Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Religions and Gods → Atheist Censorship

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

German nationalist party ...
Yesterday at 10:31 AM
New Britain
February 17, 2025, 11:51 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 15, 2025, 04:00 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
February 14, 2025, 08:00 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
February 13, 2025, 10:07 PM
Muslim grooming gangs sti...
February 13, 2025, 08:20 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
February 13, 2025, 01:08 PM
Russia invades Ukraine
February 13, 2025, 11:01 AM
Islam and Science Fiction
February 11, 2025, 11:57 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
February 06, 2025, 03:13 PM
Gaza assault
February 05, 2025, 10:04 AM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
February 03, 2025, 09:25 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Atheist Censorship

 (Read 48189 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 10 11 1213 14 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #330 - April 30, 2011, 03:39 AM
    Quote from: Ishina on April 30, 2011, 03:18 AM
    It isn't logical rigour I necessarily find taxing. Sometimes we just need the freedom that casual conversation affords us, without being pulled over by the logic police about breaking some formal language rule.

    In most cases, we expect people to be reasonable within reason. If I said Zeb's argument is invalid, I'd expect you to know I meant it is stupid, or untrue, or unacceptable, or based on faulty premises, or requires more expansive explanation. That's because I credit you with the intelligence to understand that, and the sensibility to give me that leeway.

    Whether it is spelled correctly, or grammatically sound, or set out in a valid structure, is completely besides the point. Is not important, and I don't understand why people insist it must be important.


    i find this ironic as you stated in another thread for somebody to post their ideas in a step by step logical argument. the difference between validity and soundness isn't a 'philosophical wet blanket', or even a very formal concept, it's a friggin' foundational concept for anybody critically thinking to understand.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #331 - April 30, 2011, 03:42 AM
    Why are you missing my point?

    Why is it ironic that I asked someone to present an argument in a logical format?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #332 - April 30, 2011, 03:44 AM
     if you want to critically think, some basic idea of at least classical logic is needed, whether you like it or not. shit, most people also use modal concepts like necessity and possibility, but if you're really against an informal concept like the difference between validity and soundness, then you might have some trouble with discussions about anything :/

    but if that isn't your point - what is? i'm a fucking idiot and i need it spelt out.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #333 - April 30, 2011, 03:51 AM
    Quote
    Whether it is spelled correctly, or grammatically sound, or set out in a valid structure, is completely besides the point. Is not important, and I don't understand why people insist it must be important.


    Thank you. The validity of one's argument is based on the validity of the premises AND their connection to one another. If you have no premises, you have no falsifiable system. Simple as that. You just have a school example of HOW a sound logical system may look like, you do not actually have one.

    I think that is what Ishina is trying to say here. You have to have some meat before you can actually butcher the argument Wink
    Quote from: yeezevee on May 03, 2011, 09:40 AM
    Grouchy  what is the  good reason for picking up an innocent girl  as Osama  bin Laden?    

  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #334 - April 30, 2011, 03:53 AM
    Quote from: serrated_colon on April 30, 2011, 03:44 AM
    if you want to critically think, some basic idea of at least classical logic is needed, whether you like it or not. shit, most people also use modal concepts like necessity and possibility, but if you're really against an informal concept like the difference between validity and soundness, then you might have some trouble with discussions about anything :/

    but if that isn't your point - what is? i'm a fucking idiot and i need it spelt out.

    My point is, nobody except rules nerds give a shit about the ‘logical validity’ of an argument beyond a brief glance to check if its readable. Most people, who are not overly obsessed with minutiae, go straight to the meat of the argument and dig into the propositions that are being conveyed. All we really want to do make points at each other. We don’t need trivial lectures every five minutes on the nature of logic.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #335 - April 30, 2011, 03:54 AM
    Quote from: Grouchy on April 30, 2011, 03:51 AM
    You have to have some meat before you can actually butcher the argument Wink

    Pretty much, yes.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #336 - April 30, 2011, 04:01 AM
    this isn't trivial though, that's my point. z10 was specifically concerned because somebody said the argument was invalid, or in more informal terms 'did not follow'. that's what his point was concerning.

