AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-10-09, 01:20   Link #241
Cinocard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Well, now, Ascaloth, since many have suggested us to lay its off, it's about time I quit playing around and finish things up

Let us do some practice on a formal logical debate Each time I will lay out concrete logical statements for you to agree or not agree. Be patient, as at times you may see my questions as meaningless, and we may need to do a lot of questions, but it will resolve things for definite. If you agree, you need not say further than "I agree," and await for my next questions. However, if you do not agree, I request you to put on also a counterargument, that can be easily broken down into simple logical formula. Be careful in your answers, as revisions will just get us into circular arguments, again, hence not allowed.

Here goes:

Spoiler for Question 1:


Spoiler for Question 2:

Anything else I put under the spoiler tag below is my own little entertainment. And I suggest you, if wanting to reply to them, put the response under the same tag also, to not bother other members further


Spoiler for Pff. Long, beware!:
Cinocard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-09, 03:57   Link #242
Ascaloth
I don't give a damn, dude
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinocard View Post
Well, now, Ascaloth, since many have suggested us to lay its off, it's about time I quit playing around and finish things up

Let us do some practice on a formal logical debate Each time I will lay out concrete logical statements for you to agree or not agree. Be patient, as at times you may see my questions as meaningless, and we may need to do a lot of questions, but it will resolve things for definite. If you agree, you need not say further than "I agree," and await for my next questions. However, if you do not agree, I request you to put on also a counterargument, that can be easily broken down into simple logical formula. Be careful in your answers, as revisions will just get us into circular arguments, again, hence not allowed.

Here goes:

Spoiler for Question 1:


Spoiler for Question 2:
Plurium interrogationum. Sorry, I have no intention of playing your little game, since you are just trying to mislead me into admitting whatever you're trying to make me admit. Spare us your sophistry, and just lay out your proofs simply and directly, thanks.

Quote:
I intended to show it, but you yourself told me not to, because it would categorically fail
Sure, I did. How nice of you to be such a good boy and listen to everything I say, so that I can keep attacking you as long as you didn't lay out your proofs. How does it feel to be responsible for having wasted everyone's time?

Quote:
There are two way to refute an accusation: to prove that the accuser's argument is incorrect (which makes the accusation becomes NOT TRUE); and to prove the opposite claim of the argument is correct (which makes the accusation WRONG for definite).

I never refused to use method 2. I even said I could, if you wanted. I just did not use it because:
You made a claim that I "have been screaming that philosophy was stupid". You did not offer any proof of that claim in the same post, merely a promise of that proof. As long as you didn't come up with that proof, I'm fully justified in claiming that you made a Straw Man of my arguments. And since I'm pretty damned sure you couldn't come up with that proof, I suggested that you desisted since I cannot see how you can possibly come up with any proofs to that effect. Again, so nice of you to be such a good boy as to follow my suggestion....too bad you proceeded to waste everyone's time with bare assertions instead.

Quote:
Pff...

What about method 1? What is your argument to prove that I made a straw man? IT was "categorically so." Which is a form of this argument:

Spoiler for Log:
Like I demonstrated earlier, you made a claim. You didn't offer any proofs, merely the promise of it, which counts for nothing. Therefore, since you have not provided any proof up to this point, I am perfectly justified to call you out on a Straw Man. Quod erat demonstradum, I have proved that my accusation of your claim as a Straw Man is valid, and not a bare assertions"]bare assertion fallacy[/URL]. Try again.

Quote:
If you don't understand it fully, don't just pick a link and quote it wrongly...

If my claim is yet to be proven to be right, it is not right. But it is yet to be wrong. If it's not wrong, it's not a straw man.

You accused me of straw man. So you have to prove that it's wrong for definite. If you say that it's because I have yet to prove it's right, it's just argument of ignorance. Burden of Proof is built upon a priori presumption. There is no presumption in our discussion (except the presumption that Ascaloth is always correct
Congratulations, you managed to call me out on a logical fallacy correctly! Nicely done on the first correct thing you've managed to did all this while.

Except for one thing; you claim that there was no presumption in our discussion? Not exactly, there was one; it's your claim that I was "screaming that philosophy was stupid". Therefore, it seems that the onus probandi does rest on you after all. And since you have yet to present any proofs, you are simply claiming that you're right about your interpretation, which is simply proof by assertion. And since you keep giving excuses for not showing these "proofs", I am forced to conclude by argumentum ex silentio that you never had any good "proofs" to begin with. Of course, that last one remains legitimate until you finally show your proofs, at which point it becomes illegitimate. Therefore, if you want to prove that your claim is correct, stop wasting time engaging in sophistry and show it.

