Re: Benton's Blunder(s); why Terry W. Benton ran off!
For some time Terry has been claiming that his "Robert" arguments have true major premises; true just like the major premise of the "Goliath of GRAS" is true.
I kept pleading with Terry to demonstrate he knew why, if it be the case, his major premises were true and why the "Goliath of GRAS" major premise was true. He would not. He just kept claiming that they were true in the same way.
Now, in his most recent postings regarding that, before he ran off, he revealed a little bit more of his problem with that. From what he most recently wrote, it appears he is thinking that I am saying that the "Goliath of GRAS" major premise is true because it is in the "if-then" format and, as a hypothetical proposition it is only "hypothetically true" as opposed to being a "true hypothetical".
(Remember recently when Terry was all hung up on that problem?)
I don't know if he believes that or not, or if he understands that as being the "necessary inference" from his recent writings, but I am convinced that that is the substance of his error regarding the truth of the major premises.
I have concistently claimed, and demonstrated, that the "Goliath of GRAS" major premise is true, based on the principles of sound reasoning and the stipulated definitions.
Terry's "Robert" arguments do not have the same substance in their major premises and so cannot be true in the same way.
The only reason I can now figure out why Terry keeps evading the issue and simply claiming they are true in the same way is because he is thinking, or ignorantly proposing, that they are true because they are in the "if-then" format; a very clear and substantial blunder.
In a different way, I figure Terry might, if he were to go to the reasonable effort in this discussion, show how his "400 lb Robert" and "Retarded Robert" may be considered to have true major premises; but they won't be true in the same way as the "Goliath of GRAS" major premise is true.
I don't think Terry can reasonably show how his "Wife-beating Robert" argument has a true major premise; but he is welcome to try and if he succeeds he will demonstrate that it is not true "in the same way" that the "Goliath of GRAS" major premise is true.
My resident expert in the field tells me that determining "validity" is relatively easy; discerning the truth of premises takes a little more work and is not determined, as is validity, merely by reference to the format.
Terry appears unwilling to work at determining why the major premises of the now "5 arguments" are or are not true and demonstrating he understands why it is so and how the truth or falsity of the major premises are not true or false "in the same way".
I would have dearly loved for Terry to have stayed with that fundamental problem and dealt with it openly and honorably. It would have gone a long way in helping us resolve his continuing problems with the "Goliath of GRAS", the claims I have made for it, and its historic place in the history of the popular public debate over young-earth creation-science.
Don't you think?
Todd, if you have any further opinions on the matter I would be glad to consider your analysis on this and any other points you may wish to opine.
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote:
Robert, are you saying that Terry was confusing the "logical validity" of an argument as being the same thing as the "soundness" of an argument, and then making arguments based on that false premise?
- Todd Greene
--- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote (post #19188):
> In response to my recent recommendation that Terry W.
> Benton (NI preacher for the Pine Lane church) and I
> limit our discussion of the "Goliath of GRAS" to the
> "Goliath of GRAS", Terry went somewhat bullistic and
> demanded that he be allowed to bring in his
> personalized imitations (e.g., "400 lb Robert",
> "Mentally Retarded Robert" and "Wife-beating Robert"
> arguments) in order to make some sort of demonstration.
> Terry's whining about that back-fired on him.
> I obliged Terry's demand and, to be consistent and
> reasonable, formulated a "Goliath-like" argument that
> was personalized towards Terry in order that,
> consistent with Terry's own claim, a true demonstration
> of relevant details regarding Terry might be presented
> in conjunction with the failure of Terry's personalized
> arguments to make the points he was trying to make.
> What point was Terry trying to make?
> The evidence now indicates, with no rebuttal having
> been made after all the time that has now been allowed
> for rebuttal, that Terry was trying to make the claim
> that the truth of the major premises in each of the
> arguments is determined in the same way; as Terry said,
> repeatedly, "they are true in the same way".
> I may be a little slow, but just recently and upon
> acceptance of the allowance of Terry's personalized
> arguments into the discussion, and his claims related
> thereto, I finally realized that what Terry was saying,
> whether he actually believes it or not or realizes it
> or not, was that in modus ponens arguments the major
> premise is "true" because of its "if-then" form.
> Who can believe that a seasoned preacher, even an NI
> preacher, debater and self-proclaimed logician would
> make such a claim?
> But that appears to be the case, and the charge is
> unrebutted. Even DBWillis, another NI preacher, by his
> silence, support for Terry's claims, and continuing
> critical comments towards me and my "Goliath of GRAS",
> has endorsed the Benton Blunder on what it takes to
> make a modus ponens major premise true.