more probable interpretation of Pierce's statement, and making it a matter of opinion youself by excluding this interpretation.

You still don't understand what my point is. Here. Let me explain it to you for only about the 50th time so that you may hold off on strawmanning for at least one moment.

The point is not that any interpretation is wrong, or that any interpretation is right. The point is that regardless of the interpretation had, the logical reasoning that gets us to and from that interpretation is flawed.

You are also again ducking this point by equivocating about my particular use of a word , and trying to invest it with your own specific interpretation and furthermore using your misunderstanding to discredit my original statement.

Not quite. See above. Your point is moot as explained just above this quote by having nothing to do with what my argument is with. My argument is not with anyone's interpretation. My argument is with the invalid reasoning I'm seeing.

This is now the equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears. A man of your apparent education should have no difficulty interpreting my comments (but I suspect you will still manage to find some). A weak attempt to sidestep earned criticism.

I've read everything you've said. There's a poor analogy for you. This right now, me reading everything you said, is equivalent to ignoring anything you've said. That makes sense. You could have verified this to be false just by that I've been quoting every sentence you utter.

Why are you quoting me out of context to make it appear I'm saying something I'm not?
What I said prior to this was "it is not the language that enables one to learn logic but the possession of logic as a mental faculty in the first place." Yet another fallacious attempt on your part ... but you knew that already.

Incorrect. I was responding to what you said I was saying. While you say I'm quoting out of context, you just did so. Irony.

So considering your alleged original intent: it is not the language that enables one to learn logic but the possession of logic as a mental faculty in the first place. How else can logical deduction and problems solving be seen in nature in creatures that have no language?

Your original statement, which was what I responded to.

I'm still of the opinion you have the cart before the horse with your view of logic and language. Logic, reasoning and problem solving has been shown in creatures without language (excepting the case of great apes which have shown capacity for sign language). Already said this, you've ignored it.

Logic, as said before, is going to show up. However, in order to use a system of logic (not informal, irrational attempts at logic) you do need a language, as, logic as the actual study is entirely based on propositions, being, proposed cases. Can't propose something without communicating in some way, and any type of communication takes part in language. Wouldn't you say?

No, you are equivocating. Furthermore you are showing incredible arrogance by trying to suggest that your misinterpretation is my error each time you do so.

I have had no issue with interpretation. You need to express more clearly, because I've only been using your words to respond to.

Proven false many times already. Yawn.

Not quite. You have yet to prove anything at all. You're one to enjoy more along the lines of saying "misinterpretation" then never providing what's misinterpreted, nor how it ought be interpreted as you see it.

Except where you don't, as above.

Not true. I do quote all of what you say and respond to it in pieces. All I do when I go through is take everything you write and put quote tags around it, then respond. So, as above, you're incorrect on this one.

Careful, sounds like you are having fun now.

Might be.

Implying I do not have sense, fallacy of argumentum ad hominem (I won't bother with the wikipedia links this time - you'll just have your fingers in your ears again).

Not quite. Ad hominem is when you, in place of the argument you have against the other, you place attacks. I had placed my argument before I said you didn't have sense, so it does not apply to ad hominem. That attack is not a part of the argument, it's secondary. So, no fallacy there either.

And yet your words per explanation are extraordinary. Hence argumentum verbosum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_verbosium)- lots of words, jargon, and the hope that this impresses sufficiently to hide the flaws in your argument.

Not quite. Since, I have no hope to impress you, or hide any flaws in the argument, because the argument is one sentence long. In order to apply to proof by verbosity an argument needs to be verbose. Mine is not. My argument is a able to fit in one sentence. However, I do respond to you over and over, but these responses are not my argument, and so you are applying the fallacy erroneously still.

Incidentally, I provided a link if you had any doubt over MY meaning of that phrase, yet rather than use this, you ignored it in preference of your own. Again. All definitions and interpretations on your terms only eh?

Again, I'm not saying any interpretation or definition is wrong. Only the logic of them.

No. That is only as a result of your particular interpretation. The vast majority of your so called 'explanation' does not even address the point I am making.

This quote here demonstrates that you really have no grasp of basic logic. If you did, you would understand that any interpretation is irrelevant. I said I'd explain this to you in great detail if you'd like. This is just a fundamental piece to all logic, this isn't my opinion on the matter, this is simply logic itself that you're arguing against. As said, I'll gladly walk you through your problem here. This is a pretty major part to logic.

It is simply the case? What on earth? Are you really stating "My interpretation is the only one because I say so, and therefore only I can be correct"? . Sheer arrogance, if so.
I have provided a more probable interpretation, supported it and still you sidestep it.

Well, yeah. It is simply the case. Validity isn't a deal of opinions, Olly. Validity is mechanical and has no multiple interpretations. Again, I'll gladly walk you through this. Not saying you're stupid because you don't know this, just that by what you're saying, you don't seem to understand the idea of logical validity. Would you want to go over it?

Oh look, more ad hominem attacks and attempts at theatre to bolster your postition.
In order: patronising, patronising (but possibly creepy :P), sarcastic and patronising, hypocrisy, fallacy.

There was no hypocrisy, you're just not seeing what I'm saying and thinking that I'm arguing against your intepretations when I'm not. Further, a fallacy requires a relation. There wasn't a relation in what you quoted, so you can't exactly call a fallacy on it, as, it's unable to be applied to a fallacy.

"Eppur si muove"
And yet these schemes still exist. Auto-epistemological logic allows for confidence to be rated, supporting my interpretation of the original comment.

Confidence isn't rated in the same way that you're trying to use it. When we rate confidence in logic, we're not saying, "Is the result believable to me?" We're saying that the truth table of the given proposition provides us with a manner by which to assess likelihood given the possible truth values. The way we rate confidence doesn't support your interpretation of the original comment, because it's not applicable in that manner when we're speaking of logic. Just like if I'm speaking of a tautology in terms of logic, it's not the same as what might intuitively be thought. A tautology in logic is a proposition that, for every column of a truth table where it appears, is a true one. The same for confidence rating. It doesn't get applied the way you're implying it does.

Prior to your last few posts I would have gratefully accepted, but since you became antagonistic and rude (and by all means yes 'lets' calm down) this has gone on 'ad nauseum'.

If you insist.

Exactly. This still proves my own point that the heart and brain stop functioning before (i dont know why I thought upon was right thanks for correcting me there) he dies.

This is practically why I think that the afterlife doesnt exist, and its absolute bull**** that people ever thought that.

But wouldn't it be true that the afterlife is what happens when you're no longer alive?
If so, how would we conclude that, just because we're no longer alive, this would then entail we have no afterlife?

This has nothing to do with the thread but I'm just going to say, I'm absolutely terrified of getting into an argument/debate with either Olly or antisthenes after reading all this!

Eh, don't be. Nothing impressive up above.

[lol1234567890]

Im a believer. Living a happy life being a Christian. I believe in miracles and about afterlife/eternal life.

Like what albert einstein said "There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle."

I believe that science is a miracle. :))

[sven]

I believe that for some it is extremely important to have ~something~ to believe in, a rock they can lean on. I don't think it's particularly important whether or not that rock is really there or if it's a magic trick, an illusion. If people need it, and it does them good, why not let them have it?

[TigerBoy]

"Presumptuous and incorrect. I've only told you you're wrong, not that anything you've read it wrong. You're just continuously misconstruing the logical principles."
Truly pathetic that you'd try to claim some of moral high ground when I have demonstrated where you have been rude, and you still end your reply with:
"Eh, don't be. Nothing impressive up above. "
You continue to be rude and are apparently so arrogant as to think common courtesy doesn't need to apply to you . You raised the point of 'bad form' yourself and yet you continually exhibit it in an attempt to artificially inflate your own ego and argument.

"I don't know, perhaps I give you the benefit of the doubt in hoping you'd pay attention to reason."
How discourteous to suggest I have not been. Equally "reason" would suggest you take note of the numerous times where I have acknowledged the point you keep repeating as 'moot' and actually discuss the point I am trying to make. It seems to me this is the "blind men and the elephant" : Pierce has given us the elephant and you are proposing a valid description of the leg and yet still not seeing the trunk I'm trying to draw your attention to, or indeed the rest of the beast.

"Again, this isn't about accepting any analogies. This is about the logic of the statements not being valid whether analogy or not, understand?"
You really seem incapable of comprehending anything I write without attempting to manufacture some means of scoring points in your game, it seems. I already said as much myself, separating your clear error in comprehension of the topic of colour theory from this very point you are now trying to claim as your own.

"Further, I was not speaking of color theory being wrong at all during this, I was speaking of you being wrong. Don't bring color theory into this as if I have a problem with that. "
Given that you appeared to use it as the basis for rejecting my analogy, why should I not, when you clearly do have a problem with understanding it? You even then tried to claim that the reverse was true, which I take exception to.
If you claim I don't understand something where it is appears to be the case that it is in fact your misunderstanding, I most certainly will call you out on it. You stated:
"Also, you are not using additive mixing, I just did, which you just called as a problem."
And yes it was a problem, which I subsequently pointed out by explaining the correct usage that I was applying to my analogy.
Your response made some generalised statements that did not speak to the differences between additive and subtractive colour theory. It was either a red herring or an attempt to explain your position in terms of the analogy, but frankly I wasn't clear what you were trying to say either way, or more importantly whether you were basing your argument on a mutually agreed understanding of the technicalities of colour theory at that point.
I concluded that your own apparent lack of understanding on this technical point prevented you seeing the point I was trying to illustrate with the analogy, so any attempt which you made to refute it would inevitably be based around your flawed understanding of it. I quite understand if you reject the analogy if a) you understand it correctly AND b) it didn't fit the concept. This just seemed otherwise to be a case of you game-playing by deliberately misconstruing for effect : if that wasn't the case, at least do me the courtesy of taking the point I am making and not looking to argue with one I am not.

"No, not quite here to teach by any means. I notice poor arguments, I point them out. Then I go on my way."
"not quite" eh? More game playing: either you are or you aren't. You claimed to speak clearly and yet here you are being deliberately vague. You also appeared to claim to be here to educate previously.
"I work in university education. Which is why I still am sitting here trying to explain to you basic logic fundamentals that you ignore time and time again."
If this indeed means that your calling to educate keeps you here, please feel free to pursue it in a courteous manner. Where you have, it has been interesting and informative.
I also note you have substituted the word 'teach' for 'educate', but unlike you I shall avoid equivocating about the subtle differences between the two.

I" did indulge it, the problem is not with your interpretation, as I keep telling you, the problem I have is with the reasoning behind it."
No, you have not even addressed it, and continue to side step it. And now you are even trying to distract from this point by equivocating about your reasons for doing so.

"I have yet to even hint at the idea that anything here under discussion cannot be defined. That's how."
You refuse to accept that it is possible to define the premise of my entire argument. If you could clearly explain how it is not possible to do so, I would happily accept this as I have some of your other explanations points, or refute it if I felt it necessary.
The difficulty with this is that you base your rejection simply on the belief that only you are capable of 'correct reasoning' to perceive any and all the concepts behind someone else's writing.

"I'll await your next false accusation of fallacy."
You claim false accusation yet your only response has been to sidestep not show how they are false. While I'm quite prepared to accept that I may misuse terminology which is entirely new to me, until you do so, this feels like yet more 'theatre' as far as I'm concerned. When something smells fishy with the manner in which you are debating, I'm trying to explain this in terms related to those you have used previously. I am doing so to try to avoid your habit of making it into a personal attack or criticism.

"You still don't understand what my point is. Here. Let me explain it to you for only about the 50th time so that you may hold off on strawmanning for at least one moment."
More theatre via hyperbole. You are quite unfair to yourself too - I believe your repetition to be far lower than this, while remaining far more than necessary :P (Damn, now you've got me doing it too).

"The point is not that any interpretation is wrong, or that any interpretation is right. The point is that regardless of the interpretation had, the logical reasoning that gets us to and from that interpretation is flawed."
Which sounds very reasonable except that the entire premise for the discussion arises from an amphibology that you are only interpreting in one way, so YES I feel interpretation very much IS much is the point. And I'll note that the only 'logical reasoning' that apparently is allowed is your own version, or where you apply it to matters already noted as moot.

"See above. Your point is moot as explained just above this quote by having nothing to do with what my argument is with."
No it is not moot on that basis. Your equivocation about a definition (in the specific context as applied to propositions within logic theory) was used to rationalise your misinterpretation of my point. I was speaking in terms of validity of a concept to the debate, not your technical definition. Yet again you appear to be game-playing by using only one interpretation and strawmanning by creating a side issue out of such definitions.

"My argument is not with anyone's interpretation. My argument is with the invalid reasoning I'm seeing."
Your argument seems PRIMARILY to be with interpretation on the basis you don’t want to address the one on which my point is based, and secondarily by equivocating about word usage and the intent behind my words. I would say attacking my reasoning is probably joint third position along with attacking me personally in an attempt to discredit me to enhance the perception of your position.

"I've read everything you've said. There's a poor analogy for you. This right now, me reading everything you said, is equivalent to ignoring anything you've said. That makes sense. "
Sarcasm it is hardly 'good form' now is it? What you are doing NOW is not what you were doing. No conflict at all. I've pointed out that you sidestepped my 'accusations' of fallacy, and now you are even trying to sidestep THAT. If you truly wanted to 'educate' it would be more useful to explain how my "accusations" were false, so that I could learn from my mistakes.

"Incorrect. I was responding to what you said I was saying. While you say I'm quoting out of context, you just did so. Irony."
Oh I see, you believe its not taking it out of context if you only break it up by a few lines with your own response?
With or without the context the fragment of mine which you have used "How else can logical deduction and problems solving be seen in nature in creatures that have no language?" does not state or imply your point that "language is required for logic." If you disagree, you don't appear to have helped your explanation of how this is so by isolating this sentence.

"Your original statement, which was what I responded to."
Your response is too fragmented to make sense to me, and does not appear to have addressed the question posed.

"Logic, as said before, is going to show up. However, in order to use a system of logic (not informal, irrational attempts at logic) you do need a language, as, logic as the actual study is entirely based on propositions, being, proposed cases. Can't propose something without communicating in some way, and any type of communication takes part in language. Wouldn't you say?"
Feels like sophistry to me. You are now introducing "the study of logic" as a separate concept to the "faculty for logic". Clearly a raven does not study logic or speak a language, but it can be shown to demonstrate a faculty for logic by virtue of its capacity for problem solving.
My point being logic is present without requiring language.
If I understand your point correctly it is that and understanding of logic and its expression through language is required for an understanding of 'formal logic'. I argue that it is more accurate to state that "logic and the capacity for expressing logical thought" is required for an understanding of 'formal logic', where 'natural language' is one means of expressing logical thought as you've already pointed out.

"Not quite. You have yet to prove anything at all. You're one to enjoy more along the lines of saying "misinterpretation" then never providing what's misinterpreted, nor how it ought be interpreted as you see it."
I was of the opinion that I'd already done so (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1993894&postcount=64)with regards to the key point.
Your response was to accuse me of 'strawmanning' by virtue that in your view the only appropriate way to interpret this comment was to approach it atomically at which point you found fault with the first sentence. I argued you needed to consider the whole post to get the true sense of this sentence it as intended since it was part of an amphibology. You then proceeded to insist that there was no amphibology and kept repeating the same explanation for your owninterpretation of that amphibology, which I kept pointing out was moot, understood and not relevant to the basis of our enduring disagreement.
If there is something else you were referring to feel free to be specific.

"Not true. I do quote all of what you say and respond to it in pieces. All I do when I go through is take everything you write and put quote tags around it, then respond. So, as above, you're incorrect on this one."
You are being disingenuous. If you are quoting a portion of a concept separated in any manner from the whole implies you are only interested in that portion as it stands alone. You stated this was how you were treating Pierce's original comment, so it has been reasonable to assume this was your intent until now.

"Not quite. Ad hominem is when you, in place of the argument you have against the other, you place attacks. I had placed my argument before I said you didn't have sense, so it does not apply to ad hominem. That attack is not a part of the argument, it's secondary. So, no fallacy there either."
'Not quite' a fallacy, 'not quite' guilty as charged?, 'not quite' the definition you'd prefer to use? :)
Another specific interpretation I see. My understanding of 'ad hominem' (based on various definitions not least the direct translation) is that it is simply any remark that characterises your opponent rather than having a bearing on the argument. It is a game-playing tactic attempting to make your opponent seem weak, and thereby you and your argument seem stronger.
I also fail to see how these personal attacks - which you concede are unrelated to your argument - are not justification for my observation which you called 'presumptuous'.
Whatever the case, introducing 'arguments' with any form of attack is 'bad form' at the very least. Yet more game playing, attempts at theatre and now you appear shameless about it.

"My argument is a able to fit in one sentence."
Which one exactly? You constantly generate new ones by finding interesting and new ways to interpret what I say.

"However, I do respond to you over and over, but these responses are not my argument, and so you are applying the fallacy erroneously still."
I know you insist on painting yourself as the benevolent educator, but in practice this is difficult to accept recently because of the discourtesy. Forgive me if I don't therefore take your word for it right now:)

"Again, I'm not saying any interpretation or definition is wrong. Only the logic of them."
If this was the case I would not be arguing with you. I have already acknowledged instances where you have explained matters of logic quite clearly, demonstrating that I am arguing in good faith. My issue does continue to be with your repeated differences of interpretation.
You also have entirely missed yet another point. This particular one concerned your ability to communicate by finding common ground over those interpretations, as previously highlighted. You would rather assume a word usage than look for others that may explain an interpretation other than the one that suits you, even when a definition of terms is provided.
As a further case in point:
"I don't need to go to possibly false wikipedia articles, Olly. Logic is my profession to begin with. Thanks, though."
Rather than taking the option to find the articles and perhaps find they were indeed false and using this as an opportunity to meaningfully advance the debate by correcting my understanding, you'd prefer to point score. If you genuinely were interested in debating sensibly you'd look for that common ground.
Another example was my use of the term 'recursively' - you again initially assumed that I was using it in a way that specifically applied within the study of logic (as you have done with many subsequent words), whereas it applies perfectly aptly in mathematical and wider senses. I can only assume you got the wider point or conceded the alternative meanings on that occasion.
Still another example was my use of the word "assertion" where you again insisted on a specific technical definition.

"This quote here demonstrates that you really have no grasp of basic logic. If you did, you would understand that any interpretation is irrelevant."
Erroneous and again patronising, and not a little rude as a result.
You can apply all the logic you like to something I do not even have an issue with, and it doesn't help discuss the concept I am concerned with. The fact that believe you can infer that this makes my grasp of logic non-existent illustrates again how poor you are at applying it yourself. Interpretation is clearly relevant when faced with an amphibology in order to extract the alternate meanings. You continue to deny one of those interpretations and apply logic only to the other.

"Well, yeah. It is simply the case. Validity isn't a deal of opinions, Olly."
I know it isn't, which is why I find it extraordinary you want to make it so.

"Validity is mechanical and has no multiple interpretations. "
I'm not interpreting validity, I'm interpreting an amphibology.

"Further, a fallacy requires a relation. There wasn't a relation in what you quoted, so you can't exactly call a fallacy on it, as, it's unable to be applied to a fallacy."
Equivocation: again your position is true only if you apply your ever-so-narrow personal interpretation on t he word 'fallacy'. The term has other meanings in language than the special case of 'logical fallacy' which you want to use, I'll leave you to go educate yourself on your own time if you are actually interested in debating this sensibly.
I also note you don't deny that you were being patronising and sarcastic (and possibly creepy) - perhaps you could try to be more courteous. An apology wouldn't be remiss.

Great, finally something on-topic not prefixed by some attempt at abuse...
"Confidence isn't rated in the same way that you're trying to use it. When we rate confidence in logic, we're not saying, "Is the result believable to me?" We're saying that the truth table of the given proposition provides us with a manner by which to assess likelihood given the possible truth values."
Yes, hence "auto-epistemological" - this is already understood.