Quote:
This line of reason is very laughable, rofl. And you keep repeating it so fluently.

"Because you made a claim (which was a question in fact), you have a burden of proof. But the claim is categorically wrong (because I never meant what you claim), you don't need to show your proof. Therefore, you are categorically a straw man."

Tell me that's not your argument
Like I said, that was a suggestion, although fair enough, I do admit how it could look like an argument. Mea culpa. Then again, why were you such a good boy that you'll listen to what I say and get yourself sidetracked instead of proceeding to prove your case? Stop wasting our time already and get to it.

Quote:
Wow, You must have been so stupid if you could ever be tricked into admitting something like that unwittingly. But you are not. So why do you think I bother?

They were just several examples of reason why my claim about your posts is not categorically wrong. It was a deduction of logical consequences (which can be wrong). But that's not attacking personally. That's attacking your arguments, which if success may result (yeah, may, I always use "may" or "perhaps" in my arguments before something can be proven for definite) in your persona's harm.

However, many of my sentences can be deemed as having underlying meaning and attempting to provoke. But hey, I have yet to make any explicit statement about your personality (yeah, tried really hard not to). So, if we were at a court right now, you would be the one who would get into more trouble than me.

Because, this is what we call explicitly attacking personally:

Spoiler for Log:

Well, no one can blame you even if you lose your temper. Still, you have little right yourself in complaining that I'm attacking you personally.
You know, attempting an argumentum ad hominem tu quoque against me doesn't serve to disprove the fact that you were casting aspersions on my character in the first place.

Quote:
Well, you can reread the topic
Oho. Now, we finally come to the crux of the matter. Is this your proof of your claim about my statements? Fair enough, now let me show you where you went wrong.

For the first quote.

Basically, your entire premise was based on a Fallacy of Quoting Out of Context. I will have you note that, at the time when I made that first statement, I was responding to a claim that religion could be part of science. Therefore, what I was saying that religion is not a part of science. There was absolutely no mention of philosophy in it. Therefore, I could not possibly have claimed that philosophy could not be a part of science, since I was never referring to it in the first place.

As for the second quote?

Nicely done, you successfully managed to lead me astray with a Red Herring when you brought up philosophy out of nowhere in the first place. 10/10, well played. Have a beer on my tab.

Nevertheless, you have since demonstrated that philosophy does have a certain extent of grounding in science, and I have since concurred. Plus, it has nothing to do with the fact that I never claimed that "philosophy was stupid" in the first place, and only made the mistake of making the latter statement after you laid a well-played Red Herring at me.

So, I suppose that I have now proved that I have never made the claim you said I made? Of course, I am presuming that you are making your claim based on that statement of mine that you quoted? If not, show me which other statement where I made that claim.
Ascaloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-09, 14:25   Link #243
Cinocard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Spoiler for Tch..:

Last edited by Cinocard; 2009-10-09 at 14:37.
Cinocard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-10, 00:18   Link #244
Ascaloth
I don't give a damn, dude
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinocard View Post
I don't know why you refuse to put it in a spoiler tag to save space either.
Oh c'mon, how much bandwidth can it save?

Quote:
Good lord, so it's my fault to have a little bit of respect and consideration for my opponent's argument? Want me to say "lol, stfu, as if I can fail categorically, I will go ahead and prove my things, and you can keep staying there and blabber your nonsense things?"
Strangely enough....yeah, I would prefer that. I appreciate conciseness and directness over argumentum verbosium; goodness knows I've had enough of that from certain people. Makes things simpler.

Quote:
As I said, I wasn't arguing about that. I was arguing about I was CATEGORICALLY a straw man or not. If you need to prove it, successfully or not, it becomes not "categorically." And if it's not categorically, my purpose is satisfied...
Since I have proved that I never made the claim that you said I made, doesn't that make your arguing otherwise a Straw Man by definition until you can prove otherwise?

Quote:
Ain't that and
Spoiler for Log:

just one and the same?
Perhaps so. But now that I have proved that I never made the claim you said I made, doesn't that now mean my claim against you of a Straw Man is now valid?

I will admit, I also didn't pull out any proofs on my side and simply tried to dismiss you outright, because I didn't want to get into yet another drawn-out argument coming out of another one with Cipher. It get tiring after a while.

Quote:
Cmon, you sure can differentiate between a claim and a presumption. A presumption is categorically right, needs no further proof or revision, until something contradict it is proven to be right also.

