[Wittrs] Linguistic Behavior: Vague Allegations of Fallacy
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:30:37 -0500
Cayuse wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>Cayuse wrote:
>>>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>>>what specifically is the flaw that makes the argument 'there is
>>>>experience of an afterimage; therefore, something is experiencing
>>>>that afterimage' unsound?
>>>The fallacy is called a "non sequitur"
>>given the fact that you've admitted (that there is experience of an
>>afterimage), either something is experiencing that afterimage or
>>nothing is experiencing that afterimage.
>The claim is neither true nor false but nonsensical.
you've alleged that the argument is unsound. that means you need to
identify an invalid step in the logic of a simple disjunctive syllogism.
>>precisely which step or phrase contains the non sequitur?
>There is only one step in the argument -- how can you be confused
>about which step?
there are three main steps, the same three steps that comprise any
disjunctive syllogism:
[1] P v Q
[2] -Q
[3] (therefore) P
[1] states the disjunction P (something is experiencing the afterimage
or Q (nothing is experiencing the afterimage)
[2] rejects one of the alternatives, Q, on the basis of the following
[2.1] 'nothing is experiencing the afterimage' attributes a predicate
(experiencing the afterimage) to a subject (the referent of 'nothing').
[2.2] 'nothing' is a word without a referent; so, there is nothing to
which the predicate 'experiencing the afterimage' (or any predicate) may
be assigned.
[2.3] proposition Q states an absurdity, an impossible condition; and,
therefore, is rejected.
[3] concludes the unrejected alternative.
so, what's your beef with the disjunctive syllogism, Cayuse?
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
