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

Re: The proper analysis of GoG

Expand Messages
  • dfyffe1
    ... Tamara ... Todd: You are welcome. Just because it is valid in its form, does not make it true. Agreed? ... the ... Todd, if you fellows have misunderstood
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 31, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      > By the way, thank you for acknowledging that what Robert and
      Tamara
      > and I have been telling you all along - that GRAS is a logically
      > valid proposition - is correct. That IS refreshing, and it's
      > appreciated.

      Todd:

      You are welcome. Just because it is valid in its form, does not
      make it true. Agreed?


      > > Robert, I have NEVER given mixed signals.
      >
      > Danny, come on! Now you're just being ridiculous. You acknowledged
      > that you were mistaken regarding your comments about the logic of
      the
      > proposition - and it is the mistaken nature of your words that has
      > sent these mixed signals.

      Todd, if you fellows have misunderstood me, it is due to the fact
      that you do not read in context. I would ask you to do that and this
      bogus charge of "mixed signals" will simply fade away.

      > > Robert, as you can see, I disagree that the major premise is
      > > true. It is false to the core.
      >
      > This is one of those mixed signals. First you say it is impossible
      to
      > disagree with it, that no one can disagree with it, and then you
      turn
      > around and say you disagree with it, that it is false. This is
      just
      > one example of the many mixed signals you have given. You are not
      > being careful with your statements, and so we are reading confused
      > claims from you.

      Todd, context, context, context. I admit the form is valid. However,
      the truth within it is not. What does that mean? Logically, it is
      valid. The truth of the premise is found wanting. Is that plain
      enough?

      > You see, asking about the first premise is NOT asking about the
      > second premise. Asking you if you agree that the first premise is
      > logically valid means asking you if you agree that IF all of the
      IF
      > parts are true THEN the THEN part follows from the IF parts. This
      is
      > REGARDLESS of whether or not the IF parts themselves are actually
      > true. There can be arguments where the first premise is simply NOT
      > logically valid (which is why you are totally wrong to keep saying
      it
      > is impossible to disagree with the first premise), in which case
      the
      > argument simply falls apart at that point and no longer needs to
      be
      > discussed because it is simply an invalid argument (logically
      > invalid). If you could successfully demonstrate that the first
      > premise was logically invalid, then you would destroy GRAS on that
      > point alone.

      GoG is so easily defeatable. What is the point? Robert crowed and
      crowed about this "undefeatable" argument he had. I had to write him
      no less than 6 times to get it out of him! He seemed a bit shaken to
      me. I have analyzed the entire thing and found it sorely lacking. If
      a NO BODY like me can show its weaknesses and fallacies so easily,
      imagine if Somebody came along and looked at it!

      >
      > I hate to have to keep giving you simple lessons in logic, but
      > unfortunately you keep demonstrating the need for them.

      Todd, at the risk of being unkind, I think you just lied. You
      said "I hate ..." Truth is, no, you love to say things like that.
      Tell the truth now.

      > I already explained this in some of my earlier comments about
      GRAS,
      > but unfortunately you have been ignoring my posts.

      Todd, why have I ignored you? My "beef" (to quote Robert) is not
      with you. You are not the one to have made the claim. Robert did, so
      I face him. When I am done with him, I'll turn my attention to you.
      I know Robert is parroting what you say and that is ok, he needs the
      help. I am not the smartest fellow around, but neither am I afraid
      of this argument as laid out by Robert. Why don't you go back to the
      corner, send Robert out to face this fight. Once he is defeated, the
      next 12 rounds will be yours. You do understand I am using a metphor
      for boxing, right?

      >
      > So please keep in mind that IF YOU AGREE THAT THE PROPOSITION IS
      > LOGICALLY VALID THEN YOU AGREE THAT THE FIRST PREMISE IS CORRECT.

      Todd, what Robert has written is not true major and minor premises.
      Therefore, what you say above is incorrect.

      > Incidentally, I have also already responded to your critical
      analysis
      > point by point, and have pointed out a number of mistakes in your
      > claims. Here are the posts:
      >
      > "Re: Detailed Analysis of GoG - the interpretation" (1/29/05)
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/5447
      >
      > "Re: Detailed Analysis of GoG - the empirical evidence" (1/29/05)
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/5449
      >
      > (Also note that in post #5450 I corrected a sentence in post #5449
      > where I had left out some important words!)

      Todd, recall that Robert chose this fight. These 12 rounds are his.
      Once he is laid out on the canvass, I'll give you your 12 rounds.
      Robert must stand and fight on his own. We will not fight dirty.
      That is why I follow the rules and when I hit low (am wrong) I admit
      it and try to make up for it. Can you or Robert say the same? I
      haven't seen it yet.

      > But besides the critical points I have already made, I too am
      > interested to see Robert's point-by-point critique, since I know
      that
      > Robert's perspective differs from mine in some important areas.

      Todd, since he will parrot only what you say, why would you be
      interested? Serious question there.

