|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 07/22/2007 : 17:05:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Ricky, the link in the OP describes the use of the word in a different manner than the common... |
So what? Those involved in English literature use the word "criticism" with a different meaning than the common, too. This sort of thing happens all the time, and not for any nefarious purpose. It's a fact of the language.| ...and seeks to install a feeling of superiority for those "in the know". |
Actually, the more I hear you speak on this subject, Jerome, the more it seems like sour grapes from you.| This article is instruction of, confirmation of, and validation of a fallacious argument based on amphiboly. |
Except that there's no argument being made based upon amphiboly. Nobody is claiming that evolution is true because a word refers to both a fact and a theory. The evidence in favor of evolution the fact and the evidence in favor of evolution the theory doesn't depend - any of it - upon a happenstance of language. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2007 : 17:43:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Ricky, the link in the OP describes the use of the word in a different manner than the common... |
So what? Those involved in English literature use the word "criticism" with a different meaning than the common, too. This sort of thing happens all the time, and not for any nefarious purpose. It's a fact of the language.| ...and seeks to install a feeling of superiority for those "in the know". |
Actually, the more I hear you speak on this subject, Jerome, the more it seems like sour grapes from you.| This article is instruction of, confirmation of, and validation of a fallacious argument based on amphiboly. |
Except that there's no argument being made based upon amphiboly. Nobody is claiming that evolution is true because a word refers to both a fact and a theory. The evidence in favor of evolution the fact and the evidence in favor of evolution the theory doesn't depend - any of it - upon a happenstance of language.
|
Bogart, this was addressed to Ricky.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2007 : 17:43:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
You have no answers and little thought. You could not even comprehend the question. |
More like you couldn't compose a meaningful question. You are essentially asking why scientists are doing something which they are not doing. The only possible reply is to point out your error.
| You could not find an answer that could be cut and pasted, so you spew nonsense. Why bother? |
It's not nonsense, Jerome. Your accusations are unfounded and the error is yours. All I can do is repeat that fact until you get it.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2007 : 17:45:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Bogart, this was addressed to Ricky. |
Yes, and Dave's comments were addressed to you. Seeing how this is a public forum, the "I wasn't talking to you" defense isn't going to hold water.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2007 : 17:53:39 [Permalink]
|
| I think it's pretty funny that Jerome is down to comparing himself to comedy and saying, "I wasn't talking to you." He's obviously running out of steam. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2007 : 18:00:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Ricky, the link in the OP describes the use of the word in a different manner than the common and seeks to install a feeling of superiority for those "in the know". This article is instruction of, confirmation of, and validation of a fallacious argument based on amphiboly.
|
I'm just trying to understand what it is your trying to say. And it seems that as soon as I get a handle on what you're saying, you go and change completely on me. At first, I thought you were saying that scientists talking about evolution use the word "theory" in two separate ways. Now it seems like you are saying that scientists, while they have just one meaning of the word, this meaning differs from how people use it in common (non-scientific) language. Is this correct?
|
I have been saying that arguments about evolution use words in a manner that purposely obscure the discussion. I am saying that the link in the OP expressly points this technique out; in fact, glorifies the technique. This is nothing less than amphiboly.
As I am sure you know, if a talk is begun with an fallacious argument the argument is generally given less credence. The fact that this type of argument is presented as proper makes a mockery of the science and the real arguments that could be had.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2007 : 18:02:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
I think it's pretty funny that Jerome is down to comparing himself to comedy and saying, "I wasn't talking to you." He's obviously running out of steam.
