Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/20/04 1:34pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Strongly doesn't equally emotionally" on 03/19/04 12:52pm
>>
>>Then perhaps you can point out to me where it violates
>>the law of noncontradiction?
>
>Sure. Where you said Shandy can finish or not finish
>depending upon the numbering scheme involved.
Hmm, no I don't think I quite said that. I said that if Shandy has been writing from eternity past, he either finishes at some point or he is infinitely far behind. Notice I didn't say and infinitely far behind. I used a disjunction, not a conjunction.
>>The conclusion is that an infinite past cannot/does
>>not exist. Exactly how does this self-contradictory?
>>How does it violate the law of noncontradiction?
>
>Because an argument in which Shandy can finish or can
>not finish (e.g. be infinitely far behind) doesn't
>lend direct support that an infinite past cannot
>exist. It's simply contradictory.
Again, it was a disjunction, not a conjunction, and as such is not contradictory.
>>Yes, but like I said before: the only way the
>>argument can fail is if the premises fail.
>
>No, it can also fail in reality
Well, yes, sort of. But the only way it can fail in reality is if the premises fail. I think I've proven that.
>>I will concede that if you point out what premise this
>>is and if you give me some kind of explanation!
>
>That Shandy had been writing from eternity past.
And what premise is this? The first? The second? Actually, no premise says that Shandy has been writing from eternity past. It says things like "If Shandy..."
I request an actual number to designate the premise.
>>A hypocrite? How so? On what grounds do you think me
>>a hypocrite?
>
>Because you shift your criteria of what's logical
>according to your own biases.
Where have I ever done that? (I request a specific example.)
>A logical argument
>doesn't rest in a vacuum, but sits nested among a
>hierarchy of auxillary assumptions as I'm sure you'll
>remember from a similar situation with Duheim and
>Quine.
The Duhem-Quine problem is about empirical falsification, which doesn't quite apply here. Any "auxillary [sic] assumptions" present are in the premises. Hence, my question of which premise fails and why.
>>I think you
>>need to calm down and be a little more clearheaded
>>before you launch personal attacks against me.
>
>I've yet to launch one
Well, you did just call me a hypocrite, remember?
>and I'm ice cold calm.
Doesn't look like it. If anything you appear hotly frustrated.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 