    also if we're digging into the propositions, then we ARE going to be concerned about first validity, then soundness. you DO give a shit about logical validity whether you like it or not. when you say an argument 'does not follow', you're saying the premises or propositions have fuck all to do with each other. that's a question of validity. when you say an argument is 'wrong' then you're questioning the truth of said premises. that's a point on soundness.

    this isn't a discussion on the nature of logic, and for fear of sounding arrogant i don't think you know much about it. these are fundamental, easy to understand and informal concepts that nobody should find alien or too abstract to understand. this is nothing to do with more 'deeper' discussions like the ontology of truth values or crazy abstract shit like that - this is the basis of critical thinking and is not nerdy at all.

    jesus, this is like talking about an english book and saying it's trivial to talk about the difference between a similie and a metaphor and make sure it's clear what they mean(shit, we should already have an understanding of this sorta stuff).
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #337 - April 30, 2011, 04:02 AM
    does everything with the prefix 'logical' have an attachment of crazy weird abstraction or something? i honestly don't understand why anybody would think validity is a nerdy and abstract concept....
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #338 - April 30, 2011, 04:07 AM
    Indeed. Incredibly arrogant and also wrong.

    You seem to think I don't understand what you're talking about. There is a difference between not understanding and thinking its not important in this case.

    You're chasing your tail really, stressing and making a big deal of something that most people who are able to parse logical argument already have figured into their process of thought by default, and so don't give much extra thought to. This is the shit we take for granted.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #339 - April 30, 2011, 04:11 AM
    well if terms are defined sufficiently, then it might be not be important no, but if we're presenting logical arguments i generally would expect words to be used in a logical context. i'm not a fucking mind-reader and i'm not going to know what shit somebody else takes for granted unless they specify that. that's why definitions are fundamental as fuck to discussions.

    i apologise for my arrogance but it frustrates me when people don't get that we're not all mind-readers. precise definitions are crucial for good discussion else we get bogged down in conflicting contexts like we have here.

    shit, it's a big fucking deal. i don't know your model of thought at all, and that's the point.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #340 - April 30, 2011, 04:14 AM
    Quote from: Ishina on April 30, 2011, 04:07 AM
    Indeed. Incredibly arrogant and also wrong.

    You seem to think I don't understand what you're talking about. There is a difference between not understanding and thinking its not important in this case.

    You're chasing your tail really, stressing and making a big deal of something that most people who are able to parse logical argument already have figured into their process of thought by default, and so don't give much extra thought to. This is the shit we take for granted.


    also, maybe i'm missing something but don't we parse logical argument logically? that's why i usually think of terms such as validity in a logical context. forgive my inerrant nerdiness and abstract statements...
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #341 - April 30, 2011, 04:16 AM
    It doesn't take a mind reader to know why people are objecting to Zeb's argument. And it's very strange to assume anyone is objecting to the actual structure of his argument rather than what his argument is conveying, and to assume this based on a formal language misstep.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #342 - April 30, 2011, 04:19 AM
    z10's point was that their objections were misdirected. if they said his argument was WRONG, then sure, i get that. but they said his argument DID NOT FOLLOW. now forgive me and my inerrant stupidity for thinking they are two entirely different statements to make.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #343 - April 30, 2011, 04:30 AM
    Stefan said it doesn’t follow that if we are the divine we can know the divine. I don't find this to be an unreasonable statement to make, because I don't automatically assume or insist that by follow he means logically follow, and that he might just mean actually follow.

    z10 had to formally construct a logical argument to make it ‘logically valid’, and rather than explain why we are divine and how we can know divine, he chose to focus on the fact that you can make a ‘valid’ argument of it. For what purpose? Be it a valid argument or not, none of the concern is addressed. We are sidetracked, discussing discussion, rather than having a healthy discussion on the divine, the nature of the divine in relation to us, and if we can know the divine. These are the meat of the conversation. The bones can be spat out or left to one side.

