[Wittrs] Linguistic Behavior: Vague Allegations of Fallacy
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:45:04 -0500
Cayuse wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>Cayuse wrote:
>>>The invalid step is that which goes from 1 to 2:
>>>1. There is experience
>>>2. therefore there is an experiencer.
>>I present an argument that consists of three steps (one of which has
>>three substeps). you take the first step and ignore the rest
>>(including the last step).
>Your analysis fails even before the first step -- you implicitly assume
>an "either/or" scenario for the existence of a nonsensical item. I
>don't see much point in continuing to repeatedly tell you this. Perhaps
>we should just agree to disagree and call it a day.
in ordinary discourse, those who are about to agree to disagree can
often agree as to what they disagree about; but, that is not the case
here. you seriously distort the statement of our disagreement.
* you've misrepresented which argument is under consideration.
I asked you specifically [11/26/2009 06:47 AM]: "what specifically is
the flaw that makes the argument 'there is experience of an afterimage;
therefore, something is experiencing that afterimage' unsound?"
you replied [11/26/2009 11:52 AM]: "The fallacy is called a 'non
sequitur'".
however, when the argument was presented in a more granular (more
detailed) way, you were simply unable to identify any specific flaw in
the argument.
so instead you resorted to making an unsupported claim that there is a
flaw in some other argument.
even if you could support that claim, it would still be irrelevant to
the argument I presented.
and, now, for the moment of truth --- assuming we can get a sincere and
relevant reply from you. we don't have to employ the conclusion of this
argument in some further inquiry before finding something unacceptable
to you. I suspect that you disagree with the intermediate conclusion
reached thus far: if there is an experience; then, there is something
that is experiencing it.
is that true?
if so; then, identify the non sequitur you claim you see in the argument
as presented in my post [11/27/2009 04:30 AM].
otherwise, admit that the argument as presented thus far is sound.
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
