The Polling Place

[digitalmonkey 929]

A discussion on logic and not one mention of Spock. I'm tweeting Leonard Nimoy right now! LLAP

[SilentSnow 1]

1.No, there are not two "types" of logic. There is logic, and there is the way it is skirted in normal conversation. Since you are claiming to be free of logical fallacy, you are being held to the standard of logic. 2.Let's look at your argument with a different P2 to make it clear:

(P1)If someone is insane, it should be extremely easy to point out a logical or factual error they are making. (P2b) Many people have pointed out my logical and factual errors. So, either-(C1)I am insane, but you are extremely lazy. (C2)I am not insane, and you are extremely lazy and also irrational.

Clearly, this argument make no sense with P2b. The conclusions only follow if we assert P2a. P1 sets up the conditional, and P2 furthers the argument by telling us which state of P1 we are in. P1 says "If A, then B". P2a says "not B, therefore not A". If you take P2a out like you have in your most recent post, "not B" is still implied in the argument. You're trying to wriggle out of a bad argument. However, when one has made a bad argument, the best course of action is just to abandon it and admit that it was flawed.

1.Holding me to a standard higher than 99% of the population significantly weakens your overall argument. To raise the bar that high you are tacitly admitting that I can't possibly be insane. It's possible that I have made some small errors sometimes- although you guys have done an extraordinarily poor job of pointing them out. Besides, a small error wouldn't remotely show that I am crazy.2.Your criticisms of my argument structure seem to be incorrect, but just for fun I looked at it again to see precisely what I was saying. I was using a valid argument form, but my conclusions were slightly misstated. None of the statements would lead to the conclusion that I am insane and it's likely that you are lazy in both cases but not proven by the stated argument. We can't prove you are lazy with the evidence since there's a remote possibility that you searched through my posts and couldn't find any obvious errors. Your reasons for claiming I was wrong seem to be completely misguided since you never mentioned the "lazy" or "insane vs might be insane" error. The modified conclusions that follow from the valid argument were fairly close to my original conclusions. Original-(P1)If someone is insane, it should be extremely easy to point out a logical or factual error they are making.(P2)No one has done this.So, either-(C1)I am insane, but you are extremely lazy.(C2)I am not insane, and you are extremely lazy and also irrationalClarified but with the same meaning-P1-If insane then errors and (If no errors then lazy or not insane.)P2-No one has found any factual errors. P3(unstated)-If I am not insane then you are not rational since you are making a claim contrary to fact.Errors= AInsane= BLazy = CIf B then Anot Atherefore not B(valid contrapositive proof)If not A then C or not Bnot Atherefore C or not B(valid direct proof)Modified Conclusion-I might be insane, but you are lazy. Or I'm not insane and you are irrational and probably lazy.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

Hey Snow, people like to argue with you a lot, huh?

[hblask 1]

Hey Snow, people like to argue with you a lot, huh?

[ShakeZuma 585]

I'm starting to think that silentsnow is balloonguy's nephew that goes to berkley or something

[timwakefield 68]

Finally a new poll! Maybe I should start a similar thread in the entertainment forum, because everybody loves these polls. There's nothing gay about my love of your polls. Because I said it with a plural.Edit: Holy shit I didn't realize that you tracked every poll in the OP. If I do start a thread, I now realize the standards that are expected.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

My royalty rate is 12.5%.But knowing you, you're just going to steal it anyway.

[timwakefield 68]

My royalty rate is 12.5%.But knowing you, you're just going to steal it anyway.

I added an edit, in the least surprising turn of events ever.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

I added an edit, in the least surprising turn of events ever.

You marked it with an "edit" though. That's new.

[timwakefield 68]

You marked it with an "edit" though. That's new.

I've been doing it frequently (sometimes) since you complained about it. Ahh we're like an old married couple! [it's funnier if you know that my tone of voice here is "false-sincerity." EDIT: It's less funny now that I've explained it.]