    This is assuming we are even talking about formal validity in logic or general validity. Perhaps the better example of assumption would be one who assumes we were speaking of formal logical validity, when there are different meanings of the word valid. It was z10 who invoked the word ‘valid’ I think? Not Stefan.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #344 - April 30, 2011, 04:34 AM
    Quote from: serrated_colon on April 30, 2011, 04:14 AM
    also, maybe i'm missing something but don't we parse logical argument logically? that's why i usually think of terms such as validity in a logical context. forgive my inerrant nerdiness and abstract statements...


    it has less to do with logic and more to do with the practical meaning of various definitions of "god". Colloquially "god" is defined in terms of having some relevance to a person's daily life instead of being a purely technical definition that has no effect on human beings.  Like Ishna says above is so many words, the terms divine, god, etc are poorly defined or are poorly defined in order for people to fill in their own vaguely defined religiously tinged definitions.  
    So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
    My political philosophy below
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
    Just kidding, here are some true heros
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #345 - April 30, 2011, 04:44 AM
    Quote from: Ishina on April 30, 2011, 04:30 AM
    Stefan said it doesn’t follow that if we are the divine we can know the divine. I don't find this to be an unreasonable statement to make, because I don't automatically assume or insist that by follow he means logically follow, and that he might just mean actually follow.

    z10 had to formally construct a logical argument to make it ‘logically valid’, and rather than explain why we are divine and how we can know divine, he chose to focus on the fact that you can make a ‘valid’ argument of it. For what purpose? Be it a valid argument or not, none of the concern is addressed. We are sidetracked, discussing discussion, rather than having a healthy discussion on the divine, the nature of the divine in relation to us, and if we can know the divine. These are the meat of the conversation. The bones can be spat out or left to one side.

    This is assuming we are even talking about formal validity in logic or general validity. Perhaps the better example of assumption would be one who assumes we were speaking of formal logical validity, when there are different meanings of the word valid. It was z10 who invoked the word ‘valid’ I think? Not Stefan.



    alright, i'm stupid so i'm going to ask what does 'actually follow' mean? the only follow i know of in this context IS logically follow. and what's general validity? you have to make what you mean absolutely clear or idiots like me who think about debates in terms of logical arguments get very confused.

    also deus, that's why i emphasise definition here. there's a reason shit's poorly defined - that makes precision even MORE important here.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #346 - April 30, 2011, 04:45 AM
    Quote from: serrated_colon on April 30, 2011, 04:19 AM
    z10's point was that their objections were misdirected. if they said his argument was WRONG, then sure, i get that. but they said his argument DID NOT FOLLOW. now forgive me and my inerrant stupidity for thinking they are two entirely different statements to make.


    Let me clarify to you what z10 did wrong.

    It is simple.

    z10's argument did not include the premises(he said it himself). Just the naked structure.

    All E are D
    E is known
    Conclusion: D is known

    This is an absolutely logical structure.

    Further more you could even insert true premises in it.

    Humans have the Divine in themselves
    Humans know themselves

    This could very well be valid premises. However, it has nothing to do with the validity of the premises, but rather with the conclusion one draws.

    Therefore, “it does not follow” when someone says that Humans should therefore know the divine.

    The wrong thing z10 did was actually not bringing in the premises. He just concluded that the structure was sound, therefore the logical conclusion was sound. (As is shown to be true in the first, and his, example). However, you can not value whether the conclusion is sound or not sound without actually bringing in the premises. That is why he is at fault.


    Quote from: yeezevee on May 03, 2011, 09:40 AM
    Grouchy  what is the  good reason for picking up an innocent girl  as Osama  bin Laden?    

  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #347 - April 30, 2011, 05:32 AM
    you mean, it has nothing to do with the truth of the premises, not the validity? then i agree.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #348 - April 30, 2011, 05:33 AM
    Quote from: serrated_colon on April 30, 2011, 04:44 AM
    alright, i'm stupid so i'm going to ask what does 'actually follow' mean? the only follow i know of in this context IS logically follow.

    Simply follow-on or follow-up from something. The next thing to come in sequence, in order, in time or in space. To 'carry on' from one thing to the next. The desert normally follows the main course.

    Quote from: serrated_colon on April 30, 2011, 04:44 AM
    and what's general validity? you have to make what you mean absolutely clear or idiots like me who think about debates in terms of logical arguments get very confused.

    Validity can also mean soundness. A valid birth certificate. Valid ID. Valid currency. In fact, I'd say the more common usage of the word valid or validity is one that denotes a level of soundness or tenability.

    From wiki: In science and statistics, validity has no single agreed definition but generally refers to the extent to which a concept, conclusion or measurement is well-founded and corresponds accurately to the real world. The word "valid" is derived from the Latin validus, meaning strong. Validity of a measurement tool (i.e. test in education) is considered to be the degree to which the tool measures what it claims to measure.

