[Arlo previously] An argument ad populum states that something is true simply BECAUSE everyone believes it.
[Marsha] No, I have a source that states the fallacy as I indicated: stating that something is true because it is common knowledge. [Arlo] This is exactly what I said. The argument ad populum, which you accused me of, states that something is true because it is common knowledge. Which is not what I said at all. But you know that. [Arlo previously] I am saying that my comment can be verified by anyone wishing to do so. Its like being asked to prove gravity, and I say "go outside and drop an apple". [Marsha] Going outside and dropping an apple does not prove gravity, as I'm sure you know. [Arlo] Its the beginning of empirical observation. But I'm not going to descend into your spiral of nihilistic relativism. I say posts in the archives form an narrative by which people can evaluate your position. If you wish to believe they don't, knock yourself out. [Arlo previously] I am specifically saying to NOT believe something just because everyone says it is true, but to examine the evidence. [Marsha] You've presented the conclusion in the premise. That would be circular reasoning. [Arlo] It would be, if that's what I did. But I didn't. I said that I stand by my conclusion, and have suggested that anyone who needs verification can go back and read the archives. That I am confident that most (if not all) would reach the same conclusion is not "circular reasoning". [Marsha] What exact issue am I avoiding? If it is concerning something Ian said, I cannot speak for Ian. [Arlo] Well, let's see. I made the comment to Ian: Like Marsha, you seem to think that incoherence is a necessary 'step' to free oneself from the choking dogma of intellectual patterns. The substance here is the role of coherence and the nature of intellectual patterns. You could have responded to this. But, you challenged this in a response to DMB, saying: I can only state I made no such statement about Paul Turner's theory; I never mentioned SOM... Evasion 1: You turned my comment into a quote, distorted "seems to think" into "made no such statement", brought in Paul Turner and SOM (again, using the word "mention"). When I pointed out Evasion 1, you responded with Evasion 2: It's a version of the "everybody knows" fallacy where one asserts that common knowledge must be true. When I pointed out Evasion 2, you responded with Evasion 3: You've presented the conclusion in the premise. That would be circular reasoning. Notice that the substance of my criticism, the nature and role of coherence and its relation to the intellectual level, and the larger issue of the nature of the intellectual level, have not been addressed. Not once. Even though you accuse me of being incorrect, the only 'retort' you can make is by back-to-back evasions. So, if you need a final evasion 4, knock yourself out. Call me dull or uninteresting or bogus, I'm not taking another step towards that football. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
