Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: KroneckerDelta v. RLBaty on Conditionals!

Expand Messages
  • tunombreaqui
    I have cited stipulation C numerous times. Furthermore, I cannot be anymore clear and you seem to refuse to answer MY questions, rather you seem to want to
    Message 1 of 25 , Feb 2 3:51 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      I have cited stipulation C numerous times. Furthermore, I cannot be anymore clear and you seem to refuse to answer MY questions, rather you seem to want to just have all of your arguments be considered valid when, in fact, I have shown them to be invalid and you have yet to actually address my contentions (which I do not believe are difficult to understand). You are completely avoiding my questions and your last two responses did absolutely nothing to move this discussion forward. So I will now make a final attempt to explain my objections (this will now be the 4th time I have stated my objections, 5th if you count the original long message) and if you are unwilling to respond to them, then I am afraid this discussion cannot continue.

      > Jared, please copy stipulation C and past it into a message and
      > explain to me what you don't understand about it or what you think
      > it means.

      > IF (C); there is empirical
      > evidence that some thing is
      > actually much older than a
      > few thousand years,

      I believe this stipulations means exactly what it says, but you seem to think it means something more. I do NOT believe that this stipulation means either one of a) "some thing is actually much older than a few thousand years" or b) that the Earth is "much older than a few thousand years".

      Without assuming a) and/or b) are true, it is not contradictory to accept B) and C) together and thus not contradictory that A), B), and C) can all be true together. If A), B), and C) can all be true together then D) does not follow (D, may or may not be true).

      For further explanation, I refer you to my following posts:

      Large Post (relevant part is about halfway down): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30830
      Response to Questions (objection to your argument is raised almost immediately): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30838
      1st Post dealing solely with the problem with B) an C): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30841
      Short Post addressing problems with again: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30844


      -Jared F. Bennatt
    • rlbaty50
      ... I think what you have done, Jared, is cite C from the premise while ignoring the clear and unequivocal meaning of the stipulation as to C in the
      Message 2 of 25 , Feb 2 4:08 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
        "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

        > I have cited stipulation C numerous times.

        I think what you have done, Jared, is cite C from the premise while ignoring the clear and unequivocal meaning of the stipulation as to C in the argument/premise.

        Let me try again. Here's the stipulation that corresponds to the C condition:

        > "Empirical evidence that some thing is
        > actually much older than a few thousand
        > years" - some thing is more than a few
        > thousand years old and we can so determine
        > from evidence and its interpretation
        > independent of "the text".

        Try to convince me you understand what that means.

        I am not asking if you agree that it is true. You have already indicated you don't think it is true.

        That, however, is the stipulation as to what is meant by the C element of the conditional and minor premise.

        Whether or not it is true is, as so often stated, an issue to take up if we get into a discussion of the minor premise.

        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
        "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

        > You seem to want to just have all of your
        > arguments be considered valid when, in fact,
        > I have shown them to be invalid and you have
        > yet to actually address my contentions
        > (which I do not believe are difficult to
        > understand).

        I have rebutted what little you have actually had to say about that, and I have no reason to believe that you should be given any special credit for your testimony. Your testimony reflects that you, like so many others, have trouble with the simple, fundamental, critical thinking skills.

        Did you find the testimony in my archives where 16 professionals in the field have unanimously testified to the validity of my argument; including Carl Cohen, the co-author with Irwin Copi of that Introduction to Logic book I recommended you use for reference in these discussions?

        Why should I put in stock in what you have to say on the validity issue when you are kicking against the pricks on the simplest of matters?

        16 professionals on my side don't make it true, but it may be something you want to consider before continuing to be a reluctant, misbehavin' student.

        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
        "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

        > You are completely avoiding my questions and
        > your last two responses did absolutely nothing
        > to move this discussion forward.

        Personally, I think you are doing an excellent job in proving one of my points; that even folks like you that should know better have trouble with the simplest of fundamental critical thinking skills.

        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
        "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

        > So I will now make a final attempt to explain
        > my objections (this will now be the 4th time
        > I have stated my objections, 5th if you count
        > the original long message) and if you are
        > unwilling to respond to them, then I am afraid
        > this discussion cannot continue.

