The downward trend continues

[Nearly Sane]

Mmm to pick up bluehillside's PS, an appeal to authority is only a a move if it is a fallacious one. Note at this stage there is no evidence that this is a fallacious one as it is merely unevidenced assertion.

It is not much different than the statement that books read show the McCann's reaction to be casebook.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh and Hope given you have a number of logicians reading this thread, it would be great if you could get a couple to join. Just drop the mods a note about their joining with their email and it will make sure they don't get rejected. I would be interested in these logicians' perspective.

Even if you can only get one religious logician and one non religious one from the number you have been talking to and who have been reading the thread that would be excellent.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Mmm to pick up bluehillside's PS, an appeal to authority is only a a move if it is a fallacious one. Note at this stage there is no evidence that this is a fallacious one as it is merely unevidenced assertion.

It is not much different than the statement that books read show the McCann's reaction to be casebook.

Sort of. The point I was making was that just an assertion that these supposed logicians happen to agree does not mean mean that Hope must be right. He/they might be right of course, but only if their reasoning shows them to be. My sense was that Hope thought we'd read, "logicians" and think, "Oh well, if logicians say it then it must be right then" and go away.

Either he hasn't spoken to "logicians" at all (let alone to several of them - how would one even go about finding such people?), or he has and they're not very good ones, or he has and they are good ones but he's declined to tell us why they think as they do.

My money's on option one but, cock-eyed optimist that I am, let's see whether Hope can surprise us with some actual reasoning.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Oh and Hope given you have a number of logicians reading this thread, it would be great if you could get a couple to join. Just drop the mods a note about their joining with their email and it will make sure they don't get rejected. I would be interested in these logicians' perspective.

Cue Hope suddenly looking at his watch, glancing across the room, "Oh is that the time Old Boy? I really must talk to old Binkey Carruthers on the other side to the room, chin chin for now then", disappearing pronto, door swinging behind him etc...

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Sort of. The point I was making was that just an assertion that these supposed logicians happen to agree does not mean mean that Hope must be right. He/they might be right of course, but only if their reasoning shows them to be. My sense was that Hope thought we'd read, "logicians" and think, "Oh well, if logicians say it then it must be right then" and go away.

Either he hasn't spoken to "logicians" at all (let alone to several of them - how would one even go about finding such people?), or he has and they're not very good ones, or he has and they are good ones but he's declined to tell us why they think as they do.

My money's on option one but, cock-eyed optimist that I am, let's see whether Hope can surprise us with some actual reasoning.

 But it isn't any different from the 'read it in a book about psychology' claim that you were defending earlier. That Hope may possibly made it up isn't a challenge that could be dealt with under appeal to authority. We do not really have enough information to classify this as appeal to authority.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

But it isn't any different from the 'read it in a book about psychology' claim that you were defending earlier.

They're different things. Assuming that it was in a text book (not just any old book), then there's a fair chance it would have been there as the result of research, testing, explanatory power, peer review etc. Doesn't mean that it was necessarily correct of course, but it's a reasonable, experience-based assumption that it was more likely to be true that someone's (contradictory) intuition on the matter.   

Hope on the other hand relied on some (supposed) chats with some (supposed) logicians. Assuming for now that that did happen, the evidential bar from a few chats down the Limping Whippet would be a lot lower than that for an academic text book.   

That Hope may possibly made it up isn't a challenge that could be dealt with under appeal to authority. We do not really have enough information to classify this as appeal to authority.

Surely we do when that's all he gave us isn't it? "I spoke to some logicians, they agreed with me, therefore I'm right and you're wrong, please go away therefore, now about this God of mine ... etc" was the beginning and end of it.

The logicians were the authority and - well - that was it.   

[Nearly Sane]

No, a text book simply asserted as having been read, is the same as Hope's claim of simply asserting that he has talked to a number of logicians about a piece of logic. Neither have enough detail to be appeals to authority as there is no named authority. They are both simply assertions at this stage. The book is asserted to exist and say something, the same way Hope asserts the existence and statements of the logicians.

[ippy]

ipster,

He's an odd one all right. Time and time again he makes the same logical mistakes, just ignores the rebuttals, and then makes them again apparently oblivious to the fact of the rebuttals cutting the ground from under him. It's genuinely hard to know whether he just doesn't understand the negative proof fallacy in particular, or whether he does understand it but doesn't care that it's a false argument.

As a tactic just insulting the person who points out his mistake seems an odd approach too, but there it is nonetheless.

What I would like to hear from you Hope would be perhaps your answer to the question Gordon has asked of you and other posters that present incredible ideas; it seems to me when asked of you and others, that hold these incredible ideas, you're all unable to even explain the methods used that you seem to think enable you to present these incredible ideas, as given facts.

I find it very hard to understand you Hope, what part of the negative proof fallacy are you finding so difficult to understand, I don't think you're as bad as 'Trig' from "Fools and Horses"?

ippy   

[ippy]

Then please ask them to clearly explain in what ways formal logic can involve the non-natural and let us know what they say.

Dry as parchment Gordon, love it, a good one.

