 |
| |
|
|
devilmunchkin
|
|
first circle of the inferno
Jul 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
say it was an intro book
does that make it any less important?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kaak
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by devilmunchkin
say it was an intro book
does that make it any less important? |
it is also an intro book at baylor. This looks like a suspicious collaboration between atleast DM and LR, so she can prove to her friends that her BF isn't as dumb as everyone thinks him to be, and help him save face at the same time...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
devilmunchkin
|
|
first circle of the inferno
Jul 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
why wouldn't it be? wouldn't an intro book be a good base to start from? or are you assuming that just because it's an intro book that it has no merit. i myself have never taken the course...so this is all new to me. i kinda enjoy it. and other might if you'd shut up long enough to let other people in.
kaak: everyone is biased to some extent. you've said that yourself. member your "eww" view on gays? yes. there. and i personally think your biased against both of us....you have a very personal vendentta that reared it's ugly head the other day.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Generalizations man you fit the bill. With the way you are going he has to prove nothing you have done it for him . |
One of the fundamental laws in logic is you can't prove by example. You're in over your head here, little man.
quote:
Ok then, what does my dryness have to do with the truth-value of my statements? |
Because your admitted goal is to talk to the "general public" about it. The way you're doing it would make anyone in the "general public" stab themselves in the eye with a pencil.
quote:
Gee, Ash well they are just dictionaries and textbooks, not like the people who write them are experts or anything. |
The problem never has been the validity of the textbooks regarding logic...
quote:
Seriously Ash, if you will not listen to these sources, what will you listen to? If the professional logicans themseves can't change your mind...who can? |
Professional logicans have no say in whether generalizations are valid. They may be in logic, but contrary to what you may think, the world does not revolve around logic. There are things like morals and emotions that we need to deal with in the real world, something the logic textbooks leave out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Logical Realist
|
|
California
Jan 2002
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
There are things like morals and emotions that we need to deal with in the real world, something the logic textbooks leave out. |
Actually the text book I'm quoting has a section on morals and emotion based arguments aka rhetoric.
This book is taught as a standard in intro logic classes, but its not an intro book necessarily. Even if it was, its still a text book. All this means is that certain people were refuted by an intro book.
BTW I am talking about generalizations as such again, not about any specific generalization in the "real world" that I know has more to do with empirical evidence. I'm talking about generalizations as such, and logicans admit that they are accurate a lot of times.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
devilmunchkin
|
|
first circle of the inferno
Jul 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
kaak: puh lease. then why target me on ffz? you didn't even bother to TRY to look like you're doing other things like other posters...straight to moi. not important to you? au contraire! also, have you ever stopped to think that LR is younger and thus not as far along in college? he's a freshman kaak...you're what? a 5th year senior? that he can debate with you and sometimes prove your silliness is quite a feat. yes kaak: you title was confessions of a bigot. you said you might be wrong. but you never cam eout and said you were. honestly, by that time i grew bored of your driveling and moved onward, ho! but yet you bring up the past still? et tu brute? why can't you all just wipe the slate clean and start over. i've heard the term "boys will be boys" but this is rediculous. It's so obvious that you, kaak, have something against LR. Name calling, focusing on him..fixated almost (he's mine you know).....you should be more like Ramo.....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Logical Realist
|
|
California
Jan 2002
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
Not only does he use multiple paragraphs to explain a self-evident dictionary definition, he expects a real debate about it! Come on, this is ludicrous. |
I didn't expect a big debate as the matter seemed fairly simple. Just to make a point. To this end I didn't want to leave any loop-holes. So I made it as valid as possible. Showing all my steps from definitions-premises-conclusion.
I expect any objections to my argument to be serious. That's all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kaak
|
|
fine, fool, i'll take the bait.
Your point of this thread is to prove that generalizations are accute (even tho any sane being wouldn't consider anything based on 51% of a given population suitably for making accurate assumptions).
If this is the case generalizations must inherently be made in reference to something else. This reference often determines their relevance, signifigance and overall merit. Therefore, by the very nature of generalizations, you cannot justify them in themselves.
Two conclusions might be drawn from this:
1) your argument is competely without merit on its own
2) if you have something to reference it to, which is would be logical, you aren't telling us what it is.
So, to determine whether or not your generalization is accurate, you must give us more information and make it applicable. Even a fool knows that we do not live in a world of black and white, right and wrong. If you are trying to make it such, you are worse than i believed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kaak
|
|
quote:
that he can debate with you and sometimes prove your silliness is quite a feat. yes kaak: you title was confessions of a bigot. you said you might be wrong. but you never cam eout and said you were. |
go back and read the last post of the thread.
He has never proved my silliness in any discussion we have had.
And, finally, of ffz, i targeted you much the same reason i am in this post, and your other posts here. You make stupid assumptions, and pose them as arguments. Your thread there was rediculous.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
devilmunchkin
|
|
first circle of the inferno
Jul 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
kaak: you were the only one saying they were stupid. perhaps you're just bitter. there, there kaak. it's ok.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
blackice
|
 |
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Your point of this thread is to prove that generalizations are accute (even tho any sane being wouldn't consider anything based on 51% of a given population suitably for making accurate assumptions).
If this is the case generalizations must inherently be made in reference to something else. This reference often determines their relevance, signifigance and overall merit. Therefore, by the very nature of generalizations, you cannot justify them in themselves.
Two conclusions might be drawn from this:
1) your argument is competely without merit on its own
2) if you have something to reference it to, which is would be logical, you aren't telling us what it is.
So, to determine whether or not your generalization is accurate, you must give us more information and make it applicable. Even a fool knows that we do not live in a world of black and white, right and wrong. If you are trying to make it such, you are worse than i believed. |
Yet viewing my and Asher's post's you still believe hummmm,
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-03-2002 12:43
) have anything to do with logical deduction proving if generalizations are acceptable or not? You seem to not understand anything going on in this thread...
|