Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 106 of 106

Thread: The is/ought issue.

  1. Top | #101
    Super Moderator ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    8,723
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by The AntiChris View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Show me the standard that I held, and then I did not hold.
    I already did, and have done previously when you have done similar.
    Link?
    Just above in this case.

    Other than that........for example stressing the value and importance of logic (and repeatedly citing fallacies) in several discussions over an extended period of time, and then in this thread finding a way of saying it would not be important if is-to-ought was a fallacy. To me, it's blatant, but full marks for sophistry, as ever. Your mileage may vary.
    Last edited by ruby sparks; 09-19-2020 at 11:23 PM.

  2. Top | #102
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,913
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,501
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Show me the standard that I held, and then I did not hold.
    I already did, and have done previously when you have done similar.
    Link?

  3. Top | #103
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,913
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,501
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks
    Other than that........for example stressing the value and importance of logic (and repeatedly citing fallacies) in several discussions over an extended period of time, and then in this thread finding a way of saying it would not be important if is-to-ought was a fallacy. To me, it's blatant, but full marks for sophistry, as ever. Your mileage may vary.
    First, no, I did not change my view that logic is very important.
    Second, if I had, that would be an instance of changing my mind. It is not improper to change one's mind, upon further studying a matter and/or making new observations.

    Third, again, let me explain again:

    If it were the case that the examples of making moral assessments using information describable in non-moral terms involves a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premises - which may well not be the case for all I know, because we may well have implicit probabilistic premises to connect the information with the probabilistic conclusion -then for the same reason, the fallacy would be present in our assessments about color in the examples, and about illness, and about whether water is H2O, and generally about most assessments we make about the outside world, except perhaps our immediate perception if one makes that distiction.

    So, if that is indeed a fallacy, then either that particular fallacy is not a problem at all, or we cannot even get basic information about the outside world, except perhaps for immediate perceptions. Clearly, under that assumption, the former is the case. That is not remotely sophistry, at all. The alternative to considering that that particular fallacy is not a problem would be to - again, under that hypothesis -, say that there is indeed a problem, and then conclude that we cannot even tell that (for example) cancer is an illness, or that the Moon Landing ever happened. That of course, [b}also would involve changing my mind, and massively so[/b] (and also irrationally so, but that aside), so of course by your standards of accusation, you could then charge me with sophistry. Damn if you do, damn if you do not.

  4. Top | #104
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    13,305
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    31,518
    Rep Power
    60
    Are there facts? Anywhere it the discussions above? Or are there just presumptions about opinions. To get anything out of immediate perceptions one has to presume a lot. If one hasn't intersected with the perception in the past is that sufficient for one to call it immediate, if so what about unique is special? No immediate perceptions are not special. Its likely one has unconsciously processed such before yet one cannot point to it. So what? I can prove that if one masks a sound that sound does not interact with that which is perceived. For is there is no sound there the perception, in its absence, would be the same. No magic, just sensory limitations.

    The same, more or less, is true of all presumptions presented in the above arguments, all of them. Only when there are facts can one make distinctions. That is so because those distinctions come out in the operations identifying the facts. Unless operations exist, one cannot judge argument.

  5. Top | #105
    Super Moderator ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    8,723
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    First, no, I did not change my view that logic is very important.
    Second, if I had, that would be an instance of changing my mind. It is not improper to change one's mind, upon further studying a matter and/or making new observations.

    Third, again, let me explain again:

    If it were the case that the examples of making moral assessments using information describable in non-moral terms involves a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premises - which may well not be the case for all I know, because we may well have implicit probabilistic premises to connect the information with the probabilistic conclusion -then for the same reason, the fallacy would be present in our assessments about color in the examples, and about illness, and about whether water is H2O, and generally about most assessments we make about the outside world, except perhaps our immediate perception if one makes that distiction.

    So, if that is indeed a fallacy, then either that particular fallacy is not a problem at all, or we cannot even get basic information about the outside world, except perhaps for immediate perceptions. Clearly, under that assumption, the former is the case. That is not remotely sophistry, at all. The alternative to considering that that particular fallacy is not a problem would be to - again, under that hypothesis -, say that there is indeed a problem, and then conclude that we cannot even tell that (for example) cancer is an illness, or that the Moon Landing ever happened. That of course, [b}also would involve changing my mind, and massively so[/b] (and also irrationally so, but that aside), so of course by your standards of accusation, you could then charge me with sophistry. Damn if you do, damn if you do not.
    Don't worry, I feel fairly sure that despite all the above, logic and fallacies will go back to being critical standards for you again soon, when it suits you better.
    Last edited by ruby sparks; 09-20-2020 at 08:17 PM.
    "Let us hope that it is not so. Or if it is, let us pray that the fact does not become generally known."

  6. Top | #106
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,913
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,501
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    First, no, I did not change my view that logic is very important.
    Second, if I had, that would be an instance of changing my mind. It is not improper to change one's mind, upon further studying a matter and/or making new observations.

    Third, again, let me explain again:

    If it were the case that the examples of making moral assessments using information describable in non-moral terms involves a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premises - which may well not be the case for all I know, because we may well have implicit probabilistic premises to connect the information with the probabilistic conclusion -then for the same reason, the fallacy would be present in our assessments about color in the examples, and about illness, and about whether water is H2O, and generally about most assessments we make about the outside world, except perhaps our immediate perception if one makes that distiction.

    So, if that is indeed a fallacy, then either that particular fallacy is not a problem at all, or we cannot even get basic information about the outside world, except perhaps for immediate perceptions. Clearly, under that assumption, the former is the case. That is not remotely sophistry, at all. The alternative to considering that that particular fallacy is not a problem would be to - again, under that hypothesis -, say that there is indeed a problem, and then conclude that we cannot even tell that (for example) cancer is an illness, or that the Moon Landing ever happened. That of course, [b}also would involve changing my mind, and massively so[/b] (and also irrationally so, but that aside), so of course by your standards of accusation, you could then charge me with sophistry. Damn if you do, damn if you do not.
    Don't worry, I feel fairly sure that despite all the above, logic and fallacies will go back to being critical standards for you again soon, when it suits you better.
    Oh, no, they never stopped being so. They are still important. That has not changed at all, as described. Of course, assuming what I described above, then that particular kind of fallacy would not be important. But it's not that I would say fallacies are okay in general.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •