Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Albert Wagner (albertwagner_at_cox.net)
Date: 03/06/05 

Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 00:57:49 -0600

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."

Bull***. A dictionary is *not* a list of logical arguments full
of logical fallacies.

> The definition you quoted stated that
> intuition is a process of insight that a) does not use rational methods;
> and b) is inaccessible to the intuiter (if that's a word). If the
> methods of arriving at the insight are inaccessible, it is nonsense to
> say they are non-rational. You just can't tell. So to claim that
> intuition is non-rational begs the question: it assumes that which it is
> intended to demonstrate. IOW, because the process of intuition is
> inaccessible, people have assumed that it must be non-rational. The fact
> that people hold the definition to be valid and useful merely shows that
> people often don't consider the logic of their definitions, which isn't
> surprising.

Sorry. When discussing definitions based on common usage, your
personal definition carries no weight with me.

>> Your original phrase was "begging a question" not begging /the/ question.
>
> Yes, I assumed you could see what the question was.

Sorry. I cannot read your mind.

>> No question or argument was under discussion, so your statement was
>> simply nonsense. I asked you which question you were referencing and
>> then and only then did you clarify:
>
> Yes, and I was surprised I had to do so.

You shouldn't have been. As I said, I cannot read your mind.

>> "The question of How does intuition happen?"
>> Of course, that is not and was not the question.
>
> The definition very clearly describes how definition purportedly
> happens: by means on an unconscious, non-rational process. It also
> asserts that intuition is instantaneous, but I chose not to criticise
> that part of it. Since the definition _under discussion_ describes a
> process, there is the immediate and obvious question of whether it
> describes the process accurately.
>
>> There was no question; There was only a dictionary definition offered
>> to another poster.
>
> Well, I apologise for not introducing my remarks with "This definition
> does however raise a question, and has illogical implications...." or
> some such transition.
>
> But the source of the definition is irrelevant: if it's offered in
> argument or discussion, then a) it is probbaly intended to be a true and
> accurate decsription; and b)its logical implications are of the essence.
> As I recall, the question was whether intuition could be improved by
> training in logic, which as I recall you disputed, and you offered the
> definition as explanation. Or else it was your opinion that imagination
> is not a type of intuition. For if intuition is in fact a non-rational
> process, then training in logic would have no effect on it (except
> perhaps a deleterious one). Since the definition assumes a property of
> intuition which cannot be observed, it fails to support that contention.

Sorry. When discussing definitions based on common usage, your
personal definition carries no weight with me. Your objections
to common usage are noted. What do you intend to do about
widespread common usage differing from your own private definition?

>> At any rate, it is and was obvious by your misuse of the term that you
>> have no idea what a 'begging the question' or circular argument
>> fallacy is. You then snipped my entire reply because of my "failure to
>> take your point." Whatever the *** that means.
>
> It means that you didn't see the question begging aspect of the
> definition, even when I explained it as I saw it. The rest of your post
> was, as I read it anyhow, an extended explication of the definition.
>
>> In summary you are an arrogant and totally dishonest poster and are
>> logically illiterate to boot.
>
> The fact that I sometimes have to explicate what I assume to be easily
> understood by the other party does not make name dishonest. It just
> makes my phrasing more obscure than it perhaps should be, and or/ makes
> the other party mistaken.
>
> So now that's out of the way, do you hold that the definition _under
> discussion_ is true? On what grounds?
>
*PLONK* 

-- 
"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air,
gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
	-- Albert Einstein in a 1954 letter to Michele Besso.
Quantcast