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No, a text book simply asserted as having been read, is the same as Hope's claim of simply asserting that he has talked to a number of logicians about a piece of logic. Neither have enough detail to be appeals to authority as there is no named authority. They are both simply assertions at this stage. The book is asserted to exist and say something, the same way Hope asserts the existence and statements of the logicians.

There are two strands here that you're entangling. The first is whether Harrowby did read a text book/Hope did speak to some "logicians". Park that for now.

Assuming that both did as they say they did, I merely argue that a text book is likely to be a more reliable guide to orthodox thinking than is some conversations.

The second issue then is whether they did as they say they did. You're right about that - absent citations we have no basis on which to establish the truth of either claim. Hope has form for vagueness (to put it kindly) about his sources whereas Harrowby does not, but that's all we know. This issue though doesn't detract from the basic point about the evidential bar being set higher for publication in a text books than it is for casual conversations.       

[Jack Knave]

PS Just fyi - an appeal to authority is a logically bad move too by the way.

That's highly two faced of you, Blue, considering you have just tried that with me!!!

[Nearly Sane]

That means you immediately give more credit to someone saying I read it in a book, than I talked to a number of experts with neither of them giving evidence, that makes no sense.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dry as parchment Gordon, love it, a good one.

ippy

A good one until he or you are asked for your working out...........

To which Gorrdon usually replies that he sees his role as inquisitor rather than question answered.

This post will be moderated in ten....nine....eight....seven

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's highly two faced of you, Blue, considering you have just tried that with me!!!

Oh no sounds like he's taking the piss again.

[Jack Knave]

What's NFP?

[Nearly Sane]

What's NFP?

NPF - Negative Proof Fallacy

[Jack Knave]

NPF - Negative Proof Fallacy

Explains why Google didn't come up with it as I put in NFP.

[Gordon]

A good one until he or you are asked for your working out...........

To which Gorrdon usually replies that he sees his role as inquisitor rather than question answered.

This post will be moderated in ten....nine....eight....seven

I was simply asking for further information regarding Hope's statement.

btw - thank you for the extra 'r': I shall treasure it always.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

That means you immediately give more credit to someone saying I read it in a book, than I talked to a number of experts with neither of them giving evidence, that makes no sense.

Not sure why we're pursuing this, but that's not it. I'm not giving "more credit to someone saying I read it in a book, than I talked to a number of experts with neither of them giving evidence" (my emphasis) at all. The "saying" bit I give equal credence pending further information. What I am doing though – on the assumption that each did as he says he did – is suggesting that asking someone's opinion on something down the Rat & Handbag one night is less likely to provide a robust answer than referring to a text book whose author(s) would have had to research, test, have peer reviewed, amended as necessary etc their conclusions.

Whether Harrowby or Hope actually did as they say they did is a different matter.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

Explains why Google didn't come up with it as I put in NFP.

See also "Russell's teapot" for a famous example of it. Vlad would utterly miss the point and call it "pisstaking" or some such, but the logic is robust - that you can't disprove the conjecture of a teapot orbiting earth just beyond the reach of the instruments that could detect it says nothing whatever to whether the teapot is there. 

For some reason Hope loves the NPF despite having it explained to him many, many times but there it is nonetheless.

[Leonard James]

JK,

See also "Russell's teapot" for a famous example of it. Vlad would utterly miss the point and call it "pisstaking" or some such, but the logic is robust - that you can't disprove the conjecture of a teapot orbiting earth just beyond the reach of the instruments that could detect it says nothing whatever to whether the teapot is there. 

For some reason Hope loves the NPF despite having it explained to him many, many times but there it is nonetheless.

Simply because his whole "God" world depends on it, and he needs that more than he needs to think logically. 

[ippy]

A good one until he or you are asked for your working out...........

To which Gorrdon usually replies that he sees his role as inquisitor rather than question answered.

This post will be moderated in ten....nine....eight....seven

Hi there Vlad, no working out needed, it's just a plain case of the missing evidence,
 if it existed, might have supported your god idea, since there isn't any, well?

ippy

[Hope]

Hi there Vlad, no working out needed, it's just a plain case of the missing evidence,
 if it existed, might have supported your god idea, since there isn't any, well?

ippy

Sorry, ippy, it isn't that there isn't any evidence - plenty of eminent people, scientists included, have found that there is.  Rather, its because there is none that you have accepted.  There is a consideable difference between reality and your claim.

[Gordon]

Sorry, ippy, it isn't that there isn't any evidence - plenty of eminent people, scientists included, have found that there is.

Such as, and by which scientists in relation to their own specialty?

Rather, its because there is none that you have accepted.  There is a consideable difference between reality and your claim.

Then demonstrate this by citing some evidence that stands scrutiny.

[Hope]

Such as, and by which scientists in relation to their own specialty?

Can't you find a better, less oft-used, argument than that, Gordon?  I suspect that they have long gone in the regular cleansing of the system, to save space, but Angloman produced a sizeable list a couple of years ago.

However, I'll give you a couple of likely names:  Rev Dr John Weaver (geologist).  Then there is Rev Dr John Polkinghorne (theoretical physics); Professor Alistair McGrath (molecular biophysics); Dr Denis Alexander (neuroscience)

Then demonstrate this by citing some evidence that stands scrutiny.

Scrutiny by what; natural scientific means or means that go beyond that relatively simplistic level?