        How long you are willing to engage the discussion is up to you. I am longsuffering and willing to stay with it a while longer to try and help you with your problems on these simple, fundamental matters.

        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
        "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

        >> IF (C); there is empirical
        >> evidence that some thing is
        >> actually much older than a
        >> few thousand years,
        >
        > I believe this stipulations means exactly what
        > it says, but you seem to think it means something
        > more.

        Thanks for proving my point.

        The condition is not the stipulation.

        There is a stipulation that explains what that is intended to mean in the exercise.

        Try again, Jared.

        Read the stipulation that goes along with C, that has been over and over and over again referred to you for consideration and which you now demonstrate you have been ignoring.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty
      • tunombreaqui
        ... You have added an explanation of the stipulation (based on things you have previously referenced, this is the first time I am seeing your interpretation of
        Message 3 of 25 , Feb 2 4:19 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          > > "Empirical evidence that some thing is
          > > actually much older than a few thousand
          > > years" - some thing is more than a few
          > > thousand years old and we can so determine
          > > from evidence and its interpretation
          > > independent of "the text".
          >
          > Try to convince me you understand what that means.
          >
          > I am not asking if you agree that it is true. You have already indicated you don't think it is true.

          You have added an explanation of the stipulation (based on things you have previously referenced, this is the first time I am seeing your interpretation of stipulation C). First, I do not agree at all that these two statements mean the same thing, however that's irrelevant. You can put any kind of gibberish you want and it can mean anything you like. So if you tell me this is how you are interpreting stipulation C) then I agree that your argument is sound.

          I would just like to point out two things:

          1) If you mean the second statement, you should use it as stipulation C, so I would strongly urge you to restate GoGRAS as the following so as to be more clear your meaning:

          > IF (A); God's word (the text) says
          > everything began over a period
          > of six days, and
          >
          > IF (B); God's word (the text) is
          > interpreted by some to mean it
          > was six 24-hour days occurring
          > a few thousand years ago, and
          >
          > IF (C); some thing is
          > actually much older than a
          > few thousand years,
          >
          > THEN (D); the interpretation of
          > the text by some is wrong.

          Do you see the difference in C?

          2) Now, I no longer accept the minor premise and thus cannot conclude D). To accept the minor premise one has to prove C). You seem to think the empirical evidence does this and I have already shown that this is not a sound argument to accept stipulation C) from the minor premise.

          -Jared F. Bennatt
        • rlbaty50
          ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30849 ... Like I said, Jared, you proved that you haven t been paying attention from the beginning. Go
          Message 4 of 25 , Feb 2 4:40 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30849
            "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

            >> "Empirical evidence that some thing is
            >> actually much older than a few thousand
            >> years" - some thing is more than a few
            >> thousand years old and we can so determine
            >> from evidence and its interpretation
            >> independent of "the text".
            >>
            >> Try to convince me you understand what
            >> that means.
            >>
            >> I am not asking if you agree that it is
            >> true. You have already indicated you don't
            >> think it is true.
            >
            > You have added an explanation of the stipulation
            > (based on things you have previously referenced,
            > this is the first time I am seeing your interpretation
            > of stipulation C).

            Like I said, Jared, you proved that you haven't been paying attention from the beginning.

            Go back and check the archives. References to that stipulation have been there a long, long time.

            Maybe more later, but that is enough to explain a lot about your unresolved problems.

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty
          • rlbaty50
            ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30849 ... Thanks for that concession. However, it s not a matter of me interpreting the condition,
            Message 5 of 25 , Feb 2 4:50 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30849
              "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

              >> "Empirical evidence that some thing is
              >> actually much older than a few thousand
              >> years" - some thing is more than a few
              >> thousand years old and we can so determine
              >> from evidence and its interpretation
              >> independent of "the text".
              >>
              >> Try to convince me you understand what
              >> that means.
              >>
              >> I am not asking if you agree that it is
              >> true. You have already indicated you don't
              >> think it is true.
              >
              > First, I do not agree at all that these two statements
              > mean the same thing, however that's irrelevant.
              >
              > So if you tell me this is how you are interpreting
              > stipulation C) then I agree that your argument is
              > sound.

