Did Laidlaw, Broun, Stoppard, Chesterton...?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Not an ad hominem.

The further this conversation goes, it more resembles ad nauseam.

This is the grand benefit of logic. To reduce conversations to only words, devoid of feeling. To remove meaning, leaving only the parched bones. An interesting way to remove blame, as well.

Originally posted by Suzianne
The further this conversation goes, it more resembles ad nauseam.

This is the grand benefit of logic. To reduce conversations to only words, devoid of feeling. To remove meaning, leaving only the parched bones. An interesting way to remove blame, as well.

No, the great benefit of logic and reason is to be able to resolve arguments and
disputes by application of an agreed and understood set of rules to the evidence
and or arguments at hand that all parties can rely, and agree on.
And yes, this can involve removing overheated emotions from the discussion.
Where emotion clouds judgement and prevents reason.

However emotions are why you were having the discussion in the first place and why
you might care about the outcome. They can get in the way of actually reaching it
however. And that is the power and benefit of rational arguments using logic and
reason.

The problem here is freaky has a poor understanding of English, and no understanding
of logic. And thus this is simply a mud slinging match, no logic involved.
I have given up entirely of having a discussion about the topic with freaky, but I
did think he could at least grasp the difference between the ad hominem fallacy and
a simple insult. Apparently I was wrong.


I have no idea about what you mean by removing blame?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Are you seriously suggesting that it is possible for mathematics not to exist?

Do you not think calculus existed before Newton?
Do you not think that trigonometry existed before Pythagoras?
Before your god made anything wasn't 1+1=2 ?

Are you seriously suggesting that it is possible for mathematics not to exist?
Yes.
No.
Both of those.
Since I believe that math as we apply it is physically-dependent, if there is nothing to count physically, there is no such thing as math: it took a created physical nature in order for mathematics to present itself.
Since I also believe that God Himself uses mathematics, the language has a transcendent quality and therefore not dependent upon the physical per se.

God Himself--- outside the physical world, outside of creation--- is said to be Three, is said to be One even before the physical world was created. So it gets a little muddled for my addled brain.

I suppose to keep things clear in my thinking, I consider it thusly: it requires an observer for God's attributes to be known (outside of Himself, of course). This universe allows for God's attributes to be known, in that it is an expression of the same, i.e., He is mathematically consistent and sound.

Yet math did not create the universe, God did.
He coded the world with math, but it is a tool, not the impetus.
He is the impetus, not math.

Before your god made anything wasn't 1+1=2 ?
Before creating the universe, there was no addition, just three in one.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Not an ad hominem. It's an observation about you.
Great.
What do you think makes it an ad hominem, a--- as I called it--- one step above name calling, exactly?
Here it is: you use the insult to replace an actual rebuttal to the assertion.
Your objection has no weight in terms of actual argument; you resort to dismissing the point(s) made by virt ...[text shortened]... tual evidence-based reason for rejecting their position.



You see what I did there, right?[/b]

Every time you insult the other person while also without offering an iota of
counter-argument--- with or without substance--- you are arguing from an
ad hominem position.

NO. an ad hominem is a specific formal logical fallacy where person A says that there
is something wrong with person B and therefore Person B's argument is wrong.


If, as I did, You simply give up on an argument because you think the other person
is unwilling or incapable of understanding basic English let alone rational argument
and insult the person by saying so then THAT IS NOT AN AD HOMINEM.

It's an insult, it's not a formal logical fallacy.


I did not ever say that your argument is wrong because you have some failing.

I thus did not make the formal logical fallacy of an ad hominem.

What I in effect said was that your arguments were useless and that because of that
I thought you were an idiot.

That's not an ad hominem it's simply an insult.


And no it doesn't rebut your points. It's me declaring that I think your points are so stupid
they don't need rebutting.


As it says at the beginning of the page I linked to you...

THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.

Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

I think you exactly the 'certain delicate type' being described.

Originally posted by googlefudge

Every time you insult the other person while also without offering an iota of
counter-argument--- with or without substance--- you are arguing from an
ad hominem position.

NO. an ad hominem is a specific formal logical fallacy where person A says that there
is something wrong with person B and therefore Person B's argument ...[text shortened]... hominem argument. [/quote]


I think you exactly the 'certain delicate type' being described.

And no it doesn't rebut your points.
Well, at least we finally found some common ground.

It's me declaring that I think your points are so stupid they don't need rebutting.
Well, there you go again...

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Yes.
No.
Both of those.

🙄

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Since I believe that math as we apply it is physically-dependent,

Errr. yes.
When you apply Math to something obviously (by definition)
it is physically dependent.

But the Math is still valid, still exists, without the necessity to apply it!
i.e. I can calculate 2+2 without the need for two of anything!
And what about squaring i?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Before creating the universe, there was no addition, just three in one.

Go tell it to the crazies

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Errr. yes.
When you apply Math to something [b]obviously (by definition)
it is physically dependent.

But the Math is still valid, still exists, without the necessity to apply it!
i.e. I can calculate 2+2 without the need for two of anything!
And what about squaring i?[/b]

This may be a bit esoteric for you, but...

Let's say we're going to square an unknown:

x²

"x" could be anything, or it could be a temporary--- an assumed-to-exist. If math only worked on the real, it would necessarily be something within the realm of 'anything,' i.e., the existent universe.
However, for math to work on the speculative, a concrete thing must still exist: the mind to think it.
Therefore, the math that we apply is necessarily tied to the real world if by no other thread, the physicality of man, the thinker.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This may be a bit esoteric for you, but...

Let's say we're going to square an unknown:

x²

"x" could be anything, or it could be a temporary--- an assumed-to-exist. If math only worked on the real, it would necessarily be something within the realm of 'anything,' i.e., the existent universe.
However, for math to work on the speculative, a concret ...[text shortened]... s necessarily tied to the real world if by no other thread, the physicality of man, the thinker.

No.

If all sentient life in the universe was extinguished 2+2 would still =4

and why on earth have you used 'esoteric'?
(Do you belong to a secret Maths Society?)

Originally posted by wolfgang59
No.

If all sentient life in the universe was extinguished 2+2 would still =4

and why on earth have you used 'esoteric'?
(Do you belong to a secret Maths Society?)

If all sentient life in the universe was extinguished 2+2 would still =4
If a tree falls in the forest--- and there is no one to hear it--- does it still make a noise?

and why on earth have you used 'esoteric'?

Remind yourself that all men assert wisdom is the greatest good,

but that there are few, who, strenuously endeavor to obtain

this greatest good.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If a tree falls in the forest--- and there is no one to hear it--- does it still make a noise?

It still makes a sound.
Whether it makes a noise very much depends on your definition of "noise".

But all that is rather irrelevant to my point which you neatly - but obviously - side stepped.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This may be a bit esoteric for you, but...

Let's say we're going to square an unknown:

x²

"x" could be anything, or it could be a temporary--- an assumed-to-exist. If math only worked on the real, it would necessarily be something within the realm of 'anything,' i.e., the existent universe.
However, for math to work on the speculative, a concret ...[text shortened]... s necessarily tied to the real world if by no other thread, the physicality of man, the thinker.

Genesis 2: 19 And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the heavens; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; but for man there was not found a help meet for him.

There were no zebras, dogs, or anything till they where named, the
creatures there without names. So the truth about any laws of math
would more than likely be there, yet undiscovered as the creatures were
till named.
Kelly

edit:
Proverbs 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing; But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.

Originally posted by KellyJay
There were no zebras, dogs, or anything till they where named, the
creatures there without names.

Google translate isn't working again .........

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Google translate isn't working again .........

Simply no names were given till man showed up.
Kelly