|
No, just pointing out that you have a habit; at times, that does not allow others to digest prior to your seasoning.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2007 : 18:30:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I have been saying that arguments about evolution use words in a manner that purposely obscure the discussion. I am saying that the link in the OP expressly points this technique out; in fact, glorifies the technique. This is nothing less than amphiboly. |
You are wrong. In common usage, an amphiboly is an ambiguous grammatical form. That's not what you're arguing about. In the realm of logic, amphiboly is making an argument by the method of switching a word's meaning in midstream, which is also not what you've been arguing about. So, what new meaning for 'amphiboly' have you invented for this new complaint of yours?| As I am sure you know, if a talk is begun with an fallacious argument the argument is generally given less credence. |
What argument is being made, Jerome?| The fact that this type of argument is presented as proper makes a mockery of the science and the real arguments that could be had. |
What argument is being made, Jerome? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2007 : 18:31:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
No, just pointing out that you have a habit; at times, that does not allow others to digest prior to your seasoning. |
Comparing yourself to the comedic King of the Britons somehow points out that at times I answer posts quickly? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2007 : 18:41:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
No, just pointing out that you have a habit; at times, that does not allow others to digest prior to your seasoning. |
Comparing yourself to the comedic King of the Britons somehow points out that at times I answer posts quickly?
|
I keep hearing "Tis' but a scratch" and "It's only a flesh wound"!
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2007 : 19:05:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I keep hearing "Tis' but a scratch" and "It's only a flesh wound"! |
Then you are hearing things. Your complete misunderstanding of the issue at hand isn't any sort of wound against the science at all. The black knight massively understated his injuries, but he admitted he was injured. You've completely missed. A big "swish!" through the air. After all, you can't actually quote anyone using the words "evolution" or "theory" in a single context with inverse meanings, because you know that a fact and an explanation aren't opposites.
The black knight you're fighting against is one that you made of straw, and then spray-painted black to make it more scary. Actually, it's rather surprising you can even see through the strawman army you've created and out into the real world. Perhaps that's why you're so paranoid. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2007 : 19:09:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Ricky
I'm just trying to understand what it is your trying to say. And it seems that as soon as I get a handle on what you're saying, you go and change completely on me. At first, I thought you were saying that scientists talking about evolution use the word "theory" in two separate ways. Now it seems like you are saying that scientists, while they have just one meaning of the word, this meaning differs from how people use it in common (non-scientific) language. Is this correct?
|
I have been saying that arguments about evolution use words in a manner that purposely obscure the discussion. I am saying that the link in the OP expressly points this technique out; in fact, glorifies the technique. This is nothing less than amphiboly.
|
Come on! I asked you a direct question, "Is this correct?" And how do you respond? "I have been saying that arguments about evolution use words in a manner that purposely obscure the discussion." Sheesh, you could at least give me some sort of an answer, "yes" or "no", it's quite simple. But you refuse to and instead give me some vague statement. I'm really close to just throwing in the towel once and for all. You are by far the most annoying person to have a discussion with that I've ever encountered. And that's no small statement.
Once again, Jerome, is my statement as quoted above (the part in bold) in this post a proper description of your claim? Yes or no? |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 07/22/2007 19:10:10 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2007 : 20:11:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Ricky
I'm just trying to understand what it is your trying to say. And it seems that as soon as I get a handle on what you're saying, you go and change completely on me. At first, I thought you were saying that scientists talking about evolution use the word "theory" in two separate ways. Now it seems like you are saying that scientists, while they have just one meaning of the word, this meaning differs from how people use it in common (non-scientific) language. Is this correct?
|
I have been saying that arguments about evolution use words in a manner that purposely obscure the discussion. I am saying that the link in the OP expressly points this technique out; in fact, glorifies the technique. This is nothing less than amphiboly.
|
Come on! I asked you a direct question, "Is this correct?" And how do you respond? "I have been saying that arguments about evolution use words in a manner that purposely obscure the discussion." Sheesh, you could at least give me some sort of an answer, "yes" or "no", it's quite simple. But you refuse to and instead give me some vague statement. I'm really close to just throwing in the towel once and for all. You are by far the most annoying person to have a discussion with that I've ever encountered. And that's no small statement.
Once again, Jerome, is my statement as quoted above (the part in bold) in this post a proper description of your claim? Yes or no?
|
No, your statement of my assertion is incorrect.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
www.notjustatheory.com
Topic Locked