If you say my claim is a presumption, doesn't that make my claim right and need no proof...

It works the other way around. If I have a burden of proof, the presumption is that you are correct about what you said about your prior posts.

In court, defendants claim: I'm innocence. Prosecutors claim: he's guilty. The presumption is that the defendants always are automatically innocent until proven to be guilty. And there are countries that it works other way around (presumption of guilty).

The nature of the presumption in Law is just that: you can charge somebody of a crime only if he's proven to be guilty (presumption of innocence) OR if he's proven to be guilty or not known to be guilty or innocent (presumption of guilty).

It's a serious misconception of a very frequent logical fallacy. The more common form of the fallacy is to create an illusive onus probandi to an opponent, rather than to wrongly distinguish who has the onus probandi. Because, in most of the case outside the court, our argument do not rest on a definite presumption or belief or axiom. I earnestly suggest you to consult someone around you that can help you with this problem.

Or, if you want to have a quick read about it, read it in this link, not the link about burden of proof laws
Sigh.....aye, you got me there. Fair enough.

So I have proved my case now. Let's hear your counterarguments so we can end this.

Quote:
Urgh, I don't know if the way you really, really hung up on it can be considered a suggestion.
Like I said, because I was tired as hell and didn't want to get into another argument coming right out of one. I know, it's no excuse.

Quote:
Oh, the argument wasn't about I didn't fall. It was about you fell harder than me
Technically, incorrect. What I was using against you was emotive language, which did not attack your character specifically. That is distinct from argumentum ad hominem circumstantial, where you were casting aspersions on my character by theorizing several different, but equally negative, motivations on my part for my actions.

Therefore, I was never guilty of the same thing as you. Thus, your tu quoque is not only fallacious, but entirely invalid.

Quote:
Basically, you said God is something primitive. I said the wise (philosophers, including physicist and the like) have been philosophizing about religion and trying to find a satisfying logical answer. Which means religion very closely relates to philosophy, or at least, to philosophers.
Wait a minute....how the hell was I supposed to connect "wisest brains in the world" (which is what you said) with "philosophers"? For all I knew, you were talking about "religious wise men", which would have made my claim of argumentum ad verecundiam valid, since authority in religious matters has no relevance on whether religion can be a part of modern science. And from the context of this thread itself, it would have been reasonable for me to assume that you were talking about "religious wise men". Your interjection of "philosophy" into this thread was OOT and out of nowhere in the first place, and the fact that you framed it initially in such vague terms didn't help.

So, we wasted more than an entire week just because you thought I was referring to philosophers....?


So. Many. Uses.

Quote:
But you bashed a question (which you keep saying "claim," "claim...") as a straw man...
If you would use emotive language against me from the start, how was I supposed to interpret it as an innocent "question"?
Ascaloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-10, 01:19   Link #245
Cinocard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Since I have proved that I never made the claim that you said I made,
Man, I really must let you know that you yourself said that you don't need to prove it. In one of your post you even said something along the line of "you never tried to prove it." You said I was categorically wrong. Then you asked me why haven't proven it. Then I said you need to prove it, and tried to prove it, then you refuted it by saying you didn't really try that at all, because you need not. Then now you admit that you did prove it again.



Though it's not relevant to what I wanted to argue at all. I don't care, really. Because as I said, if you admit have to prove it, my straw man (if it exists) is not categorically fail. Which is the one only I have persistently fought for.

Quote:
But now that I have proved that I never made the claim you said I made, doesn't that now mean my claim against you of a Straw Man is now valid?
Again, I doesn't care if I made a straw man or not. If you understand why I made that question for you now, you can see that I don't care at all.

I, myself, said way back in page 10 or 11 that I would never attempt to prove that you truly made that claim at all (I myself doubted it after all). So I had already accepted the fact that you may call me fallacious after I made that claim (because further argument would be at my disadvantage, and I wanted you to say "no" to serve my other point which concerns religion, as I had already said). Suddenly, you were the one who gave me a chance to fight back with the claim I could be wrong CATEGORICALLY. Without that word, I would never have any chance to fight back, and we would never have this stupid discussion.

Quote:
Since I have proved that I never made the claim that you said I made, doesn't that make your arguing otherwise a Straw Man by definition until you can prove otherwise?
See, again, I never persisted on the argument to prove that I'm not a straw man. It was about the fallacy of "categorically wrong."

I really should have requested you to read the posts I wrote for Anh Minh.

