BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
I disagree. An argument that is, it itself, fallacious, as I suggest
yours was, cannot be 'supported by a better argument' - since, as I
keep saying and you don't seem to understand, - what if the argument
itself is fallacious? How can a false argument be critiqued by a
'better argument'?
That is - if my argument is, for another example, that I believe
that 'all human actions are determined by prior events beyond our
control' - then, how can this argument/conclusion, which is in itself
fallacious, be critiqued by a 'better argument' for that same
conclusion?
If an argument is in itself false - then, the premises which support
that argument ought to be critiqued for themselves and thus, the final
conclusion would be shown as unsustainable by any argumentative
premises.
How about ..from Plato:
"If knowledge is sensation, then pigs have knowledge. Pigs don't
have knowledge; therefore, knowledge isn't sensation".
Here, the basic argument of 'knowledge is sensation' is false. How
can it be supported by a 'better argument, when the belief is itself
fallacious?
Edwina
On Mon 24/06/19 5:17 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Edwina, List:
Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point. Merely stating
disagreement should never be sufficient, by itself, to convince
anyone. A critique can only "logically and factually stand on its
own merits" if it is supported by a better argument than the position
being criticized.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 3:44 PM Edwina Taborsky < [email protected]
[3]> wrote:
JAS, list
I disagree with your comment:
"If someone disagrees with what I post on the List--whether a
particular reading of Peirce's words, or my own suggestion "inspired
by" them--then the proper response is to offer a better argument,
instead of just complaining about mine."
I don't think that critique of arguments should require offering a
'better argument'; I think that a critique ought to stand on its own.
For example, I disagree with your [JAS's] argument for the semeiosic
reality of God [where you move from 'the Universe is a 'perfusion of
signs'---to 'all signs are connected and thus can be understood as A
sign [one sign] '---to 'a sign must have an external object ---- to
'JAS calls this external Object 'God'.
I don't see that I should offer a 'better argument' for this
hypothesis, since I disagree with and thus, critique each of the
steps that you take. I think a critique should logically and
factually stand on its own merits and not require a 'better argument'
to validate it.
Edwina
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