    In psychometrics, validity has a particular application known as test validity: "the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores" ("as entailed by proposed uses of tests").

    In the area of scientific research design and experimentation, validity refers to whether a study is able to scientifically answer the questions it is intended to answer.

    In clinical fields, the validity of a diagnosis and associated diagnostic tests may be assessed.

    It is generally accepted that the concept of scientific validity addresses the nature of reality and as such is an epistemological and philosophical issue as well as a question of measurement. The use of the term in logic is narrower, relating to the truth of inferences made from premises.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #349 - April 30, 2011, 07:11 PM
    Quote from: z10 on April 30, 2011, 02:55 AM

    I don't understand why we are having an issue here with the difference between validity and soundness of argument. These are the basic building blocks of any logical system, whether one likes it or not.


    This ^
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #350 - April 30, 2011, 07:17 PM
    Prince, do I smell a closeted beardo?

    Steady, I'm watching you.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #351 - April 30, 2011, 07:19 PM
    Edit: cos I just read the last page.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #352 - April 30, 2011, 07:20 PM
    Quote from: Mount A Bison on April 30, 2011, 07:17 PM
    Prince, do I smell a closeted beardo?

    Steady, I'm watching you.


    I'm still waiting for the book rec.s
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #353 - April 30, 2011, 07:25 PM
    Ducks my question. I raise the suspicion level. One wrong move Prince, just one wrong move.

    Book rec? I don't know what you're talking about. Seek help.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #354 - April 30, 2011, 07:26 PM
    I asked if you had any more book recommendations ^
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #355 - April 30, 2011, 07:31 PM
    What does a book look like?
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #356 - April 30, 2011, 07:34 PM
    Like love.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #357 - April 30, 2011, 07:35 PM
    Quote from: Grouchy on April 30, 2011, 04:45 AM
    Let me clarify to you what z10 did wrong.



    The wrong thing z10 did was actually not bringing in the premises. He just concluded that the structure was sound, therefore the logical conclusion was sound. (As is shown to be true in the first, and his, example). However, you can not value whether the conclusion is sound or not sound without actually bringing in the premises. That is why he is at fault.





    I think you will find that I said the structure of the argument was valid, not sound.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #358 - April 30, 2011, 07:51 PM
    Quote from: Grouchy on April 30, 2011, 04:45 AM
    Let me clarify to you what z10 did wrong.

    It is simple.

    z10's argument did not include the premises(he said it himself). Just the naked structure.

    All E are D
    E is known
    Conclusion: D is known

    This is an absolutely logical structure.

    Further more you could even insert true premises in it.

    Humans have the Divine in themselves
    Humans know themselves

    This could very well be valid premises. However, it has nothing to do with the validity of the premises, but rather with the conclusion one draws.

    Therefore, “it does not follow” when someone says that Humans should therefore know the divine.

    The wrong thing z10 did was actually not bringing in the premises. He just concluded that the structure was sound, therefore the logical conclusion was sound. (As is shown to be true in the first, and his, example). However, you can not value whether the conclusion is sound or not sound without actually bringing in the premises. That is why he is at fault.





    That's like, the complete opposite to what he did.
  • Re: Atheist Censorship
     Reply #359 - May 01, 2011, 01:25 AM
    Quote from: z10 on April 30, 2011, 07:35 PM
    I think you will find that I said the structure of the argument was valid, not sound.


    Okay. So you added nothing to the discussion then.

    It is equivalent to my friend saying:

    This car goes 300 km/h, because I got it from my grandpa.

    Then I will tell him that “does not follow”. Now the premises are true. The logical structure is valid. However, the conclusion his is wrong, ergo it does not follow. Stefan made exactly that point by stating the incomprehensibility of quantum mechanics for the basic human senses and how oblivious we are to it, in the same way we would be to the divine had it been among us(I feel like I have said that three times now). Nobody objected the validity of the logical structure. You made that up.

    I do not know if I can explain it any clearer than this.
    Quote from: yeezevee on May 03, 2011, 09:40 AM
    Grouchy  what is the  good reason for picking up an innocent girl  as Osama  bin Laden?    

  • Previous page 1 ... 10 11 1213 14 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »