COMMENT 1 Andrew Kliman's post is a PERFECT example of the fallacy of petitio principii or begging the question. One basic form of this fallacy consists in assuming as true what is being questioned. I questioned his identification of a certain argument as fallacious by attempting to show that the argument he uses to establish it as fallacious is not valid. That was the point of the analogy. It was also meant as a reductio. In his reply Andrew claims that my remarks are a perfect example of the fallacy he pointed to. But they can only be a perfect example of that if what he pointed to is a fallacy. But that was the question that is at issue. So his reply assumes as true what is being debated. If what he says is true then I am wrong no matter whether my response perfectly exemplifies his fallacy or is more like a Mother Goose rhyme.
COMMENT 2 Kliman's response does not prove that my response is a PERFECT example of the fallacy he points out. Why? Because his response is fallacious: a) because it is a petitio and b) if what Kliman points out is a fallacy, his own comments exemplify that fallacy and hence are fallacious for that reason as well. Prove 2 b) please.. Kliman interprets my remarks as an interpretation of his remarks as ludicrous. But no proof or even evidence is given for this. He certainly hasnt even begun the monumental task of showing that there is "no" interpretation under which I might be right. Since he hasnt proved this it follows that his own argument is a PERFECT example of the fallacy he points out. But if his argument is fallacious then it does not prove that my own argument is a PERFECT example of his fallacy. Cheers, Ken Hanly ----- > Ken Hanly's post (see below) is a PERFECT example of the fallacy I > pointed to. > > I wrote: "If you claim that something someone said can't be > right, you have to show that there is *no* interpretation under > which it is right. It just doesn't wash to say, 'here's my > interpretation of Keynes. Under my interpretation, there is this > error, that internal inconsistency, etc. Ergo, Keynes committed > this error, that internal inconsistency, etc.' There's a missing > premise, namely that one's interpretation has been proven to be > correct." > > Ken has interpreted my comment and has used his interpretation to > construct what he apparently thinks is an analogy. The "analogy" > discloses that, under his interpretation, what I said was in > error. Ergo, Ken suggests, I made an error. > > But this doesn't wash, because he hasn't shown that his > interpretation of my comment is correct. > > It isn't. In fact, it is ludicrous. > > > Andrew Kliman > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Hanly > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 5:37 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:23984] Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: RE: marx's proof > regarding > surplus value and profit > > > Let's suppose that X claims that if people believe strongly enough > in the > power of the deity Shazam that enemy bullets will not harm them > when they > go into battle. I point out that as a matter of fact lots of > believers in > Shazam have been killed by enemy bullets in battle. A defender of > Shazam > claims that this is just my interpretation. There is another > interpertretation to the effect that those who were harmed did not > believe > strongly enough in Shazam. So the believer in Shazam has proved > that my > intepretation is incorrect since there is another intepretation > in which > the defender of Shazam's view makes sense ---and this disproves my > claim. > > Cheers, Ken Hanly > > > If you claim that something someone said can't be right, you have > to show that there is *no* interpretation under which it is right. > It just doesn't wash to say, "here's my interpretation of Keynes. > Under my interpretation, there is this error, that internal > inconsistency, etc. Ergo, Keynes committed this error, that > internal inconsistency, etc." There's a missing premise, namely > that one's interpretation has been proven to be correct. But to > disprove the claim, all one needs to do is show that there's some > possible other interpretation according to which it makes sense. > > >