"The way we rate confidence doesn't support your interpretation of the original comment, because it's not applicable in that manner when we're speaking of logic. Just like if I'm speaking of a tautology in terms of logic, it's not the same as what might intuitively be thought. A tautology in logic is a proposition that, for every column of a truth table where it appears, is a true one. The same for confidence rating."
So to paraphrase in order to confirm I understand the point you are making in the hope we can avoid more equivocation …
You are saying that it cant apply to logic, that when discussing a construct of logic using logic we can be confused buy the content of the inner logic. Tautologies are always 'true' in whole by definition.
The last sentence is the heart of the issue and seems a non sequitur. It doesn't explain to me how confidence is 'always true' in schemes that specifically allow you to express HOW confident you are about a given proposition.

[Pierce]

"Presumptuous and incorrect. I've only told you you're wrong, not that anything you've read it wrong. You're just continuously misconstruing the logical principles."
Truly pathetic that you'd try to claim some of moral high ground when I have demonstrated where you have been rude, and you still end your reply with:
"Eh, don't be. Nothing impressive up above. "
You continue to be rude and are apparently so arrogant as to think common courtesy doesn't need to apply to you . You raised the point of 'bad form' yourself and yet you continually exhibit it in an attempt to artificially inflate your own ego and argument.

"I don't know, perhaps I give you the benefit of the doubt in hoping you'd pay attention to reason."
How discourteous to suggest I have not been. Equally "reason" would suggest you take note of the numerous times where I have acknowledged the point you keep repeating as 'moot' and actually discuss the point I am trying to make. It seems to me this is the "blind men and the elephant" : Pierce has given us the elephant and you are proposing a valid description of the leg and yet still not seeing the trunk I'm trying to draw your attention to, or indeed the rest of the beast.

"Again, this isn't about accepting any analogies. This is about the logic of the statements not being valid whether analogy or not, understand?"
You really seem incapable of comprehending anything I write without attempting to manufacture some means of scoring points in your game, it seems. I already said as much myself, separating your clear error in comprehension of the topic of colour theory from this very point you are now trying to claim as your own.

"Further, I was not speaking of color theory being wrong at all during this, I was speaking of you being wrong. Don't bring color theory into this as if I have a problem with that. "
Given that you appeared to use it as the basis for rejecting my analogy, why should I not, when you clearly do have a problem with understanding it? You even then tried to claim that the reverse was true, which I take exception to.
If you claim I don't understand something where it is appears to be the case that it is in fact your misunderstanding, I most certainly will call you out on it. You stated:
"Also, you are not using additive mixing, I just did, which you just called as a problem."
And yes it was a problem, which I subsequently pointed out by explaining the correct usage that I was applying to my analogy.
Your response made some generalised statements that did not speak to the differences between additive and subtractive colour theory. It was either a red herring or an attempt to explain your position in terms of the analogy, but frankly I wasn't clear what you were trying to say either way, or more importantly whether you were basing your argument on a mutually agreed understanding of the technicalities of colour theory at that point.
I concluded that your own apparent lack of understanding on this technical point prevented you seeing the point I was trying to illustrate with the analogy, so any attempt which you made to refute it would inevitably be based around your flawed understanding of it. I quite understand if you reject the analogy if a) you understand it correctly AND b) it didn't fit the concept. This just seemed otherwise to be a case of you game-playing by deliberately misconstruing for effect : if that wasn't the case, at least do me the courtesy of taking the point I am making and not looking to argue with one I am not.

"No, not quite here to teach by any means. I notice poor arguments, I point them out. Then I go on my way."
"not quite" eh? More game playing: either you are or you aren't. You claimed to speak clearly and yet here you are being deliberately vague. You also appeared to claim to be here to educate previously.
"I work in university education. Which is why I still am sitting here trying to explain to you basic logic fundamentals that you ignore time and time again."
If this indeed means that your calling to educate keeps you here, please feel free to pursue it in a courteous manner. Where you have, it has been interesting and informative.
I also note you have substituted the word 'teach' for 'educate', but unlike you I shall avoid equivocating about the subtle differences between the two.

I" did indulge it, the problem is not with your interpretation, as I keep telling you, the problem I have is with the reasoning behind it."
No, you have not even addressed it, and continue to side step it. And now you are even trying to distract from this point by equivocating about your reasons for doing so.

"I have yet to even hint at the idea that anything here under discussion cannot be defined. That's how."
You refuse to accept that it is possible to define the premise of my entire argument. If you could clearly explain how it is not possible to do so, I would happily accept this as I have some of your other explanations points, or refute it if I felt it necessary.
The difficulty with this is that you base your rejection simply on the belief that only you are capable of 'correct reasoning' to perceive any and all the concepts behind someone else's writing.

"I'll await your next false accusation of fallacy."
You claim false accusation yet your only response has been to sidestep not show how they are false. While I'm quite prepared to accept that I may misuse terminology which is entirely new to me, until you do so, this feels like yet more 'theatre' as far as I'm concerned. When something smells fishy with the manner in which you are debating, I'm trying to explain this in terms related to those you have used previously. I am doing so to try to avoid your habit of making it into a personal attack or criticism.

"You still don't understand what my point is. Here. Let me explain it to you for only about the 50th time so that you may hold off on strawmanning for at least one moment."
More theatre via hyperbole. You are quite unfair to yourself too - I believe your repetition to be far lower than this, while remaining far more than necessary :P (Damn, now you've got me doing it too).

"The point is not that any interpretation is wrong, or that any interpretation is right. The point is that regardless of the interpretation had, the logical reasoning that gets us to and from that interpretation is flawed."
Which sounds very reasonable except that the entire premise for the discussion arises from an amphibology that you are only interpreting in one way, so YES I feel interpretation very much IS much is the point. And I'll note that the only 'logical reasoning' that apparently is allowed is your own version, or where you apply it to matters already noted as moot.

"See above. Your point is moot as explained just above this quote by having nothing to do with what my argument is with."
No it is not moot on that basis. Your equivocation about a definition (in the specific context as applied to propositions within logic theory) was used to rationalise your misinterpretation of my point. I was speaking in terms of validity of a concept to the debate, not your technical definition. Yet again you appear to be game-playing by using only one interpretation and strawmanning by creating a side issue out of such definitions.

"My argument is not with anyone's interpretation. My argument is with the invalid reasoning I'm seeing."
Your argument seems PRIMARILY to be with interpretation on the basis you don’t want to address the one on which my point is based, and secondarily by equivocating about word usage and the intent behind my words. I would say attacking my reasoning is probably joint third position along with attacking me personally in an attempt to discredit me to enhance the perception of your position.

"I've read everything you've said. There's a poor analogy for you. This right now, me reading everything you said, is equivalent to ignoring anything you've said. That makes sense. "
Sarcasm it is hardly 'good form' now is it? What you are doing NOW is not what you were doing. No conflict at all. I've pointed out that you sidestepped my 'accusations' of fallacy, and now you are even trying to sidestep THAT. If you truly wanted to 'educate' it would be more useful to explain how my "accusations" were false, so that I could learn from my mistakes.

"Incorrect. I was responding to what you said I was saying. While you say I'm quoting out of context, you just did so. Irony."
Oh I see, you believe its not taking it out of context if you only break it up by a few lines with your own response?
With or without the context the fragment of mine which you have used "How else can logical deduction and problems solving be seen in nature in creatures that have no language?" does not state or imply your point that "language is required for logic." If you disagree, you don't appear to have helped your explanation of how this is so by isolating this sentence.

"Your original statement, which was what I responded to."
Your response is too fragmented to make sense to me, and does not appear to have addressed the question posed.

"Logic, as said before, is going to show up. However, in order to use a system of logic (not informal, irrational attempts at logic) you do need a language, as, logic as the actual study is entirely based on propositions, being, proposed cases. Can't propose something without communicating in some way, and any type of communication takes part in language. Wouldn't you say?"
Feels like sophistry to me. You are now introducing "the study of logic" as a separate concept to the "faculty for logic". Clearly a raven does not study logic or speak a language, but it can be shown to demonstrate a faculty for logic by virtue of its capacity for problem solving.
My point being logic is present without requiring language.
If I understand your point correctly it is that and understanding of logic and its expression through language is required for an understanding of 'formal logic'. I argue that it is more accurate to state that "logic and the capacity for expressing logical thought" is required for an understanding of 'formal logic', where 'natural language' is one means of expressing logical thought as you've already pointed out.

"Not quite. You have yet to prove anything at all. You're one to enjoy more along the lines of saying "misinterpretation" then never providing what's misinterpreted, nor how it ought be interpreted as you see it."
I was of the opinion that I'd already done so (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1993894&postcount=64)with regards to the key point.
Your response was to accuse me of 'strawmanning' by virtue that in your view the only appropriate way to interpret this comment was to approach it atomically at which point you found fault with the first sentence. I argued you needed to consider the whole post to get the true sense of this sentence it as intended since it was part of an amphibology. You then proceeded to insist that there was no amphibology and kept repeating the same explanation for your owninterpretation of that amphibology, which I kept pointing out was moot, understood and not relevant to the basis of our enduring disagreement.
If there is something else you were referring to feel free to be specific.

"Not true. I do quote all of what you say and respond to it in pieces. All I do when I go through is take everything you write and put quote tags around it, then respond. So, as above, you're incorrect on this one."
You are being disingenuous. If you are quoting a portion of a concept separated in any manner from the whole implies you are only interested in that portion as it stands alone. You stated this was how you were treating Pierce's original comment, so it has been reasonable to assume this was your intent until now.

"Not quite. Ad hominem is when you, in place of the argument you have against the other, you place attacks. I had placed my argument before I said you didn't have sense, so it does not apply to ad hominem. That attack is not a part of the argument, it's secondary. So, no fallacy there either."
'Not quite' a fallacy, 'not quite' guilty as charged?, 'not quite' the definition you'd prefer to use? :)
Another specific interpretation I see. My understanding of 'ad hominem' (based on various definitions not least the direct translation) is that it is simply any remark that characterises your opponent rather than having a bearing on the argument. It is a game-playing tactic attempting to make your opponent seem weak, and thereby you and your argument seem stronger.
I also fail to see how these personal attacks - which you concede are unrelated to your argument - are not justification for my observation which you called 'presumptuous'.
Whatever the case, introducing 'arguments' with any form of attack is 'bad form' at the very least. Yet more game playing, attempts at theatre and now you appear shameless about it.

"My argument is a able to fit in one sentence."
Which one exactly? You constantly generate new ones by finding interesting and new ways to interpret what I say.