[vbnautilus 48]

1.Holding me to a standard higher than 99% of the population significantly weakens your overall argument. To raise the bar that high you are tacitly admitting that I can't possibly be insane. It's possible that I have made some small errors sometimes- although you guys have done an extraordinarily poor job of pointing them out. Besides, a small error wouldn't remotely show that I am crazy.

I have no opinion as to whether you are sane and have not made any claims regarding that*. My only comments have been in regards to the quality of the argument you presented in post #458, in which you ironically claimed that you have been logically error-free while at the same time committing a logical fallacy. There is no different standard for you: anyone who claims to be logically error-free must expect their arguments to be evaluated according to the rules of logic. It is most peculiar that you profess to be a master of logic but complain that being held to the standard of logic is "raising the bar that high".

2.Your criticisms of my argument structure seem to be incorrect, but just for fun I looked at it again to see precisely what I was saying. I was using a valid argument form, but my conclusions were slightly misstated. None of the statements would lead to the conclusion that I am insane and it's likely that you are lazy in both cases but not proven by the stated argument.

Again, I don't care about the truth of your conclusion. I am only making a point about the error present in your argument. Of course you could change the argument to remove the error! By doing so you implicitly admit that there was an error in your argument. (And therefore, your error-free premise no longer holds). Making matters worse, by simply moving the false dilemma into the premise itself you have replaced one logical fallacy with another: you are now begging the question.. * I don't think "sanity" usefully distinguishes any kind of mental state from another, so discussions about what it means usually boil down to trying to figure out what people intend when they use it.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

It is most peculiar that you profess to be a master of logic but complain that being held to the standard of logic is "raising the bar that high".

It is handy that it allows him to state it as proof that he must be sane.

[timwakefield 68]

Can somebody tell me who the girl is in SS's avatar, or why I recognize her other than from SS's avatar? It's been very slightly nagging at me literally for years, and now seems a good time to finally ask about it.

[ShakeZuma 585]

she's some chick from a commercial of some sort (apple maybe?) and I used to think she was super cute in a weird way until silent snow started posting on a regular basis. now I hate her and want her to die.

[digitalmonkey 929]

she's some chick from a commercial of some sort (apple maybe?) and I used to think she was super cute in a weird way until silent snow started posting on a regular basis. now I hate her and want her to die.

[brvheart 1,752]

she's some chick from a commercial of some sort (apple maybe?) and I used to think she was super cute in a weird way until silent snow started posting on a regular basis. now I hate her and want her to die.

haha

[vbnautilus 48]

Can somebody tell me who the girl is in SS's avatar, or why I recognize her other than from SS's avatar? It's been very slightly nagging at me literally for years, and now seems a good time to finally ask about it.

Ellen Feiss

[ShakeZuma 585]

oh snap she was 14? love her again.

[timwakefield 68]

[vbnautilus 48]

Say you're wrong. Just say you're wrong. Say you're wrong.

Still waiting.

[brvheart 1,752]

Oh shit. Did SilentSnow really give up!? He never gives up. He always has the last word. Amazing. SilentSnow lost a fight. Nice going VB.

[SilentSnow 1]

There is no different standard for you: anyone who claims to be logically error-free must expect their arguments to be evaluated according to the rules of logic. Again, I don't care about the truth of your conclusion. I am only making a point about the error present in your argument. Of course you could change the argument to remove the error! By doing so you implicitly admit that there was an error in your argument. (And therefore, your error-free premise no longer holds). Making matters worse, by simply moving the false dilemma into the premise itself you have replaced one logical fallacy with another: you are now begging the question..