Quote:
Thus, your tu quoque is not only fallacious, but entirely invalid.
Nope, a very basic mistake.

Tu quoque can only happen when I attempt to refuse something, is it not? I didn't try to refute your claim that "I fail" by that mean at all. I made a totally separate statement: "you also fail."

Quote:
I will admit, I also didn't pull out any proofs on my side and simply tried to dismiss you outright, because I didn't want to get into yet another drawn-out argument coming out of another one with Cipher.
Oh, surely Cipher's fallacies is easier to pick on.

But if you just for the hell of it said you didn't show any proof because you didn't want to, like I said, I would have shut up. We could have talked about religion instead. You just had to go on and cover it by saying "categorically..." and exposed yourself and let me had a chance counter.

Now I fully understand why my mom said lying, even a very casual and random one, would give great rentribution.

Quote:
Wait a minute....how the hell was I supposed to connect "wisest brains in the world" (which is what you said) with "philosophers"? For all I knew, you were talking about "religious wise men", which would have made my claim of argumentum ad verecundiam valid, since authority in religious matters has no relevance on whether religion can be a part of modern science
Wait a minute, how the hell am I supposed to know what was actually going in your brain when you even answered like THIS:

Quote:
all I have been pointing out is that classical philosophy has no grounding in the modern day scientific method, and thus has no grounding in factual knowledge.
Which means you didn't understand my posts, but just went along with it? Cmon, man... If you didn't get it, just say so

Quote:
So, we wasted more than an entire week just because you thought I was referring to philosophers....?
You freakin'ly answered yes..."I referred to it, but with a different meaning than what you claimed..."

Quote:
If you would use emotive language against me from the start, how was I supposed to interpret it as an innocent "question"?
No, it was not meant to be innocent at all. It was a question, that was meant to result in me arguing against you either way you answered it. But not this way...


So. Many. Uses.

If you have nothing else to say, lets stop the discussion.
Cinocard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-10, 01:38   Link #246
Proto
Knowledge is the solution
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: U. of Pittsburgh, Previously in Mexico City.
Age: 30
I'm pretty sure you guys have been repeating your arguments for a while now. Can we break the endless eight now and like, just decide by democracy who wins? Or taking this to PM? Because I'm sure you could continue ad infinitum, but I'm sure other people want to discuss as well (me , me!), but our meager posts are piled under your wot's.

Failing that we could start betting on who will tire out first in order to encourage some participation from the rest of the members.
Proto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-10, 03:20   Link #247
Ascaloth
I don't give a damn, dude
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinocard View Post
Man, I really must let you know that you yourself said that you don't need to prove it. In one of your post you even said something along the line of "you never tried to prove it." You said I was categorically wrong. Then you asked me why haven't proven it. Then I said you need to prove it, and tried to prove it, then you refuted it by saying you didn't really try that at all, because you need not. Then now you admit that you did prove it again.



Though it's not relevant to what I wanted to argue at all. I don't care, really. Because as I said, if you admit have to prove it, my straw man (if it exists) is not categorically fail. Which is the one only I have persistently fought for.
Because I believed it was self-evident that I never did claim anything of the sort, and indeed, I have never said outright that "philosophy is stupid", like you tried to claim I did. But since you insisted that I too need to show my proof, and you absolutely would not desist until I did otherwise, I merely obliged so as to end this. Since my proof is there, you admit that you made a Straw Man of my statements?

Quote:
Again, I doesn't care if I made a straw man or not. If you understand why I made that question for you now, you can see that I don't care at all.

I, myself, said way back in page 10 or 11 that I would never attempt to prove that you truly made that claim at all (I myself doubted it after all). So I had already accepted the fact that you may call me fallacious after I made that claim (because further argument would be at my disadvantage, and I wanted you to say "no" to serve my other point which concerns religion, as I had already said). Suddenly, you were the one who gave me a chance to fight back with the claim I could be wrong CATEGORICALLY. Without that word, I would never have any chance to fight back, and we would never have this stupid discussion.
If you admit that you made a Straw Man, then it follows that your claim against me was fallacious and therefore, wrong. Therefore, I am perfectly justified to say just that.

Quote:
See, again, I never persisted on the argument to prove that I'm not a straw man. It was about the fallacy of "categorically wrong."

I really should have requested you to read the posts I wrote for Anh Minh.
Like I said earlier, what I meant was that I already had an idea as to how you're going to try to prove your case, and since I figured you're going to base it on another fallacy anyway, I was telling you not to bother so we can save us some time.