              Thanks for that concession.

              However, it's not a matter of me interpreting the condition, that you identify as the stipulation. It's a matter of me stipulating that that is what the condition is intended to refer to in this exercise.

              You, and others, have had considerable trouble, among other things, understanding defining stipulations and how they relate to such exercises.

              Were we to proceed, you would have an opportunity to find out how stipulations work in resolving the minor premise issue.

              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30849
              "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

              > I would just like to point out two things:
              >
              > 1) If you mean the second statement, you should
              > use it as stipulation C, so I would strongly urge
              > you to restate GoGRAS as the following so as to
              > be more clear your meaning:
              >
              >> IF (A); God's word (the text) says
              >> everything began over a period
              >> of six days, and
              >>
              >> IF (B); God's word (the text) is
              >> interpreted by some to mean it
              >> was six 24-hour days occurring
              >> a few thousand years ago, and
              >>
              >> IF (C); some thing is
              >> actually much older than a
              >> few thousand years,
              >>
              >> THEN (D); the interpretation of
              >> the text by some is wrong.
              >
              > Do you see the difference in C?

              I have had a lot of suggestions over the years. The exercise has many utilitarian purposes and I think my framing of the argument and the use of the stipulation as to the C condition works out just fine.

              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30849
              "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

              > 2) Now, I no longer accept the minor premise and
              > thus cannot conclude D).
              >
              > To accept the minor premise one has to prove C).
              >
              > You seem to think the empirical evidence does this
              > and I have already shown that this is not a sound
              > argument to accept stipulation C) from the minor
              > premise.

              Would you like to review the exercise and have me explain to you how the analysis of the minor premise works and how the exercise helps to demonstrate why it is that young-earth creation-science folks have failed in their scientific pretentions and legal challenges?

              It really is quite simple and you may now be receptive to just how simple it is.

              Nothing really profound.
              No tricks.
              No traps.

              Just a simple exercise that folks like you and young-earth creation-science sorts have been quite diligent to blunder over and make it look like something really difficult.

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty
            • tunombreaqui
              ...  many utilitarian purposes and I think my framing of the argument  and the use of the stipulation as to the C condition works out just  fine.
              Message 6 of 25 , Feb 2 8:02 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                > I have had a lot of suggestions over the years.  The exercise has
                >  many utilitarian purposes and I think my framing of the argument 
                > and the use of the stipulation as to the C condition works out just 
                > fine.

                Statement C) vs. what you actually mean, in my opinion is written poorly and, in fact, it makes no sense to state it like that, when what you mean is crystal clear: "some things are more than a few thousand years old".  Simple as that.  

                Furthermore, the fact that you would use C) as stated is actually dishonest in my opinion.  I know exactly what you are trying to do.  You are trying to swindle the reader into accepting the major premise because you very quickly say, well, if there are some things that are more than a few thousand years old, then it cannot be the case that the interpretation that the Earth was created in six 24 days a few thousand years ago, must be false and thus, this must be the wrong interpretation.  Here's the problem: stipulation C ) is not the bolded part--it says that empirical evidence exists that shows...  So why do you state C) in the way you do?  Well because it's undeniable that empirical evidence does exist!  So if you can lull the reader into accepting your unsound argument for why the major premise is true, then you have them trapped.  Unfortunately, you didn't trap me.  I know that accepting the stipulation that empirical evidence exists is not the same as some things exist...  This is dishonest because had you stated what you purport to actually mean, some things exist that are more than a few thousand years old, then while your argument for the major premise would be sound and thus the major premise is true, you know that YECs will immediately deny that the minor premise is true because they will say (rightfully so) that you cannot prove that C) is indeed true.  Indeed you cannot prove the following statement: some things exist that are more than a few thousand years old.

                If you do not address the fact that I do not accept your argument that the existing empirical evidence for some things being more than a few thousand years old does not logically imply that indeed some things are more than a few thousand years old, then I will most likely stop responding.  I do not believe you have made any kind of honest attempt at addressing my concern.