I didn't know you actually wanted a response. I guess I'll just repeat what I said in the last post. I've never claimed that I've never made any logical errors. I challenged people to find any significant logical or factual error in one of my posts and still no one has done this. I've correctly stated that I am much more logical than average. I did not change the argument. The initial premises are the same and so is the argument structure. I just clarified them to make it more clear to you what I was saying since you still don't seem to understand what my premises were. The main conclusions to my always valid argument are the same. The only error was a minor one about the possibility vs certainty of you being lazy. Your objections were incorrect and had nothing to do with that small error. If you're willing to waste some time why don't you review some of my posts in the political forum?No one else seems to be willing to substantially criticize them. They either name-call, make invalid criticisms or ignore them.

[vbnautilus 48]

I've never claimed that I've never made any logical errors. I challenged people to find any significant logical or factual error in one of my posts and still no one has done this.

Someone has. I pointed out that your original argument had a false dilemma. To solve this, you changed the argument to feature the dilemma in the premise rather than in the conclusions, and now you are insisting that you did not change the argument. You are spinning your wheels here and are missing a great opportunity to admit that you are wrong.

I did not change the argument. The initial premises are the same and so is the argument structure.

You clearly changed the argument. Your original premise was:P1: If someone is insane, it should be extremely easy to point out a logical or factual error they are making.You modified it in post #477 to:P1m: If insane then errors and (If no errors then lazy or not insane.)You moved one of your conclusions into your premise! The thing to be proven (either C1 or C2 is true) is now stated in the premise! "If no errors then lazy or not insane" is the original false dilemma that I originally pointed out. It is still a false dilemma, but apparently you think by moving it into the premise we must assume by fiat that it is true. This is begging the question (logical fallacy #2). How can you possibly assert that the premises of these two arguments are the same? You cannot add a new conditional to P1 and claim that it is the same.

If you're willing to waste some time why don't you review some of my posts in the political forum?

If you force me to be on the same side as balloon guy you know you are doing something wrong.

[SilentSnow 1]

I pointed out that your original argument had a false dilemma. To solve this, you changed the argument to feature the dilemma in the premise rather than in the conclusions, and now you are insisting that you did not change the argument. You are spinning your wheels here and are missing a great opportunity to admit that you are wrong. You clearly changed the argument. Your original premise was:P1: If someone is insane, it should be extremely easy to point out a logical or factual error they are making.You modified it in post #477 to:P1m: If insane then errors and (If no errors then lazy or not insane.)You moved one of your conclusions into your premise! The thing to be proven (either C1 or C2 is true) is now stated in the premise! "If no errors then lazy or not insane" is the original false dilemma that I originally pointed out. It is still a false dilemma, but apparently you think by moving it into the premise we must assume by fiat that it is true. This is begging the question (logical fallacy #2). How can you possibly assert that the premises of these two arguments are the same? You cannot add a new conditional to P1 and claim that it is the same.

At this point we have reached a semantic difference. I contend that P1 can mean(and usually does mean) the same in the English language as Q1. Q1 is what I was intending to say all along, and why I kept saying that you weren't understanding what I was saying or what the argument was. This would mean I didn't change the argument and was essentially correct except for one minor detail. Also, I already explained why I don't think "If no errors then lazy or not insane" is a false dilemma and you didn't give me any convincing countervailing argument. P1- If someone is insane, it should be extremely easy to point out a logical or factual error they are making. either-Q1-If insane then errors and (If no errors then lazy or not insane.)If you want to offer definitive proof that it can't mean that, then feel free. I'm not sure how you could though. Maybe another poll? I'm done with this topic, but I am willing to defend any statement I've made- and you certainly have a lot to choose from since a lot of people seem to disagree with me(although usually for unstated reasons).

[vbnautilus 48]

At this point we have reached a semantic difference. I contend that P1 can mean(and usually does mean) the same in the English language as Q1. Q1 is what I was intending to say all along, and why I kept saying that you weren't understanding what I was saying or what the argument was. This would mean I didn't change the argument and was essentially correct except for one minor detail.

Is the new addition to P1 not equivalent to the conclusions of your original argument? It's a simple question.