"However, I do respond to you over and over, but these responses are not my argument, and so you are applying the fallacy erroneously still."
I know you insist on painting yourself as the benevolent educator, but in practice this is difficult to accept recently because of the discourtesy. Forgive me if I don't therefore take your word for it right now:)

"Again, I'm not saying any interpretation or definition is wrong. Only the logic of them."
If this was the case I would not be arguing with you. I have already acknowledged instances where you have explained matters of logic quite clearly, demonstrating that I am arguing in good faith. My issue does continue to be with your repeated differences of interpretation.
You also have entirely missed yet another point. This particular one concerned your ability to communicate by finding common ground over those interpretations, as previously highlighted. You would rather assume a word usage than look for others that may explain an interpretation other than the one that suits you, even when a definition of terms is provided.
As a further case in point:
"I don't need to go to possibly false wikipedia articles, Olly. Logic is my profession to begin with. Thanks, though."
Rather than taking the option to find the articles and perhaps find they were indeed false and using this as an opportunity to meaningfully advance the debate by correcting my understanding, you'd prefer to point score. If you genuinely were interested in debating sensibly you'd look for that common ground.
Another example was my use of the term 'recursively' - you again initially assumed that I was using it in a way that specifically applied within the study of logic (as you have done with many subsequent words), whereas it applies perfectly aptly in mathematical and wider senses. I can only assume you got the wider point or conceded the alternative meanings on that occasion.
Still another example was my use of the word "assertion" where you again insisted on a specific technical definition.

"This quote here demonstrates that you really have no grasp of basic logic. If you did, you would understand that any interpretation is irrelevant."
Erroneous and again patronising, and not a little rude as a result.
You can apply all the logic you like to something I do not even have an issue with, and it doesn't help discuss the concept I am concerned with. The fact that believe you can infer that this makes my grasp of logic non-existent illustrates again how poor you are at applying it yourself. Interpretation is clearly relevant when faced with an amphibology in order to extract the alternate meanings. You continue to deny one of those interpretations and apply logic only to the other.

"Well, yeah. It is simply the case. Validity isn't a deal of opinions, Olly."
I know it isn't, which is why I find it extraordinary you want to make it so.

"Validity is mechanical and has no multiple interpretations. "
I'm not interpreting validity, I'm interpreting an amphibology.

"Further, a fallacy requires a relation. There wasn't a relation in what you quoted, so you can't exactly call a fallacy on it, as, it's unable to be applied to a fallacy."
Equivocation: again your position is true only if you apply your ever-so-narrow personal interpretation on t he word 'fallacy'. The term has other meanings in language than the special case of 'logical fallacy' which you want to use, I'll leave you to go educate yourself on your own time if you are actually interested in debating this sensibly.
I also note you don't deny that you were being patronising and sarcastic (and possibly creepy) - perhaps you could try to be more courteous. An apology wouldn't be remiss.

Great, finally something on-topic not prefixed by some attempt at abuse...
"Confidence isn't rated in the same way that you're trying to use it. When we rate confidence in logic, we're not saying, "Is the result believable to me?" We're saying that the truth table of the given proposition provides us with a manner by which to assess likelihood given the possible truth values."
Yes, hence "auto-epistemological" - this is already understood.

"The way we rate confidence doesn't support your interpretation of the original comment, because it's not applicable in that manner when we're speaking of logic. Just like if I'm speaking of a tautology in terms of logic, it's not the same as what might intuitively be thought. A tautology in logic is a proposition that, for every column of a truth table where it appears, is a true one. The same for confidence rating."
So to paraphrase in order to confirm I understand the point you are making in the hope we can avoid more equivocation …
You are saying that it cant apply to logic, that when discussing a construct of logic using logic we can be confused buy the content of the inner logic. Tautologies are always 'true' in whole by definition.
The last sentence is the heart of the issue and seems a non sequitur. It doesn't explain to me how confidence is 'always true' in schemes that specifically allow you to express HOW confident you are about a given proposition.

OMFG .... so many words.... my ADD kicked in 2 lines into this but omg.. dude .... wow... I sound like a complete stoner right now but... that's crazy...

[ImCoolBeans]

Let's make sure we keep this on topic because all you two seem to be doing is criticizing each other. What exactly do rude comments and off topic remarks have to do with this thread? Nothing! So let's calm it down a bit because this thread will be locked if you can't.

[Jupiter]

i'm not sure, but there's always something there. :P so i think so.

[Pierce]

Olly is right, my first sentence was talking about whether we would KNOW. Because different people believe in different types of afterlife so 'yes this is afterlife' for me might be 'nah, not my idea of afterlife' to another person. So yeah its a grey area and depends on who you ask, and you can never know 'yes this is afterlife' without explaining that is for just that person.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

But wouldn't it be true that the afterlife is what happens when you're no longer alive?
If so, how would we conclude that, just because we're no longer alive, this would then entail we have no afterlife?

Yes it actually does. First of all, your mind controls everything classified under the word "soul." But the whole problem with thhe definition is your first point. Thats exactly why I argue with the theory, because of common logic. You arent alive when youre dead. simplest way to answer the inquiry.

[Antisthenes]

"Presumptuous and incorrect. I've only told you you're wrong, not that anything you've read it wrong. You're just continuously misconstruing the logical principles."
Truly pathetic that you'd try to claim some of moral high ground when I have demonstrated where you have been rude, and you still end your reply with:
"Eh, don't be. Nothing impressive up above. "
You continue to be rude and are apparently so arrogant as to think common courtesy doesn't need to apply to you . You raised the point of 'bad form' yourself and yet you continually exhibit it in an attempt to artificially inflate your own ego and argument.

First, nothing I said indicates a moral highground, so it seems you don't understand what morality is. Second, nothing I said to you in that response bolsters my argument, it's in response to what you were saying.

"I don't know, perhaps I give you the benefit of the doubt in hoping you'd pay attention to reason."
How discourteous to suggest I have not been. Equally "reason" would suggest you take note of the numerous times where I have acknowledged the point you keep repeating as 'moot' and actually discuss the point I am trying to make. It seems to me this is the "blind men and the elephant" : Pierce has given us the elephant and you are proposing a valid description of the leg and yet still not seeing the trunk I'm trying to draw your attention to, or indeed the rest of the beast.

Not discourteous, it's a fact. If you had been paying attention, you'd know that you are in contravention to reason right now. I've been displaying logical invalidity in your own arguments as well as Pierce's statements, which is not open to opinion, it's a mechanical process with definite answers, just as evaluating an algebraic expression does not produce opinionated answers. So, since you've been both ignoring as well as outright disagreeing with that, you are in fact, not paying attention to it.

"Again, this isn't about accepting any analogies. This is about the logic of the statements not being valid whether analogy or not, understand?"
You really seem incapable of comprehending anything I write without attempting to manufacture some means of scoring points in your game, it seems. I already said as much myself, separating your clear error in comprehension of the topic of colour theory from this very point you are now trying to claim as your own.

As said before, I didn't go after color theory. Don't know why you think I have. Red herring.

"Further, I was not speaking of color theory being wrong at all during this, I was speaking of you being wrong. Don't bring color theory into this as if I have a problem with that. "
Given that you appeared to use it as the basis for rejecting my analogy, why should I not, when you clearly do have a problem with understanding it? You even then tried to claim that the reverse was true, which I take exception to.
If you claim I don't understand something where it is appears to be the case that it is in fact your misunderstanding, I most certainly will call you out on it. You stated:
"Also, you are not using additive mixing, I just did, which you just called as a problem."
And yes it was a problem, which I subsequently pointed out by explaining the correct usage that I was applying to my analogy.
Your response made some generalised statements that did not speak to the differences between additive and subtractive colour theory. It was either a red herring or an attempt to explain your position in terms of the analogy, but frankly I wasn't clear what you were trying to say either way, or more importantly whether you were basing your argument on a mutually agreed understanding of the technicalities of colour theory at that point.

Nah. As said, only validity.

I concluded that your own apparent lack of understanding on this technical point prevented you seeing the point I was trying to illustrate with the analogy, so any attempt which you made to refute it would inevitably be based around your flawed understanding of it. I quite understand if you reject the analogy if a) you understand it correctly AND b) it didn't fit the concept.

I do understand it correctly and it still doesn't fit the concept.

Additive mixing is when we combine the colors to form a new, such as red mixed to green to give us yellow. Subtractive is to get us a color such as green from yellow and blue. However, in both cases, the analogy fails entirely due to the conjunction not being logically applied in such a manner.

This just seemed otherwise to be a case of you game-playing by deliberately misconstruing for effect : if that wasn't the case, at least do me the courtesy of taking the point I am making and not looking to argue with one I am not.

Well, you misunderstand here that I'm actually arguing with you. I'm just explaining to you how invalid Pierce's statements are, which, might I add, was the point all along, which you also seem to have lost touch with.

"No, not quite here to teach by any means. I notice poor arguments, I point them out. Then I go on my way."
"not quite" eh? More game playing: either you are or you aren't. You claimed to speak clearly and yet here you are being deliberately vague. You also appeared to claim to be here to educate previously.
"I work in university education. Which is why I still am sitting here trying to explain to you basic logic fundamentals that you ignore time and time again."

There is no vagaries in that statement. I told you you are incorrect, "Not quite" and I also told you what I'm actually doing "I notice poor arguments, I point them out. Then I go on my way." That's as simple as it gets. The language is precise. If you can't see what I said, that's a problem in your reading comprehension. Logically speaking, that language could not validly be interpreted in any other way. Fallaciously speaking, you can interpret it vaguely if you like, but do know that this is the case if you do think it's vague in any way.

If this indeed means that your calling to educate keeps you here, please feel free to pursue it in a courteous manner. Where you have, it has been interesting and informative.
I also note you have substituted the word 'teach' for 'educate', but unlike you I shall avoid equivocating about the subtle differences between the two.


Notice how I Said, "Not quite here to teach by any means" No substitution in addressing it. I used educate as a further explanation. When addressing the actual point, there was no equivocation. You misunderstand what equivocation actually is, apparently.

I" did indulge it, the problem is not with your interpretation, as I keep telling you, the problem I have is with the reasoning behind it."
No, you have not even addressed it, and continue to side step it. And now you are even trying to distract from this point by equivocating about your reasons for doing so.