                -Jared F. Bennatt
              • tunombreaqui
                I should point out that the language may be a little confusing (although I think you know exactly what my arguments are--so, at best, you are basically arguing
                Message 7 of 25 , Feb 2 8:35 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  I should point out that the language may be a little confusing (although I think you know exactly what my arguments are--so, at best, you are basically arguing my semantics, not my actual argument).

                  First, I want to say that there are two ways to state your Goliath of GRAS argument.  In one case the argument is valid but not sound and in the other case the argument is simply invalid.  In neither case is the argument both sound and thus in neither case you can you logically show your conclusion.

                  First way (original): your argument is invalid.

                  MAJOR PREMISE:

                  > IF (A); God's word (the text) says
                  > everything began over a period
                  > of six days, and
                  >
                  > IF (B); God's word (the text) is
                  > interpreted by some to mean it
                  > was six 24-hour days occurring
                  > a few thousand years ago, and
                  >
                  > IF (C); there is empirical
                  > evidence that some thing is
                  > actually much older than a
                  > few thousand years,
                  >
                  > THEN (D); the interpretation of
                  > the text by some is wrong.

                  MINOR PREMISE:

                  > (A); God's word (the text) says
                  > everything began over a period
                  > of six days, and
                  >
                  > (B); God's word (the text) is
                  > interpreted by some to mean it
                  > was six 24-hour days occurring
                  > a few thousand years ago, and
                  >
                  > (C); there is empirical evidence
                  > that some thing is actually much
                  > older than a few thousand years.

                  CONCLUSION:

                  > (D); The interpretation of the
                  > text by some is wrong.

                  The major premise is not showed to be true and thus this argument is invalid.  The major premise is not showed to be true because you cannot conclude from empirical evidence that indeed somethings actually do exist that are more than a few thousand years old.

                  2nd Form.  The argument is valid, by not sound because it cannot be showed that premises are indeed true (again, you cannot show that it is true that there are somethings that are actually older than a few thousand years).

                  MAJOR PREMISE:

                  > IF (A); God's word (the text) says
                  > everything began over a period
                  > of six days, and
                  >
                  > IF (B); God's word (the text) is
                  > interpreted by some to mean it
                  > was six 24-hour days occurring
                  > a few thousand years ago, and
                  >
                  > IF (C); some thing is
                  > actually much older than a
                  > few thousand years,
                  >
                  > THEN (D); the interpretation of
                  > the text by some is wrong.

                  MINOR PREMISE:

                  > (A); God's word (the text) says
                  > everything began over a period
                  > of six days, and
                  >
                  > (B); God's word (the text) is
                  > interpreted by some to mean it
                  > was six 24-hour days occurring
                  > a few thousand years ago, and
                  >
                  > (C); some thing is actually much
                  > older than a few thousand years.

                  CONCLUSION:

                  > (D); The interpretation of the
                  > text by some is wrong.



                  I have to say, that the way you have written this "argument", in my opinion is very strange.  You will notice that I have only really been attacking the major premise since I believe this is the only content of this so-called argument.  If you instead are actually making the following claim:

                  If you accept the major premise and the minor premise, then the conclusion is true.

                  Then, in either case, I agree that this argument is valid.  But in neither case is it sound.  Because in the first case, the major premise cannot be showed to be true and in the 2nd case, the minor premise cannot be showed to be true.

                  -Jared F. Bennatt
                • rlbaty50
                  ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855 ... I think you have done very well in demonstrating your opinions don t carry much weight as to
                  Message 8 of 25 , Feb 2 8:55 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
                    "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

                    > Statement C) vs. what you actually mean,
                    > in my opinion is written poorly....

                    I think you have done very well in demonstrating your opinions don't carry much weight as to these important, public issues.

                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
                    "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

                    > ...in fact, it makes no sense to state it like that,
                    > when what you mean is crystal clear:
                    >
                    >> "some things are more than
                    >> a few thousand years old".  
                    >
                    > Simple as that.  

                    See above comment.

                    In fact, what the argument reflects is clear enough for those with eyes to see and can demonstrate basic critical thinking skills. I have one or more very good reasons for not re-writing it to fit you misconceptions of the issues as they relate to young-earth creation-science promoters and the intent of the argument.

