BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
I continue to disagree. I consider that a critique of an argument
does not require a 'better argument' to justify the criticism. The
criticism should stand on its own - critiquing both the content of
the premises, the logical connection between them and the conclusion
- without also providing another argument. The focus is strictly on
the ONE argument: its premises, its conclusion; its logical
connections. Nothing else.
The proposition vs argument concept makes no difference - a full
syllogism is subject to a critique of each of its premises and its
conclusion without also providing a 'better argument'.
An If-Then mode does not mean that the antecedent is 'strictly
hypothetical' but instead, functions as a connector; it sets up a
logical connection between two situations. The full modus of
If-Then- So/Therefore actually affirms the antecedent. "If it rains,
my car will be wet'. The focus is not on the hypothetical nature of
the antecedent but on the connection.
Edwina
On Mon 24/06/19 6:28 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Edwina, List:
My point is that if someone disagrees with X, and wants to convince
others that X is false, then that person needs to offer an argument
for not-X that is better (i.e., more persuasive) than any arguments
presented for X. If you fail to demonstrate that my argument is
somehow fallacious, then you provide no reason for anyone else to
join you in evaluating it as such.
"All human actions are determined by prior events beyond our
control" is a proposition, not an argument. Merely asserting it does
not rationally support its truth, and merely denying it does not
rationally support its falsehood. Why do some people hold it to be
true? Why do others hold it to be false? Who has the better
argument for their position?
In the example from Plato, the argument is formally valid, and you
agree with its conclusion; so what is your objection? The first
premiss is a conditional proposition, which means that the antecedent
is strictly hypothetical ; there is no assertion that knowledge is
sensation. Perhaps you consider the second premiss, "Pigs don't have
knowledge," to be false; but then you would need to offer an argument
to support your contention that pigs do have knowledge.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:35 PM Edwina Taborsky < [email protected]
[1]> wrote:
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]
[2] 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 [3] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4]
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 3:44 PM Edwina Taborsky 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://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
-----------------------------
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 .