Then you have a serious problem in paying attention. Anyone who looks back at my posts can see that I provide you with my point at least three times per response.

The point is such that, Pierce's original statement:

My answer for an afterlife is not just black and whte or yes and no.

Is incorrect due to an invalid use of conjunction.

That is all. Now I look forward to you saying, that I haven't addressed anything, yet again, after I have just given you this for close to the twentieth time.

"I have yet to even hint at the idea that anything here under discussion cannot be defined. That's how."
You refuse to accept that it is possible to define the premise of my entire argument. If you could clearly explain how it is not possible to do so, I would happily accept this as I have some of your other explanations points, or refute it if I felt it necessary.

I don't refuse anything about your argument's definitions. Haven't done so, nor do I plan to. As, my argument is not with your definitions. You've tried to drag what I'm saying into a problem with you, which it never was. It was a problem with Pierce's statements.

The difficulty with this is that you base your rejection simply on the belief that only you are capable of 'correct reasoning' to perceive any and all the concepts behind someone else's writing.

Still don't understand where you're getting this from. I've only been presenting you with an evaluation of validity, explaining as to the invalidity of Pierce's statements. I have no believe of 'only myself being able to have correct reasoning.'

"I'll await your next false accusation of fallacy."
[COLOR="Silver"]You claim false accusation yet your only response has been to sidestep not show how they are false.

What?

Look at what I said in it's entirety.

How am I not? I have yet to even hint at the idea that anything here under discussion cannot be defined. That's how. I'll await your next false accusation of fallacy.

That's how they are false accusations, because what you say has been done has not in any way. You need a basis for a fallacy in actual logic. That's how fallacies are formed, and the reasoning that the fallacy requires was not there for it to be present. There is no sidestep, this is what would be considered proof by counter example. You say that this fallacy was the case, I explained that this is not, due to the very application of the fallacy not existing in what you said had it. Now, you have a burden to show that it does exist here, which you never did in the first place to establishing that there even was one.

While I'm quite prepared to accept that I may misuse terminology which is entirely new to me, until you do so, this feels like yet more 'theatre' as far as I'm concerned.

Don't confuse a lack of reading with a lack of explanation. All that needed to be done was to say, "No, this is not the case presented." Which was done, because the entire basis of the fallacy was not there in the first place in order for it to exist.

When something smells fishy with the manner in which you are debating, I'm trying to explain this in terms related to those you have used previously. I am doing so to try to avoid your habit of making it into a personal attack or criticism.


There is no personal attack or criticism, as said before, it's been all about Pierce's first statement, which is still incorrect.

"You still don't understand what my point is. Here. Let me explain it to you for only about the 50th time so that you may hold off on strawmanning for at least one moment."
More theatre via hyperbole. You are quite unfair to yourself too - I believe your repetition to be far lower than this, while remaining far more than necessary :P (Damn, now you've got me doing it too).

"The point is not that any interpretation is wrong, or that any interpretation is right. The point is that regardless of the interpretation had, the logical reasoning that gets us to and from that interpretation is flawed."
Which sounds very reasonable except that the entire premise for the discussion arises from an amphibology that you are only interpreting in one way, so YES I feel interpretation very much IS much is the point. And I'll note that the only 'logical reasoning' that apparently is allowed is your own version, or where you apply it to matters already noted as moot.


What? You don't seem to understand what amphibology means. You used the word incorrectly there. That makes absolutely no sense to say. "An amphibology that" Is nonsense. Amphibology is the use of ambiguous grammatical structure in a statement or argument.

This is an example of it:

"No man is stronger than him."

It could mean that there is no man in existence that is stronger than 'him' or it could mean that (no man at all) as in, nothing, is stronger than him, that is to say, 'him' is weaker than (nothing itself).

Further, no. The entire premise of the discussion is that the interpretation is unnecessary, as the logical structure is invalid regardless of interpretation. That's kind of, exactly what it means to have a logical structure at all.

"See above. Your point is moot as explained just above this quote by having nothing to do with what my argument is with."
No it is not moot on that basis. Your equivocation about a definition (in the specific context as applied to propositions within logic theory) was used to rationalise your misinterpretation of my point.

No, as said before. The equivocation is not with definitions. The equivocation is not even existent. The point, as said above, which you just quoted but still don't see, is that the logic is invalid in Pierce's point, which was the very first post I made that started this, but that you've wandered off from for some reason.

I was speaking in terms of validity of a concept to the debate, not your technical definition. Yet again you appear to be game-playing by using only one interpretation and strawmanning by creating a side issue out of such definitions.


Oh, so you're using a made up definition that has no place in reason. Let me know if you'd like to go on to actual reasoning, because what you're speaking of is, at the most, rhetoric, which I care not one bit for. I'm only speaking of logical argument, not rhetorical unsubstantial argument. If you'd like to come back to the arena of reason, feel free to let me know, but to not use actual validity when evaluating arguments is precisely the problem. At least now your stance with the sophists is obvious, and yet again you misuse the term "strawmanning." I'm not arguing with your points, I've been arguing with Pierce's, and you've been trying to say my argument is with you to get away from that, but it will not work. My point to Pierce has been made, and you just keep trying to drag me away from that fallaciously. As said before, I'll gladly guide you through basic logic if you'd like.

"My argument is not with anyone's interpretation. My argument is with the invalid reasoning I'm seeing."
Your argument seems PRIMARILY to be with interpretation on the basis you don’t want to address the one on which my point is based, and secondarily by equivocating about word usage and the intent behind my words. I would say attacking my reasoning is probably joint third position along with attacking me personally in an attempt to discredit me to enhance the perception of your position.


That's hilarious. I gave you exactly what my point is, then you immediately go on to say, "Your argument seems" to be with something that has nothing to do with what I just gave you. Just absolutely glorious to see strawmanning, in the flesh, as obvious as can be. Well done.

Further, as said before, I still have no argument with your points. My argument, as anyone can see by just going back to my very first post that sparked this conversation, is with Pierce's statements.

"I've read everything you've said. There's a poor analogy for you. This right now, me reading everything you said, is equivalent to ignoring anything you've said. That makes sense. "
Sarcasm it is hardly 'good form' now is it? What you are doing NOW is not what you were doing. No conflict at all. I've pointed out that you sidestepped my 'accusations' of fallacy, and now you are even trying to sidestep THAT. If you truly wanted to 'educate' it would be more useful to explain how my "accusations" were false, so that I could learn from my mistakes.

I didn't sidestep them, you just conveniently ignored that:

1. You didn't even provide a basis for why the fallacy even exists.
2. I said that it is not the case in what you have provided.

So, again, I did explain how they were false. The burden was initially on you in the first place, though, because you only stated they were the case without providing a basis for why, which is required.

"Incorrect. I was responding to what you said I was saying. While you say I'm quoting out of context, you just did so. Irony."
Oh I see, you believe its not taking it out of context if you only break it up by a few lines with your own response?
With or without the context the fragment of mine which you have used "How else can logical deduction and problems solving be seen in nature in creatures that have no language?" does not state or imply your point that "language is required for logic." If you disagree, you don't appear to have helped your explanation of how this is so by isolating this sentence.

I don't think you understand the difference between a response and a counter. I was simply explaining what I was saying. I don't see how you think that what I said in explanation was supposed to somehow be implied by something you said.

"Your original statement, which was what I responded to."
Your response is too fragmented to make sense to me, and does not appear to have addressed the question posed.

It did address it, but I'll explain again since you seem to be very keen on looking at what I say, ignoring it entirely, then saying I have not addressed it at all.

Logic is informally with everything that has thoughts. However, to understand formal logic, as also said before, you need a language, as that's what it's based on.

"Logic, as said before, is going to show up. However, in order to use a system of logic (not informal, irrational attempts at logic) you do need a language, as, logic as the actual study is entirely based on propositions, being, proposed cases. Can't propose something without communicating in some way, and any type of communication takes part in language. Wouldn't you say?"
Feels like sophistry to me. You are now introducing "the study of logic" as a separate concept to the "faculty for logic". Clearly a raven does not study logic or speak a language, but it can be shown to demonstrate a faculty for logic by virtue of its capacity for problem solving.

No no no. Logic is the study of reason. Informal logic is logic had when I intuit that a dog is brown, therefore dogs can be brown. Formal logic is still logic, but it's only had when you have a language, because it's absolutely required that a language be had in order to use it, as it's based in the natural language. Don't accuse sophistry where it doesn't exist. You just didn't read the entirety.

My point being logic is present without requiring language.
If I understand your point correctly it is that and understanding of logic and its expression through language is required for an understanding of 'formal logic'. I argue that it is more accurate to state that "logic and the capacity for expressing logical thought" is required for an understanding of 'formal logic', where 'natural language' is one means of expressing logical thought as you've already pointed out.

Not exactly. Natural language is required for an understanding of formal logic. That's the very basis of formal logic. This is simply linguistics and logic fact. They would teach you this in first years of a logic course. It's a fundamental piece.

"Not quite. You have yet to prove anything at all. You're one to enjoy more along the lines of saying "misinterpretation" then never providing what's misinterpreted, nor how it ought be interpreted as you see it."
I was of the opinion that I'd already done so (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1993894&postcount=64)with regards to the key point.
Your response was to accuse me of 'strawmanning' by virtue that in your view the only appropriate way to interpret this comment was to approach it atomically at which point you found fault with the first sentence. I argued you needed to consider the whole post to get the true sense of this sentence it as intended since it was part of an amphibology. You then proceeded to insist that there was no amphibology and kept repeating the same explanation for your[/QUOTE]

Well if that's your point, then we're done here. Amphibology is fallacious. If your entire point is that the point is fallacious, then you are saying I'm correct. Guess that's the end of that. This was a good discourse. I look forward to later discussions.

owninterpretation of that amphibology, which I kept pointing out was moot, understood and not relevant to the basis of our enduring disagreement.

If it's an amphibology, then we're done here, because it's fallacious to begin with.

If it's not an amphibology, as I've asserted, then it's still fallacious because the logic is invalid by improper conjunction, and so we're done here still.

It's either an amphibology or it is not.

Therefore, it's fallacious and we're done here.

