Arlo, On Aug 12, 2013, at 1:21 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR wrote:
> [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. Nihilistic relativism? Really? Beginning empirical observation is not _proving gravity_. Who's playing games? You 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". Your accusation that the statement "Like Marsha, you seem to think that incoherence is a necessary 'step' to free oneself from the choking dogma of intellectual patterns." is verifiable by anyone following the discourse or anyone checking the archives is a prejudicial assumption and circular reasoning. It assumes within the statement what will be found. > [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. I requested that you provide proof for such a "seem to think" statement. Without proof what would you call such accusations? > The substance here is the role of coherence and the nature of intellectual > patterns. You could have responded to this. I did respond as stated above, with a request. > 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... Yes, dmb, chooses to talk primarily with third parties. He stated that your thoughts were his thoughts exactly. Since I already requested evidence, from you, I addressed him. > 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"). Seems to think on what grounds? > 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. And I stand by the belief that it represents the "everybody knows" fallacy, despite your attempts to deny it. Your "any one following along" or "able to view the archives" is assuming the presence of common knowledge. > 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. I did find a well presented criticism as you suggest. Is this suppose to represent language proficiency? Why would I address such unsubstantiated accusations? I did request proof from you of your "seems to think" claim; that is the opposite of evasion. It was requesting further information. And you were the one who evaded presenting the proof for such an unfounded statement. > 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. We disagree on your premise, you may call it evasion, I still call it common sense not to needlessly defend against unfounded accusations. No, you are not dull or uninteresting, and you far outrank me in debating skills. I'll admit to that. But there is no evasion, only bogus wordplay on your part. I also know you work with language proficiency and are a member of CALPER, so no contest there either. I'm done with this. I can only agree to disagree with you, a very acceptable thing to do when two people disagree on the premise. There's no sense in going in circles. It's time to move on, otherwise I'd just be repeating things I've already said. Marsha ___ 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