                    We might have gotten in to a further discussion of that if you were determined to continue in your misdirection instead of admitting your errors, explaining them, and correcting them.

                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
                    "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

                    > Furthermore, the fact that you would use C)
                    > as stated is actually dishonest in my opinion.  

                    Sounds like sour grapes to me; from a poor loser.

                    See above also.

                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
                    "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

                    > I know exactly what you are trying to do.

                    I am tempted, after all my efforts with you, to say you are lying about that, but I figure it may yet be the case that you are just still blinded by being bested by the likes of little ol' me.

                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
                    "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

                    > You are trying to swindle the reader...

                    Between the two of us, I think there is only one swindler.

                    It isn't me.

                    I think the readers will be able to figure out from the record who has been trying to swindle us with his evasions and errors and stiff-necked, unreasonable approach to the little exercise.

                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
                    "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

                    ... into accepting the major premise...

                    It's a very simple, critical thinking exercise.

                    The argument is so constructed that if the premises are true the conclusion will follow as true therefrom.

                    That some don't accept the major premise as true, given the stipulations and based on sound, biblical, common-sense reasoning, is important feedback about the lack of basic critical thinking skills on the part of the student...such as you, Jared.

                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
                    "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

                    > ...if there are some things that are more
                    > than a few thousand years old, then it cannot
                    > be the case that the interpretation that the
                    > Earth was created in six 24 days a few
                    > thousand years ago, must be false and thus,
                    > this must be the wrong interpretation.  

                    The way we say it around here, Jared, is that if some things are more than a few thousand years old, then either,

                    the young-earth creation-science interpretation is wrong,

                    or,

                    the text is wrong.

                    I have an argument for each issue, but the one we are dealing with now is the one that deals with the interpretation issue; and quite appropriately and simply so; for those who can demonstrate basic, critical thinking skills.

                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
                    "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

                    > Here's the problem: stipulation C ) is not the
                    > bolded part--it says that empirical evidence exists
                    > that shows...  So why do you state C) in the way you do?  

                    There's not a problem with C, and, as I recall, you indicated early own where the place for clarification comes in with conversations and communications.

                    To facilitate an understanding of EACH of the conditions stated in the argument, the meanings have been stipulated for clarity and relevance.

                    I get the distinct impression you are simply still reeling from your inadvertent or willful avoidance of the stipulations until just recently.

                    Really, Jared, I could not have scripted your blundering better.

                    Why not have some fun with the rest of us and laugh with us as we laugh at your blundering regarding the stipulations! :o)

                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
                    "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

                    > Well because it's undeniable that empirical
                    > evidence does exist!  

                    Has Ken Ham likes to say, we all have access to the same evidence.

                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
                    "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

                    > So if you can lull the reader into accepting
                    > your unsound argument for why the major premise
                    > is true, then you have them trapped.  

                    I try to get my students to open their eyes and not be lulled, like you have been, into thinking you can beat me at my game because you think you are sooooooooo smart.

                    There is no trap.

                    The argument for the truth of the major premise is clear, though I see you are still struggling to deny it.

                    The truth of the major premise does trap anyone into anything accept a course that leads to consideration of the minor premise where the truth of the conditions come in to play; assuming the student has also accepted the validity of the argument.

                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
                    "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

                    > Unfortunately, you didn't trap me.  

                    No, it wasn't a trap.

                    But you have blundered your way through the conversation with your errors and evasions and, LOL, your failure to consider the stipulative definitions given for the conditions.

                    You showed that even the high and mighty math wizards like you who pride themselves on their logical prowess can be shown not to be so clever when it comes to being able to demonstrate their ability to think properly regarding the simple stuff.

                    I certainly appreciate your contribution and you have earned a chapter all your own should that book ever get written.

                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
                    "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

                    > I know that accepting the stipulation that
                    > empirical evidence exists is not the same
                    > as some things exist...  This is dishonest
                    > because had you stated what you purport to
                    > actually mean, some things exist that are
                    > more than a few thousand years old, then
                    > while your argument for the major premise
                    > would be sound and thus the major premise
                    > is true, you know that YECs will immediately
                    > deny that the minor premise is true because
                    > they will say (rightfully so) that you cannot
                    > prove that C) is indeed true.  