The above is a deductively valid, sound argument given what has been provided, and thus, the conclusion is necessarily guaranteed.

"Not true. I do quote all of what you say and respond to it in pieces. All I do when I go through is take everything you write and put quote tags around it, then respond. So, as above, you're incorrect on this one."
[COLOR="Silver"]You are being disingenuous. If you are quoting a portion of a concept separated in any manner from the whole implies you are only interested in that portion as it stands alone. You stated this was how you were treating Pierce's original comment, so it has been reasonable to assume this was your intent until now.

That doesn't imply anything of interest. Nor does it imply anything of intent. That's a misuse of implication right there. Further, I said I quoted everything. You quoted me saying I quoted everything.

"Not quite. Ad hominem is when you, in place of the argument you have against the other, you place attacks. I had placed my argument before I said you didn't have sense, so it does not apply to ad hominem. That attack is not a part of the argument, it's secondary. So, no fallacy there either."
'Not quite' a fallacy, 'not quite' guilty as charged?, 'not quite' the definition you'd prefer to use? :)

Well, not the definition I prefer to use. As said before, this is simply what the fallacy is. You can read any logic textbook and you'll find it. Any other idea of it is just incorrect, because the only time it's fallacious to attack the other is when that's the only point. Fallacies aren't a matter of interpretation. They actually do need to cause logical structural problems, and the only time it occurs is when what I gave above is the case, so if you just want to make up definitions, by all means go ahead, but do know that they won't necessarily be correct.

Another specific interpretation I see. My understanding of 'ad hominem' (based on various definitions not least the direct translation) is that it is simply any remark that characterises your opponent rather than having a bearing on the argument. It is a game-playing tactic attempting to make your opponent seem weak, and thereby you and your argument seem stronger.

Yes. It requires a specific interpretation. Fallacies would not be fallacies if they were not specific. This is why I recommend studying logic, because you're regularly contradicting it while you try to use it. It's self-defeating.

I also fail to see how these personal attacks - which you concede are unrelated to your argument - are not justification for my observation which you called 'presumptuous'.
Whatever the case, introducing 'arguments' with any form of attack is 'bad form' at the very least. Yet more game playing, attempts at theatre and now you appear shameless about it.


Incorrect. As said, the arguments do not contain attacks. The "attacks" as you call them, are unrelated. I was only amusing myself, because this is very boring.

"My argument is a able to fit in one sentence."
Which one exactly? You constantly generate new ones by finding interesting and new ways to interpret what I say.


Well first you're misunderstanding that I'm arguing what you say in the first place. I've only been responding to what you say. My argument, as said in just about every single post I've made, has been with Pierce, and it's been as follows:

Pierce asserts:

My answer for an afterlife is not just black and whte or yes and no.

I say that this is incorrect, due to an invalid use of conjunction here. His answer, as he himself gave us, is right there in front of our eyes, so he's incorrect in saying that "it's not just black and white" as, it most certainly is due to it being right there in front of us:

The bold underlined part above is my entire argument. The rest is my explanation as to why it is my argument.

It is impossble to say that an afterlife exists and it's also not possible to say with the utmost confidence that it doesn't.

It's impossible to say with the utmost confidence, except, numerous people have been doing so throughout the thread and throughout humanity's time on the Earth, so this is also false, thus making the entire post false due to this being a part to what's called a 'conjunction'. Since one piece is false, the conjunction is false. Look at the truth table for a conjunction proposition and you will see this immediately. Invalid reasoning is therefore present, and my point is proven yet again.

We will never truly know. I respect others opinons on this topic seeing that it is very complex but you cannot be certain whether it exists or not.

Also contestable, since who is to say we will never know? We may know tomorrow, we may not. But, this part still not changing the fact that the entire post as a conjunction is false due to this. (Which anyone can read above, has been my point throughout this discussion.) So, unless you can provide to me a proof as to why the conjunction truth table is wrong, and should be true while only one is true, then my point is still present, still valid by over 2,000 years of logical study, and has yet to be even touched by one sentence you've made. So, as we can see, this is just about done, whenever you feel like stopping the errant strawmanning.

"However, I do respond to you over and over, but these responses are not my argument, and so you are applying the fallacy erroneously still."
I know you insist on painting yourself as the benevolent educator, but in practice this is difficult to accept recently because of the discourtesy. Forgive me if I don't therefore take your word for it right now:)


I thought I said above

No, not quite here to teach by any means. I notice poor arguments, I point them out. Then I go on my way.

Oh, I guess I did. I did say this, now didn't I? No benevolent educator implied there.

"Again, I'm not saying any interpretation or definition is wrong. Only the logic of them."
If this was the case I would not be arguing with you.

Well then I suggest stopping the argument right here and now, because this is the case. Look above, I just provided you my entire argument in one sentence.

I have already acknowledged instances where you have explained matters of logic quite clearly, demonstrating that I am arguing in good faith. My issue does continue to be with your repeated differences of interpretation.

Differences of interpretation? Again, I'm not going through intepretations, but through the logic being invalid, as above.

You also have entirely missed yet another point. This particular one concerned your ability to communicate by finding common ground over those interpretations, as previously highlighted. You would rather assume a word usage than look for others that may explain an interpretation other than the one that suits you, even when a definition of terms is provided.
As a further case in point:
"I don't need to go to possibly false wikipedia articles, Olly. Logic is my profession to begin with. Thanks, though."
Rather than taking the option to find the articles and perhaps find they were indeed false and using this as an opportunity to meaningfully advance the debate by correcting my understanding, you'd prefer to point score. If you genuinely were interested in debating sensibly you'd look for that common ground.

I don't think you understand why I said "possibly", I wasn't saying they are false, I'm saying that they are not necessarily true. There is a difference there. Wikipedia is not considered in any session of study or science to be a reputable source for citation. This is why I refuse to use it myself. You could feel free to use it, and I won't hold it against you, but as I said, I won't use a possibly false source.

Another example was my use of the term 'recursively' - you again initially assumed that I was using it in a way that specifically applied within the study of logic (as you have done with many subsequent words), whereas it applies perfectly aptly in mathematical and wider senses.
Uh. The mathematical sense is the logical sense, Olly. Mathematicians are the ones who use the term in logic for the iven meaning and are the ones who built logic in the first place.

I can only assume you got the wider point or conceded the alternative meanings on that occasion.
Still another example was my use of the word "assertion" where you again insisted on a specific technical definition.

If we're not to use decent definitions, we may as well not be speaking at all. So, if you're to insist on the contrary, being, to use ambiguous definitions, I won't hold it against you, but I will also say that I have no need to ambiguous conversations.

"This quote here demonstrates that you really have no grasp of basic logic. If you did, you would understand that any interpretation is irrelevant."
Erroneous and again patronising, and not a little rude as a result.
You can apply all the logic you like to something I do not even have an issue with, and it doesn't help discuss the concept I am concerned with. The fact that believe you can infer that this makes my grasp of logic non-existent illustrates again how poor you are at applying it yourself.

No, it certainly does allow that inference, because it's one of the very first principles of logic. If you don't have that, then you can't have any of the rest because it's an axiom of the rest. It would be akin to saying you have a grasp of mathematics but do not know what a number is.

Interpretation is clearly relevant when faced with an amphibology in order to extract the alternate meanings. You continue to deny one of those interpretations and apply logic only to the other.

No no no. When logic is applied as I have done, it's applied using all intepretations. You understand? This is why we have what's called 'meta-logic' when evaluating inference rules (which is what I have a problem with in Pierce's statements) because the meta-logic fails, this immediately entails that the logic itself fails. You're now disagreeing with every logician who has ever lived by saying what you just have in the above quote.

"Well, yeah. It is simply the case. Validity isn't a deal of opinions, Olly."
I know it isn't, which is why I find it extraordinary you want to make it so.

"Validity is mechanical and has no multiple interpretations. "
I'm not interpreting validity, I'm interpreting an amphibology.


Then you do understand that amphibology is fallacious, correct?

"Further, a fallacy requires a relation. There wasn't a relation in what you quoted, so you can't exactly call a fallacy on it, as, it's unable to be applied to a fallacy."
Equivocation: again your position is true only if you apply your ever-so-narrow personal interpretation on t he word 'fallacy'.
The term has other meanings in language than the special case of 'logical fallacy' which you want to use, I'll leave you to go educate yourself on your own time if you are actually interested in debating this sensibly.

Sophistry, undeniably on your part here. You stated a fallacy. It was incorrect. You can't now decide to change and say 'Ohhhhh I wasn't speaking of fallacies.' Stop trying to weasel out of it. You incorrectly applied a fallacy, deal with it. This sophistry is obvious at this point. It's tedious to continuously have to point this out. I suggest you take to actually understanding what a fallacy and what logic actually entail before trying to debate again.


I also note you don't deny that you were being patronising and sarcastic (and possibly creepy) - perhaps you could try to be more courteous. An apology wouldn't be remiss.

Didn't realize being patronizing or sarcastic was a problem for you.
If I had, then I would have done so sooner. My apologies, Olly. I am sorry if I upset you by what has been said before.

Great, finally something on-topic not prefixed by some attempt at abuse...
"Confidence isn't rated in the same way that you're trying to use it. When we rate confidence in logic, we're not saying, "Is the result believable to me?" We're saying that the truth table of the given proposition provides us with a manner by which to assess likelihood given the possible truth values."
Yes, hence "auto-epistemological" - this is already understood.


Good.

"The way we rate confidence doesn't support your interpretation of the original comment, because it's not applicable in that manner when we're speaking of logic. Just like if I'm speaking of a tautology in terms of logic, it's not the same as what might intuitively be thought. A tautology in logic is a proposition that, for every column of a truth table where it appears, is a true one. The same for confidence rating."
So to paraphrase in order to confirm I understand the point you are making in the hope we can avoid more equivocation …
You are saying that it cant apply to logic, that when discussing a construct of logic using logic we can be confused buy the content of the inner logic. Tautologies are always 'true' in whole by definition.
The last sentence is the heart of the issue and seems a non sequitur. It doesn't explain to me how confidence is 'always true' in schemes that specifically allow you to express HOW confident you are about a given proposition.

It's not how confident we or you or I happen to be exactly. It's how confident the result should be in regards to the truth tables of the statements.

