Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Wolf Kirchmeir (wwolfkir_at_sympatico.ca)
Date: 03/06/05 

Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 08:42:36 -0500

Albert Wagner wrote:
> Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
>
>> Albert Wagner wrote:
>>
>>> Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> Well, Albert, it wasn't intended as a smart arse remark but as an
>>>> explanation of why I didn't comment on the rest of that post. I
>>>> thought that it was enough to show there was a question-begging
>>>> assumption -- that you would see the problem, and so accept that
>>>> there was no point in commenting on the rest of the post, since it
>>>> didn't recognise the question-begging. You had in some other post
>>>> complained about snipping. (I can't recall the context of that
>>>> complaint, though.)
>>>>
>>>> And you still haven't shown in what way the quoted definition does
>>>> not beg the question. If you think I've mnisread it in some way, I'd
>>>> like to know how.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is so tedious to attempt to argue with someone who will never
>>> admit to any wrong, even when it is documented on usenet. Your
>>> solution is to simply snip whatever seems incriminating under the
>>> simple-minded illusion that no one will read previous posts.
>>>
>>> The phrase "begging the question" is a logical fallacy also called
>>> circular argument or circular reasoning. It is applied to a logical
>>> argument not to a definition given in reply to jmfbahciv@aol.com.
>>
>>
>>
>> I beg to differ. A definition that states that X has certain
>> properties is a type of logical argument: it's a short form for "If X
>> has {properties}, then it is a Y."
>
>
> Bullshit. A dictionary is *not* a list of logical arguments full of
> logical fallacies.
[...]

I didn't say so. I said the definition under discussion begged a
question. OK, so you don't like that. Would it make you happier to say
that "when used in an argument, this definition begs a question"? If so,
I'll say it that way, though I see no difference myself.

As to not being able to read my mind, I thought you prided yourself on
your "reading comprehension." I took you at your word, and stopped being
tediously explicit. And stupid ad hominem attacks is what I get for my
pains.

As for claiming a "private definition", I did no such thing. I analysed
the definition offered as best I could. You will note that I did not say
whether or not I believed intuition requires non-rational processes - I
left the question open. I repeatedly said "we don't know [that]". In
fact, I have nowhere stated what I think intuition is. I referred to a
definition I gleaned from psychology texts at one point, and you jumped
to the conclusion that it represented my view, and made a smart arse
remark about that, too. Why? because it disgreed with you apparently
believe. You're kind of tetchy with disagreements - does your ego really
depend on whether or not some concept is true? Do you think I think
you're stupid just becasue I detect what i think is an error? For the
record, I don't. But when you respond with LOL and stronger insults, I
wonder whether you are in fact capable of recognising what might look an
error to someone else, or actual error for that matter.

For the record, I don't know what intuition is - I only know what people
think it is, and AFAICT those concepts are flawed.

BTW, dictionaries tell you what people mean by a word, which may or may
not be true about the thing referred to. Porgress is made when peole ask
not, "Is this actually what people mean?, but "Is this actually the
case?" That's how I see it anyhow. And don't come back with some
variation of "I don't need to be lectured on that."

You seem to be more concerned with winning an argument than with
discussing issues. Pity, since when you do stick to issues, you usually
make good sense.

Presumably you offered the dictionary definition becasue you agreed with
it. If so, you must have grounds for agreeing with it. What are they?

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >> I beg to differ. ... whether or not I believed intuition requires non-rational processes - I ... Presumably you offered the dictionary definition becasue you agreed with ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >> I beg to differ. ... whether or not I believed intuition requires non-rational processes - I ... Presumably you offered the dictionary definition becasue you agreed with ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Is $_ special somehow?
    ... )> i beg to differ. ... somebody who posts simple problems is also learning ... You all think I'm paranoid, ...
    (comp.lang.perl.misc)
  • Re: is gareth a REAL_RADIO_HAM.
    ... if you respect Gareth he'll respect you ... I'd have to beg to differ with you on that. ... Because of those threats, ...
    (uk.radio.amateur)
  • Re: 5 Old-Timey Prejudices That Still Show Up in Every Movie
    ... THE LOSERS would beg to differ. ... American films are stricter about sex. ... European films are stricter about violence. ...
    (rec.arts.movies.current-films)