[Wittrs] Linguistic Behavior: Vague Allegations of Fallacy
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:14:58 -0500
Cayuse wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>Cayuse wrote:
>>>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.
>>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?"
>I've told you why the argument is unsound, and there's no profit in it
>for me to keep telling you.
there might be some profit in it (ie one or each of us might learn
something) if you'd do something more than recite your unsupported
opinion that you see some vaguely specified flaw in the argument as
presented [see my post of 2009-11-27 04:30 AM].
it is foolish to accuse me of 'implicitly' assuming an 'either/or
scenario'; because, the argument is in the form of a disjunctive
syllogism; so, I EXPLICITLY assert the disjunction.
perhaps you have some vague or amorphous objection to the disjunction I
asserted: given that there is experience of an afterimage, either there
is something that is experiencing that afterimage or there is nothing
that is experiencing that afterimage.
if so, what precisely is your objection?
are you complaining that the alternatives offered are not really
mutually exclusive; or, that the alternatives are not collectively
exhaustive; or, ... something else?
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
