Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> If you are really humble, just don't make any statements about  
>> whether you
>> reasoning is valid or not.
> I don't defend any truth but I am still offering a reasoning to you.  
> If you find it invalid it is your task to find the flaw. That's is by  
> definition of reasoning.
By saying that no flaw has been found, while people have pointed out flaws
that you just don't accept as such (whether valid or not is not even
important), you are defending the truth that your reasoning is valid,
obviously so.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> You really don't know, maybe the criticism of
>> many different people is actually valid and you just don't recognize  
>> it.
> No. I usually debunk them, and usually people get the point. There are  
> exception as I have discover that some people just are not familiar  
> with what is a reasoning.
Or maybe you just don't share their conceptions of what a valid reasoning
is, you simply assume that your conception is the right one. If you insist
on that of course no one will find a "valid" flaw.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  But some time I feel them as being only  
> emotional, and this means something about you, not about any point in  
> the discussion.
What if any useful argument can only come from emotion (or more broadly
intuition)? That might explain why "rational" arguments work only in few
cases, and even where one could expect non-emotional discussion, people
discuss emotionally (like totally unimportant topics).

It seems to me "purely" rational arguments are only especially dogmatic
arguments, like arguments purely based on belief.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  I am happy you find Terren's post worth, and it is a  
> good point for you that you are aware of your emotional factor.
Yes, being aware of your own emotions is a key for happiness, and also for
deep insights in general.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Maybe the reasoning and COMP are not clearly seperable, as the  
>> reasoning
>> supposes COMP to be true.
> *All* reasoning suppose their premise true for the sake of the  
> reasoning.
But in some case the reasoning itself cannot be seperated from the premise.
If I don't share the premise that 1+1=2, I can still see that 1+2=3 follows
from that. This may not be the case with all arguments, and it seems to me
this is the case with COMP.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> A common technic to prove that A entails B consists in supposing A and  
> getting B from that. This does not prove that A is true, it proves  
> only that IF A is true then B is true.
> In many-world terms it means that in all words were A is true, B is  
> also true. It means there is no world in which A is true and B is not  
> true. But it does not mean that A is true in all world.
> A common technic to prove that A is false, for example, will consists  
> in assuming A and getting a contradiction from it (like 0 = 1), and  
> then deducing NOT A, from that, despite the reasoning worked by  
> supposing A to be true.
> So the validity of a reasoning is completely independent of the true  
> or falsity of the premise.
This may be the case for formal arguments, but yours isn't strictly formal
(necessarily so because "Yes" doctor, including correct substitution level
is not formal and the reasoning has to reference that), and so no formal
contradiction can be found - or even no contradiction at all. This doesn't
imply that the reasoning is valid. Otherwise all informal arguments would be
valid, which is clearly not true.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> PS I might comment other paragraph, but I am unfortunately very busy,  
> so I will limit to answer only one paragraph which I might find more  
> important, or summing up others.
Don't bother. You are just wasting your time, frankly I have no interest in
this discussion anymore.


View this message in context:
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to