| Subject: I guess you even know what I'm thinking |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/20/04 6:54pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "But strongly emotional does." on 03/20/04 1:34pm
>
>Hmm, no I don't think I quite said that. I said that
>if Shandy has been writing from eternity past, he
>either finishes at some point or he is infinitely far
>behind. Notice I didn't say and infinitely far
>behind. I used a disjunction, not a conjunction.
I'm aware you didn't quite say that. I said it was implied. That's what this discussion is about; implications.
>
>
>Again, it was a disjunction, not a conjunction, and as
>such is not contradictory.
Well then, there is no paradox. Game over.
>
>Well, yes, sort of. But the only way it can
>fail in reality is if the premises fail. I think I've
>proven that.
Not quite. Confer Zeno's paradox.
>
>And what premise is this? The first? The second?
>Actually, no premise says that Shandy has been writing
>from eternity past. It says things like "If
>Shandy..."
Now you are hiding behind your newly rephrased argument, but of course, it doesn't really matter, because if "if" is violated, the whole thing is utter rubbish.
>
>I request an actual number to designate the
>premise.
I know what you request, but I'm not playing the "here's a number with obvious implications that Wade now gets to explain away by picking and mixing his assumptions" game.
What you want is a technical argument delineating what premises are in error, so that you can then insist on how right they are given a modification of the assumptions. I'm not willing to participate in such an idiotic game.
>
>Where have I ever done that? (I request a specific
>example.)
Again, I'm not playing the "dig through old posts and finding specific examples" game so that you can explain away the evidence by means of relying on assumptions you happen to like better. (e.g. I didn't mean that! I meant this instead! No, I'm just saying what SOME people think) That's simply slimey creationist tactics. (and I'm beginning to suspect you belong more squarely in that camp)
>
>The Duhem-Quine problem is about empirical
>falsification, which doesn't quite apply here.
Reality deals with empirical entities. This argument I would assume falls within the purview of reality. Hence, it very much applies here, along with another level of application being that the empirical problems Duheim and Quine point out are applicable to any logical explanation as all statements that look deductive are made in a hierarchy of other assumptions.
>Well, you did just call me a hypocrite,
>remember?
I never called you one. I said if you didn't do x, then I'd regard you as one. You need to calm down and stop being so sensitive, Wade.
>
>Doesn't look like it. If anything you appear hotly
>frustrated.
Well, I guess appearances are deceiving then, aren't they Wade?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 