      Danny Fyffe
    • Todd S. Greene
      ... see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/5486 [snip] Hi, Danny. Well, this time I haven t quoted a single thing from the post, but I will
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Maury_and_Baty, Danny Fyffe wrote (post #5486):
        see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/5486
        [snip]

        Hi, Danny.

        Well, this time I haven't quoted a single thing from the post, but I
        will refer to it, and I have provided the link.

        What you did was acknowledge that the whole premise is "logically
        valid." Then you proceeded to argue that the first premise was
        unsound (not true, not correct) because (as you asserted) one or more
        of the "if" elements of the first premise was itself not correct.
        What I have been pointing out to you is that you simply cannot do
        this because in fact the first premise of a modus ponens argument
        does not address the truth of the "if" elements. The first premise
        only asserts that the "if" elements *imply* the "then" element,
        REGARDLESS of whether or not any of the "if" elements are themselves
        true.

        If P, then Q.

        Or, translated,

        P implies Q.

        This later form of stating the first premise actually makes this
        clearly, because we say simply "P implies Q" and it is easier to see
        that we are in no way asserting the truth of P. We are only asserting
        that IF P was true, then Q would also have to be true. Notice that in
        fact as a first premise of an argument we may have a continuing
        argument that has a quite different form from the kind of argument
        that GRAS is. Indeed, we could be asserting that P implies Q because
        we already know that Q is NOT true, and thus we would be using the
        fact of Q not being true to argue that P is NOT true as well,
        because, after all, "If P then Q."

        Now, just a little reminder that the P element of GRAS actually has
        multiple elements, so instead of merely "If P, then Q" we have "If A,
        B, and C, then Q." Again, this would also translate to "A and B and C
        together imply Q."

        So the problem that we have been having is that when in your post
        #5486 you SAID you were addressing whether or not the first premise
        of GRAS was true (sound), you then procdeeded to argue that B and C
        are not true. But this was IRRELEVANT, having nothing to do with the
        first premise. The purpose of the first premise (of an argument in
        this form) is to assert the IMPLICATION of Q by the COMBINATION of A,
        B, and C, REGARDLESS of whether or not A or B or C are themselves
        true.

        So please understand that when you are asked by Robert (or anyone
        else) whether or not you think that the first premise of GRAS is
        true, you are NOT being asked whether or not A or B or C is true, you
        are being asked whether or not you agree that the COMBINATION of A
        and B and C IMPLIES Q. In other words, do you agree that...

        (A) IF God's word (the text) says everything began over a period of
        six days [REGARDLESS of whether or not it actually does]

        AND

        (B) IF God's word (the text) is interpreted by some to mean it was
        six 24-hour days occurring a few thousand years ago [REGARDLESS of
        whether or not anyone actually interprets it so]

        AND

        (C) IF there is empirical evidence that things are actually much
        older than a few thousand years [REGARDLESS of whether or not this is
        actually the case]

        THEN

        (Q) the interpretation of the text [the one referred to in B] is
        wrong.

        So the question for you, Danny, *with respect to the soundness of the
        first premise*, is simply this: Do you agree that the COMBINATION of
        A, B, and C IMPLIES Q? If you do not agree, that Q is implied by the
        combination of A, B, and C, then what you would need to do to dispute
        the idea that A and B and C imply Q is to show how A and B and C
        could all be true (regardless of whether or not they actually are
        true) and yet Q not be the case.

        I certainly hope this clears things up for you, with respect to the
        first premise of GRAS.

        So we can actually get to the meat of the argument.

        Before Christmas.

        In the year 2007. ;-)

        Regards,
        Todd Greene
        http://www.geocities.com/greeneto
      • rlbaty50
        ... I assume those ** things are to take into account the language difficulties we ve been having on the terms we use to describe what we are talking about.
        Message 3 of 5 , Feb 2, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
          <greeneto@y...> wrote, in part, to Danny Fyffe:
          >
          > So the question for you, Danny,
          > *with respect to the soundness
          > of the first premise*, is simply
          > this:

          > Do you agree that the COMBINATION of
          > A, B, and C IMPLIES Q? If you do not
          > agree, that Q is implied by the
          > combination of A, B, and C, then what
          > you would need to do to dispute the
          > idea that A and B and C imply Q is
          > to show how A and B and C could all
          > be true (regardless of whether or not
          > they actually are true) and yet Q
          > not be the case.
          >
          > I certainly hope this clears things
          > up for you, with respect to the
          > first premise of GRAS.

          I assume those ** things are to take into account the language
          difficulties we've been having on the terms we use to describe what
          we are talking about.

          Anyway, Todd, I think that is a pretty good take on the issue we've
          been discussing and I am curious as to the "ace" you may be holding
          up your sleave.

          I notice that you have said that you think the major premise of
          my "Goliath" is false (see poll results).

          I couldn't get anyone else to provide a justifiable basis for such a
          conclusion nor come up with a better than "Goliath" for logically
          getting us to the significance of the issue.

          Would you like to enlighten us on your poll answer?

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