[Wittrs] Bogus Claim 3: Validity Issues: Conjunction or Equivocation
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 19:49:19 -0400
gabuddabout wrote:
Stuart had been selling this view of the third premise in 2004.
He once noted that his "earlier" attempts at coming to terms with the CRA were flawed. One early attempt did straight away with one of the clauses in the third premise! I see now why. Stuart can't keep the two clauses distinct somehow! So later he invented a way of reading them to suit his taste for drawing a conclusion he wanted to reach in any way he could.
Are you saying that Stuart once admitted that he had made a mistake!?
that happens about as often as you hear the phrase 'Romulan dissident'.
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