                    There is some dishonesty going on in these conversations.

                    Readers will recognize that it is not coming from my keyboard.

                    Shame on you, Jared!
                    Shame on you!

                    We could have had a rational discussion about your problems in that area, Jared, but you refused to deal openly and honestly with your blundering and progress to a consideration of the minor premise and how it resolves itself in the exercise (though I made it clear in Step #3 how young-earth creation-science promoters deal with that issue as to C).

                    Will you never cease, Jared!

                    You failed.
                    You lost.

                    It's time to repent and start bringing forth your works for repentance instead of continue to whine because you are simply a sore loser trying to cover up your blundering.

                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
                    "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

                    > Indeed you cannot prove the following statement: 
                    > some things exist that are more than a few thousand
                    > years old.

                    I was certainly prepared to discuss that with you as it relates to them minor premise, Jared.

                    Alas, you blundering continues.

                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
                    "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

                    > If you do not address the fact that I do not
                    > accept your argument that the existing empirical
                    > evidence for some things being more than a few
                    > thousand years old does not logically imply that
                    > indeed some things are more than a few thousand
                    > years old, then I will most likely stop responding.  

                    What's to address!

                    As I have been since the beginning, Jared, I propose to deal with your problems as they become relevant and you haven't made it that far yet.

                    I get that you deny that C in the minor premise is true.
                    So!

                    We can discuss that after we resolve the other issues preliminary to taking up the minor premise.

                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30855
                    "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

                    > I do not believe you have made any kind of honest
                    > attempt at addressing my concern.

                    Want to opine just how dishonest you have been coming across regarding the simplest of fundamental, critical thinking issues as they relate to my little exercise, Jared.

                    Here's your homework assignment:

                    Read real carefully the argument and the stipulations.

                    If you can't figure out where I am correct in proposing that the argument is so constructed that if the premises are true the conclusion will follow as true and that, given the stipulations and the force and effect of sound, biblical, common-sense reasoning, the major premise is true, then come back with questions and not blundering evasions and obfuscations and I will try to bring you up to speed.

                    Once we, unequivocally, resolve those simple matters, we can move on to dealing with your problems regarding the minor premise.

                    Sincerely,
                    Robert Baty
                  • rlbaty50
                    Will you blundering never end, Jared! See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30857 for your homework assignment and get back to me tomorrow,
                    Message 9 of 25 , Feb 2 9:04 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Will you blundering never end, Jared!

                      See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30857 for your homework assignment and get back to me tomorrow, after you have seriously thought through your next move.

                      As to what you just posted:

                      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30856
                      "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

                      > First way (original):
                      > your argument is invalid.
                      >
                      > The major premise is not showed to be true
                      > and thus this argument is invalid.

                      That's why I have been trying to describe the argument instead of label it. In this exercise, validity has to do with form and is not contingent upon content.

                      In other words, the issue is whether or not, for purposes of validity as I define that term, the argument is so constructed that IF, IF, IF the premises are true the conclusion will follow.

                      In any case, as I explained in giving you that homework assignment, the original major premise is, given the stipulations, true; but that issue is secondary to the validity issue.

                      Jared, again, if you do your homework assignment properly, we just might get to dealing with your soundness problem.

                      A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises for purposes of this exercise.

                      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30856
                      "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

                      > I have to say, that the way you have written
                      > this "argument", in my opinion is very strange.

                      Not really.

                      You are just having trouble with the fundamentals and are having trouble being open and honest in dealing with your problems.

                      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30856
                      "tunombreaqui" wrote, in part:

                      > If you instead are actually making the
                      > following claim:
                      >
                      > If you accept the major premise and the minor
                      > premise, then the conclusion is true.
                      >
                      > Then, in either case, I agree that this argument
                      > is valid. But in neither case is it sound.

                      Ah, there is still a glimmer of hope!

                      Do your homework tonight, Jared, and get back tomorrow if you can figure it all out.

                      Maybe then we'll take up the minor premise and soundness issues.

                      Sincerely,
                      Robert Baty
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.