For example of what I mean:

A & B (as a proposition)
True & True - > True
True & False - > False
False & True - > False
False & False - > False

Now, if the proposition A & B is provided to us, the result should be confident that it's going to be false, because 3 out of 4 possible results are false, the least likely outcome is truth. Makes sense now?

Yes it actually does. First of all, your mind controls everything classified under the word "soul." But the whole problem with thhe definition is your first point. Thats exactly why I argue with the theory, because of common logic. You arent alive when youre dead. simplest way to answer the inquiry.

Fair enough, I'd think.

Olly is right, my first sentence was talking about whether we would KNOW. Because different people believe in different types of afterlife so 'yes this is afterlife' for me might be 'nah, not my idea of afterlife' to another person. So yeah its a grey area and depends on who you ask, and you can never know 'yes this is afterlife' without explaining that is for just that person.

Incorrect, Pierce. Now we see that the case is one of the following:

A: Improperly expressed.
B: Outright false.

Since, your first sentence specifically did not mention of knowledge. We wouldn't be able to express it in epistemic (knowledge) logic of any form due to this. I'll even prove this:

My answer for an afterlife is not just black and whte or yes and no. It is impossble to say that an afterlife exists and it's also not possible to say with the utmost confidence that it doesn't. We will never truly know. I respect others opinons on this topic seeing that it is very complex but you cannot be certain whether it exists or not.

First sentence is bold and underlined. Thank you validating this for us, Pierce. Even though you don't seem to understand that your first sentence took no mention of what you think it did. Your later ones did mention knowledge, but nothing about that first sentence says anything of knowledge. Word for word, no mention of knowledge. Just as the following says nothing of a cat:

"I have a dog."

Your first sentence, My answer for an afterlife is not just black and whte or yes and no.

Says nothing of knowledge. Only of your answer and what it is not.

my first sentence was talking about whether we would KNOW.

My answer for an afterlife is not just black and whte or yes and no.

As proven, it does not. It's right there above. Anyone who disagrees, just shift your gaze to the 'up' direction and you can see that. Looks like we're done here.

I may respond again if you take the time, Olly. However, I'm very busy, and I've long since showed my point to be correct, since, by necessity of logic, it's absolutely guaranteed. Feel free to respond, though. I might come back here eventually if time allows. My argument is above, in one sentence, and the only possible refutation that would show my argument invalid and my conclusion false, I even outlined for you, to make it easier. Control "F" search for (without the quotemarks:

"My argument, as said in just about every single post I've made, has been with Pierce, and it's been as follows:"

And you'll see all you need. See you again soon, maybe.

[Mirage]

First, nothing I said indicates a moral highground, so it seems you don't understand what morality is. Second, nothing I said to you in that response bolsters my argument, it's in response to what you were saying.[...]

You need to stop bashing other users. If you do so again there will be negative consequences.

[Apollo.]

First, nothing I said indicates a moral highground, so it seems you don't understand what morality is. Second, nothing I said to you in that response bolsters my argument, it's in response to what you were saying.



Not discourteous, it's a fact. If you had been paying attention, you'd know that you are in contravention to reason right now. I've been displaying logical invalidity in your own arguments as well as Pierce's statements, which is not open to opinion, it's a mechanical process with definite answers, just as evaluating an algebraic expression does not produce opinionated answers. So, since you've been both ignoring as well as outright disagreeing with that, you are in fact, not paying attention to it.



As said before, I didn't go after color theory. Don't know why you think I have. Red herring.



Nah. As said, only validity.



I do understand it correctly and it still doesn't fit the concept.

Additive mixing is when we combine the colors to form a new, such as red mixed to green to give us yellow. Subtractive is to get us a color such as green from yellow and blue. However, in both cases, the analogy fails entirely due to the conjunction not being logically applied in such a manner.



Well, you misunderstand here that I'm actually arguing with you. I'm just explaining to you how invalid Pierce's statements are, which, might I add, was the point all along, which you also seem to have lost touch with.



There is no vagaries in that statement. I told you you are incorrect, "Not quite" and I also told you what I'm actually doing "I notice poor arguments, I point them out. Then I go on my way." That's as simple as it gets. The language is precise. If you can't see what I said, that's a problem in your reading comprehension. Logically speaking, that language could not validly be interpreted in any other way. Fallaciously speaking, you can interpret it vaguely if you like, but do know that this is the case if you do think it's vague in any way.



Notice how I Said, "Not quite here to teach by any means" No substitution in addressing it. I used educate as a further explanation. When addressing the actual point, there was no equivocation. You misunderstand what equivocation actually is, apparently.



Then you have a serious problem in paying attention. Anyone who looks back at my posts can see that I provide you with my point at least three times per response.

The point is such that, Pierce's original statement:



Is incorrect due to an invalid use of conjunction.

That is all. Now I look forward to you saying, that I haven't addressed anything, yet again, after I have just given you this for close to the twentieth time.



I don't refuse anything about your argument's definitions. Haven't done so, nor do I plan to. As, my argument is not with your definitions. You've tried to drag what I'm saying into a problem with you, which it never was. It was a problem with Pierce's statements.



Still don't understand where you're getting this from. I've only been presenting you with an evaluation of validity, explaining as to the invalidity of Pierce's statements. I have no believe of 'only myself being able to have correct reasoning.'



What?

Look at what I said in it's entirety.



That's how they are false accusations, because what you say has been done has not in any way. You need a basis for a fallacy in actual logic. That's how fallacies are formed, and the reasoning that the fallacy requires was not there for it to be present. There is no sidestep, this is what would be considered proof by counter example. You say that this fallacy was the case, I explained that this is not, due to the very application of the fallacy not existing in what you said had it. Now, you have a burden to show that it does exist here, which you never did in the first place to establishing that there even was one.



Don't confuse a lack of reading with a lack of explanation. All that needed to be done was to say, "No, this is not the case presented." Which was done, because the entire basis of the fallacy was not there in the first place in order for it to exist.



There is no personal attack or criticism, as said before, it's been all about Pierce's first statement, which is still incorrect.



What? You don't seem to understand what amphibology means. You used the word incorrectly there. That makes absolutely no sense to say. "An amphibology that" Is nonsense. Amphibology is the use of ambiguous grammatical structure in a statement or argument.

This is an example of it:

"No man is stronger than him."

It could mean that there is no man in existence that is stronger than 'him' or it could mean that (no man at all) as in, nothing, is stronger than him, that is to say, 'him' is weaker than (nothing itself).

Further, no. The entire premise of the discussion is that the interpretation is unnecessary, as the logical structure is invalid regardless of interpretation. That's kind of, exactly what it means to have a logical structure at all.



No, as said before. The equivocation is not with definitions. The equivocation is not even existent. The point, as said above, which you just quoted but still don't see, is that the logic is invalid in Pierce's point, which was the very first post I made that started this, but that you've wandered off from for some reason.



Oh, so you're using a made up definition that has no place in reason. Let me know if you'd like to go on to actual reasoning, because what you're speaking of is, at the most, rhetoric, which I care not one bit for. I'm only speaking of logical argument, not rhetorical unsubstantial argument. If you'd like to come back to the arena of reason, feel free to let me know, but to not use actual validity when evaluating arguments is precisely the problem. At least now your stance with the sophists is obvious, and yet again you misuse the term "strawmanning." I'm not arguing with your points, I've been arguing with Pierce's, and you've been trying to say my argument is with you to get away from that, but it will not work. My point to Pierce has been made, and you just keep trying to drag me away from that fallaciously. As said before, I'll gladly guide you through basic logic if you'd like.



That's hilarious. I gave you exactly what my point is, then you immediately go on to say, "Your argument seems" to be with something that has nothing to do with what I just gave you. Just absolutely glorious to see strawmanning, in the flesh, as obvious as can be. Well done.

Further, as said before, I still have no argument with your points. My argument, as anyone can see by just going back to my very first post that sparked this conversation, is with Pierce's statements.



I didn't sidestep them, you just conveniently ignored that:

1. You didn't even provide a basis for why the fallacy even exists.
2. I said that it is not the case in what you have provided.

So, again, I did explain how they were false. The burden was initially on you in the first place, though, because you only stated they were the case without providing a basis for why, which is required.



I don't think you understand the difference between a response and a counter. I was simply explaining what I was saying. I don't see how you think that what I said in explanation was supposed to somehow be implied by something you said.



It did address it, but I'll explain again since you seem to be very keen on looking at what I say, ignoring it entirely, then saying I have not addressed it at all.

Logic is informally with everything that has thoughts. However, to understand formal logic, as also said before, you need a language, as that's what it's based on.



No no no. Logic is the study of reason. Informal logic is logic had when I intuit that a dog is brown, therefore dogs can be brown. Formal logic is still logic, but it's only had when you have a language, because it's absolutely required that a language be had in order to use it, as it's based in the natural language. Don't accuse sophistry where it doesn't exist. You just didn't read the entirety.



Not exactly. Natural language is required for an understanding of formal logic. That's the very basis of formal logic. This is simply linguistics and logic fact. They would teach you this in first years of a logic course. It's a fundamental piece.

[/COLOR]"Not quite. You have yet to prove anything at all. You're one to enjoy more along the lines of saying "misinterpretation" then never providing what's misinterpreted, nor how it ought be interpreted as you see it."
[COLOR="Silver"]I was of the opinion that I'd already done so (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1993894&postcount=64)with regards to the key point.
Your response was to accuse me of 'strawmanning' by virtue that in your view the only appropriate way to interpret this comment was to approach it atomically at which point you found fault with the first sentence. I argued you needed to consider the whole post to get the true sense of this sentence it as intended since it was part of an amphibology. You then proceeded to insist that there was no amphibology and kept repeating the same explanation for your

Well if that's your point, then we're done here. Amphibology is fallacious. If your entire point is that the point is fallacious, then you are saying I'm correct. Guess that's the end of that. This was a good discourse. I look forward to later discussions.



If it's an amphibology, then we're done here, because it's fallacious to begin with.

If it's not an amphibology, as I've asserted, then it's still fallacious because the logic is invalid by improper conjunction, and so we're done here still.

It's either an amphibology or it is not.

Therefore, it's fallacious and we're done here.