Granted, I shouldn't have said it like it was a certain thing, but yeah.

Quote:
Nope, a very basic mistake.

Tu quoque can only happen when I attempt to refuse something, is it not? I didn't try to refute your claim that "I fail" by that mean at all. I made a totally separate statement: "you also fail."
No, not so. A tu quoque is defined by one attempting to discredit another, and does not require the accuser to attempt to refute something to be considered one. Thus, by making the claim "you also fail", you have already committed the logical fallacy against me.

Quote:
Oh, surely Cipher's fallacies is easier to pick on.

But if you just for the hell of it said you didn't show any proof because you didn't want to, like I said, I would have shut up. We could have talked about religion instead. You just had to go on and cover it by saying "categorically..." and exposed yourself and let me had a chance counter.
Sure, I gave you an opening to call me out for argumentum ad ignorantium, and you did just that. Since you did so, you could have proceeded to show how I did make the claim you accused me of by showing your proofs. On my part, I also revealed my proofs to show how I did not make the statement. So where are your proofs?

Quote:
Wait a minute, how the hell am I supposed to know what was actually going in your brain when you even answered like THIS:



Which means you didn't understand my posts, but just went along with it? Cmon, man... If you didn't get it, just say so
I already did. I commended you on a Red Herring well-played, if you weren't paying attention.

Nevertheless, to claim I was referring to philosophy in the first place just because this post came after this post simply makes for a post hoc ergo propter hoc. I already demonstrated how you managed to mislead me with your Red Herring above, as the real reason why we ended up in this discussion in the first place.

Quote:
No, it was not meant to be innocent at all. It was a question, that was meant to result in me arguing against you either way you answered it. But not this way...
So in other words, it was a plurium interrogationum. Noted. I cannot like how you keep trying to set verbal traps before me; it shows your bad faith.

Quote:
If you have nothing else to say, lets stop the discussion.
Sure, I'm done on my part. Ball's in your court to stop this whole mess.
Ascaloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-10, 15:01   Link #248
Cinocard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Spoiler for Lol, I thougt it was it.:
Cinocard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-10, 17:16   Link #249
Reckoner
Bittersweet Distractor
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
I'm pretty sure you guys have been repeating your arguments for a while now. Can we break the endless eight now and like, just decide by democracy who wins? Or taking this to PM? Because I'm sure you could continue ad infinitum, but I'm sure other people want to discuss as well (me , me!), but our meager posts are piled under your wot's.

Failing that we could start betting on who will tire out first in order to encourage some participation from the rest of the members.
Two massive egos clashing out on an online forum. Doesn't get much better than this...

Anyhow, instead of discussing about the logical fallacies originally made (When did you two even start getting into this long banter?), how about re-explaining the position that you want to present to everyone instead of the one that others interpreted in your eyes to be wrong.
Reckoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-10, 20:56   Link #250
Ascaloth
I don't give a damn, dude
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 28
Spoiler for Might as well:
Ascaloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-10, 22:07   Link #251
Cinocard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Spoiler for .:
Cinocard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-10, 23:35   Link #252
Ascaloth
I don't give a damn, dude
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 28
Spoiler for ....:
Ascaloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-11, 00:14   Link #253
Cinocard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Spoiler for .:
Cinocard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-11, 00:30   Link #254
Ascaloth
I don't give a damn, dude
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 28
Spoiler:
Ascaloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-11, 00:53   Link #255
Cinocard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Then you may go ahead with that argument now. I believe others want to take a crack at it.
Don't feel like right now...really...

Spoiler for :
Cinocard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-11, 00:55   Link #256
Ascaloth
I don't give a damn, dude
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 28
Spoiler:
Ascaloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-11, 01:13   Link #257
Cinocard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
I'm fairly sure poisoning the well is a form of personal attack.
It is. The fallacy does not lay in the attack, but the conclusion derived from the attack to the position made though. And I was talking about you "attacking personally" me just several posts above. Just like I implicitly did so...
Cinocard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-11, 01:24   Link #258
Ascaloth
I don't give a damn, dude
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinocard View Post
It is. The fallacy does not lay in the attack, but the conclusion derived from the attack to the position made though. And I was talking about you "attacking personally" me just several posts above. Just like I implicitly did so...
As far as I can tell, poisoning the well is rather special in that it doesn't even need to derive a conclusion to count as fallacious. Maybe I missed something though.

Oh well. We're both agreed that we attacked each other. Let's just leave it at that.
Ascaloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:55.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.