The above is a deductively valid, sound argument given what has been provided, and thus, the conclusion is necessarily guaranteed.



That doesn't imply anything of interest. Nor does it imply anything of intent. That's a misuse of implication right there. Further, I said I quoted everything. You quoted me saying I quoted everything.



Well, not the definition I prefer to use. As said before, this is simply what the fallacy is. You can read any logic textbook and you'll find it. Any other idea of it is just incorrect, because the only time it's fallacious to attack the other is when that's the only point. Fallacies aren't a matter of interpretation. They actually do need to cause logical structural problems, and the only time it occurs is when what I gave above is the case, so if you just want to make up definitions, by all means go ahead, but do know that they won't necessarily be correct.



Yes. It requires a specific interpretation. Fallacies would not be fallacies if they were not specific. This is why I recommend studying logic, because you're regularly contradicting it while you try to use it. It's self-defeating.



Incorrect. As said, the arguments do not contain attacks. The "attacks" as you call them, are unrelated. I was only amusing myself, because this is very boring.



Well first you're misunderstanding that I'm arguing what you say in the first place. I've only been responding to what you say. My argument, as said in just about every single post I've made, has been with Pierce, and it's been as follows:

Pierce asserts:



I say that this is incorrect, due to an invalid use of conjunction here. His answer, as he himself gave us, is right there in front of our eyes, so he's incorrect in saying that "it's not just black and white" as, it most certainly is due to it being right there in front of us:

The bold underlined part above is my entire argument. The rest is my explanation as to why it is my argument.



It's impossible to say with the utmost confidence, except, numerous people have been doing so throughout the thread and throughout humanity's time on the Earth, so this is also false, thus making the entire post false due to this being a part to what's called a 'conjunction'. Since one piece is false, the conjunction is false. Look at the truth table for a conjunction proposition and you will see this immediately. Invalid reasoning is therefore present, and my point is proven yet again.



Also contestable, since who is to say we will never know? We may know tomorrow, we may not. But, this part still not changing the fact that the entire post as a conjunction is false due to this. (Which anyone can read above, has been my point throughout this discussion.) So, unless you can provide to me a proof as to why the conjunction truth table is wrong, and should be true while only one is true, then my point is still present, still valid by over 2,000 years of logical study, and has yet to be even touched by one sentence you've made. So, as we can see, this is just about done, whenever you feel like stopping the errant strawmanning.



I thought I said above



Oh, I guess I did. I did say this, now didn't I? No benevolent educator implied there.



Well then I suggest stopping the argument right here and now, because this is the case. Look above, I just provided you my entire argument in one sentence.



Differences of interpretation? Again, I'm not going through intepretations, but through the logic being invalid, as above.



I don't think you understand why I said "possibly", I wasn't saying they are false, I'm saying that they are not necessarily true. There is a difference there. Wikipedia is not considered in any session of study or science to be a reputable source for citation. This is why I refuse to use it myself. You could feel free to use it, and I won't hold it against you, but as I said, I won't use a possibly false source.


Uh. The mathematical sense is the logical sense, Olly. Mathematicians are the ones who use the term in logic for the iven meaning and are the ones who built logic in the first place.



If we're not to use decent definitions, we may as well not be speaking at all. So, if you're to insist on the contrary, being, to use ambiguous definitions, I won't hold it against you, but I will also say that I have no need to ambiguous conversations.



No, it certainly does allow that inference, because it's one of the very first principles of logic. If you don't have that, then you can't have any of the rest because it's an axiom of the rest. It would be akin to saying you have a grasp of mathematics but do not know what a number is.



No no no. When logic is applied as I have done, it's applied using all intepretations. You understand? This is why we have what's called 'meta-logic' when evaluating inference rules (which is what I have a problem with in Pierce's statements) because the meta-logic fails, this immediately entails that the logic itself fails. You're now disagreeing with every logician who has ever lived by saying what you just have in the above quote.



Then you do understand that amphibology is fallacious, correct?



Sophistry, undeniably on your part here. You stated a fallacy. It was incorrect. You can't now decide to change and say 'Ohhhhh I wasn't speaking of fallacies.' Stop trying to weasel out of it. You incorrectly applied a fallacy, deal with it. This sophistry is obvious at this point. It's tedious to continuously have to point this out. I suggest you take to actually understanding what a fallacy and what logic actually entail before trying to debate again.



Didn't realize being patronizing or sarcastic was a problem for you.
If I had, then I would have done so sooner. My apologies, Olly. I am sorry if I upset you by what has been said before.



Good.



It's not how confident we or you or I happen to be exactly. It's how confident the result should be in regards to the truth tables of the statements.

For example of what I mean:

A & B (as a proposition)
True & True - > True
True & False - > False
False & True - > False
False & False - > False

Now, if the proposition A & B is provided to us, the result should be confident that it's going to be false, because 3 out of 4 possible results are false, the least likely outcome is truth. Makes sense now?



Fair enough, I'd think.



Incorrect, Pierce. Now we see that the case is one of the following:

A: Improperly expressed.
B: Outright false.

Since, your first sentence specifically did not mention of knowledge. We wouldn't be able to express it in epistemic (knowledge) logic of any form due to this. I'll even prove this:



First sentence is bold and underlined. Thank you validating this for us, Pierce. Even though you don't seem to understand that your first sentence took no mention of what you think it did. Your later ones did mention knowledge, but nothing about that first sentence says anything of knowledge. Word for word, no mention of knowledge. Just as the following says nothing of a cat:

"I have a dog."

Your first sentence,

Says nothing of knowledge. Only of your answer and what it is not.





As proven, it does not. It's right there above. Anyone who disagrees, just shift your gaze to the 'up' direction and you can see that. Looks like we're done here.

I may respond again if you take the time, Olly. However, I'm very busy, and I've long since showed my point to be correct, since, by necessity of logic, it's absolutely guaranteed. Feel free to respond, though. I might come back here eventually if time allows. My argument is above, in one sentence, and the only possible refutation that would show my argument invalid and my conclusion false, I even outlined for you, to make it easier. Control "F" search for (without the quotemarks:

"My argument, as said in just about every single post I've made, has been with Pierce, and it's been as follows:"

And you'll see all you need. See you again soon, maybe.[/QUOTE]


You took a while to reply, does that mean you spent all weekend trying to prove people wrong? If so that's rather sad.

[Antisthenes]

You took a while to reply, does that mean you spent all weekend trying to prove people wrong? If so that's rather sad.

I just addressed all of that earlier today, so no. That's an example of poor reasoning right there. Simply because someone doesn't respond for a while does not mean that they took that long in constructing the response.

This conversation will close soon, I'm sure. Still, Olly, I do recommend a reading of a logic textbook and all of what I've said will be made clear to you. I can provide you with open E-texts in the form of PDFs if you want.

[Apollo.]

I only quoted you so you would get a notification. If someone takes that long to reply then I presume it took them that long to put something together. Also I wasn't reasoning I asked you a question.

[Antisthenes]

I only quoted you so you would get a notification. If someone takes that long to reply then I presume it took them that long to put something together. Also I wasn't reasoning I asked you a question.

You were reasoning. You said, and I quote:


You took a while to reply, does that mean you spent all weekend trying to prove people wrong? If so that's rather sad.

This is making a suppositional inference, being a manner of reasoning, meaning you were reasoning. If you hadn't reasoned, the underlined part wouldn't be there.

[TigerBoy]

And now you're arguing with moderators. For your own sake try to step back and look at how you are approaching your interactions.


Well if that's your point, then we're done here. Amphibology is fallacious. If your entire point is that the point is fallacious, then you are saying I'm correct. Guess that's the end of that. This was a good discourse. I look forward to later discussions.
'if that is my point' - I stated as much.

Well if that's your point, then we're done here. Amphibology is fallacious.

Yes … how is it you only now recognise a point I made near the start of this entire discussion?

If your entire point is that the point is fallacious, then you are saying I'm correct. Guess that's the end of that.
Again with the 'creative' interpretations. More "playground logic".
It wasn't my entire point if you recall:
My point is that for any value of D it may be 'true' for some participants, but 'false' for others and an unsatisfactory compromise for still more.
From http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1991687&postcount=41

You then showed the limitation of traditional propositional logic when you failed to express the concept of subjectivity, but I note you did not mention the topic of subjective logic and the implementations that can indeed maintain multiple potentially incompatible beliefs. I prefer to take the clear and perfectly correct intent behind Pierce's statement and spirit in which it was offered, and my conclusion is that subjective logic schemes offer one way of expressing it.

If we're not to use decent definitions, we may as well not be speaking at all.
Abducting a point I made earlier I see. I'm all for "decent" definitions when they are mutually agreed. The difficulty continues to be your equivocation by which you shift the semantics of the intent to suit your game, even when I provide definitions and context. Again, I don't understand your unwillingness to meet on common ground for the purposes of communication.

I do understand it correctly and it still doesn't fit the concept.

Additive mixing is when we combine the colors to form a new, such as red mixed to green to give us yellow. Subtractive is to get us a color such as green from yellow and blue. However, in both cases, the analogy fails entirely due to the conjunction not being logically applied in such a manner.
And you thereby demonstrate that you clearly don't understand colour theory at all, even though I already gave you the broad explanation of the terms in a previous explanation referring to the differences between pigment and light.

You insist that my interpretation of an ambiguous statement is false even though the author himself has now clarified that his intent was in line with my interpretation. You are now trying to tell that person that he is not making the point he believes he is as you have frequently done with me by rationalising it to yourself using an application of logic, whilst missing point entirely.

All the above illustrates that you are quite content to 'interpret' what others - even moderators- say in a narrow manner which - whether by design or accident - generates contentiousness. You have admitted that you are making personal remarks to amuse yourself out of boredom. You don't seem to be at all genuine about being here to debate, I would describe your approach closer to trolling, quite honestly.

[Apollo.]

Well I meant it as a question. Although you would make it sound like I meant it as more than a simple question. You might also want to start saying things people on a teen (13-19 years old and mostly not university educated) help site might understand because as soon as I see you saying I made a 'suppositional inference' I automatically think you are a pompous tw*t.

[Mirage]

This thread has turned into a total bashfest, and to prevent more hurt feelings I am locking this thread.

:locked: