tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post4700434560627026861..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Dumb And DumbererRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39682512187900978852007-06-12T09:14:00.000-04:002007-06-12T09:14:00.000-04:00JON CURRY SAID:vytautas, I do think it is inapprop...JON CURRY SAID:<BR/>vytautas, I do think it is inappropriate to use insults in argument. This isn't to say that I've never done it or that Touchstone hasn't done it, but that it should be avoided as much as possible.<BR/><BR/>Paul, I don't deny that Touchstone has engaged in some insulting language, but it appears to me that this type of thing is far more common in your posts than in his. Even in your post to me you are again declaring yourself the victor. You just can't help yourself.<BR/><BR/>It's as if you repeatedly kick Touchstone, over and over, and when he finally pushes you once in response you turn to me and say "He's doing it too." I suppose he shouldn't, but it's hard not to respond in kind to repeated insults and ad hominem argumentation.<BR/><BR/>***********************************************<BR/><BR/>With all due respect, apostates like Curry and Loftus belong in a Soviet-style gulag or penal colony in N. Korea. They should be on the receiving end of secular ethics.<BR/><BR/>They whimper and whine about how mistreated they are. Actually, living in a nominally Christian country like the US, they are positively coddled.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53934748976055707802007-06-11T23:07:00.000-04:002007-06-11T23:07:00.000-04:00http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/06/evidentiali...http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/06/evidentialism_11.htmlErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74610710164386745202007-06-11T21:18:00.000-04:002007-06-11T21:18:00.000-04:00T-stone,"That's a very charitable interpretation o...T-stone,<BR/><BR/><B>"That's a very charitable interpretation of the discussion. Not because there were so many more insults, but for the most part, this has been a futile exercise in connecting you with the claims you thought you were objecting to. In other words, so much wasted "substance" over the mistaken view that (A) does implies (B) (see above).</B><BR/><BR/>Interesting revision. Too bad that anyone who reads the actual debate in the various threads will fail to see this. This is simply your *assertion* that I have addressed numerous times and you have never fully responded to my first post, this post, or the majority of my comments.<BR/><BR/><B>"If you understand the nature of an inductive argument, you know that "might" doesn't need to said: it's inherent in the argument! Reading this, I'm convinced you still have a basic misunderstanding of what's been offered here, and either by misunderstanding, or simple intransigence, do not face the substance of the argument: an empirical argument, going from the specific to the general, cannot logicall [sic] *avoid* a "might". It is necessarily tentative to some degree (even if it is vanishingly small)."</B><BR/><BR/>No, my position has been made clear. You've failed to interact with it or show me where I'm wrong.<BR/><BR/><I>JL claims:</I> "I'd also argue that the fewer things we believe without evidence the better. And those things which we believe without evidence are limited to those things which by their nature are evidence translucent, that is, the need for evidence doesn't apply to said beliefs.<BR/><BR/><I>T-stone claims:</I> That doesn't jibe with your production from his claim that no true belief can obtain without evidence. ....<BR/><BR/><I>Paul PREVIOUSLY claimed:</I> This is ridiculous. Now it's not just T-stone who can't understand and misrepresents me, but Loftus joins the fun too. (a) I know there are some things we believe without evidence. The issue here is, "should" we believe anything without evidence? Or, is a belief *warranted* or *justified* if it does not have evidence in its favor? Therefore, the fact that we may have some beliefs that have no evidence, the question arises: "If I come to reflect on this belief, and realize that I have no propositional evidence in its favor, should I reject it?"<BR/><BR/>***********<BR/><BR/>You can't get much more clear than this. T-stone blatantly and violently misrepresents statements I make explicitly contradicting his straw man assumption of what I'm arguing. He's too busy pip-pip-pipping away with his Anti-triablogue ray gun that he can't slow down to actually make sure he's shooting at a real T-blogger rather than one of the straw men aboard our ship.<BR/><BR/>I have explicitly said, at least 3 times now, that I know one can *have* true beliefs without evidence (lucky guesses are examples), the question is SHOULD WE if we wanted to be warranted or justified, or maintain positive epistemic status. If we should (in this sense) for all our beliefs, then I want it for *that* belief.<BR/><BR/>Now, T-stone can say that he doesn't have propositional evidence for this belief but is nevertheless warranted, justified, or in positive epistemic status. Fine, he grants my position and therefore we "shouldn't" have propositional evidence for *all* our beliefs.<BR/><BR/>Or, he may say, "Yes, I have evidence, my senses." Well, this is sloppy, but he's resorting to *beliefs about* what he *remembers* his senses reporting. Okay, give me evidences for *those* beliefs. Give me propositional evidence supporting the reliability of memory. If T-stone says, that he "doesn't have propositional evidence for this belief but is nevertheless warranted, justified, or in positive epistemic status." Fine, he grants my position and therefore we "shouldn't" have propositional evidence for *all* our beliefs.<BR/><BR/>If he denies this, then he's saying that he is doing something he shouldn't. If one "shouldn't" do something, then they never should. Rapists shouldn't rape, and never should. Same with murderers. Same with thieves &c. A rapist *should not* rape. Likewise, T-stone then *should not* hold to his belief that has no evidence. he needs to *drop it.*<BR/><BR/>This is all very basic. Read Clifford, then James, then Plantinga, then Wood, then Williams, et al. I would have at least thought T-stone would have done his homework on this subject before jumping in pip-pip-pipping away with his anti-triabloguer ray gun. I mean, he's acting like Buzz Lightyear fighting the evil emperor Zurg. <BR/><BR/>You see, I fully understand the nature of the debate. You're not getting the proper conclusions which to draw from the statements.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, I have *proven* that there are beliefs with no evidence that are warranted and therefore my beliefs have positive epistemic status. I am flouting no duties. Therefore, I *shouldn't* have to produce evidence that one may "demand" of me. So, all this talk about the inductive argument is *moot!* It's been refuted.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, his claim *logically* implies this claim:<BR/><BR/>"No beliefs are things that should not have evidence demanded of them."<BR/><BR/>And,<BR/><BR/>"All things that should not have evidence demanded of them are not-beliefs."<BR/><BR/>And so I demand evidence for these beliefs. Furthermore, I've addressed ad nauseum your resting the beliefs on *beliefs about* your past experiences. Guess what, *those* beliefs "should" have evidence demanded of them. So I demand it. Give it to me. If you don't have it, drop the belief since you're doing something you *shouldn't* do. <BR/><BR/><B>"So, I read this from you and conclude that my original hypotheis [sic], based on the text of your first comment to Loftus, was correct: the "substance" of John's argument wasn't important on it's own, but only useful as a catalyst for your itchy regress gun trigger finger."</B><BR/><BR/>The regress still works. You've not interacted with my posts decimating all your reasons why the regress doesn't work. In fact, it *can't* be used in defense of Loftus since he said "historical evidence" is "not good." Therefore, since "past experience" is "historical evidence" then "past experience" is "not good" evidence. So, try again.<BR/><BR/>You see, I could keep going but all I'm doing is re-typing my un-refuted defeaters. You're all talk and no action. All machismo. All bark and no bite. you keep re-asserting the same objections while not recognizing the answers that I'VE ALREADY GIVEN YOU. That is to say, you're basically saying, "Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up."<BR/><BR/>If my regress argument does not work, then don't say that ALL beliefs should have evidence demanded of them. If ALL should, then *this belief* should. If *this belief* (or ANY OTHER BELIEF) should not, then IT IS NOT THE CASE that ALL beliefs "should have evidence demanded of them."<BR/><BR/>It's actually quite sad that you can't draw these elementary inferences from yours and John's claims. Slow down and re-read the thread. Perhaps you could drop it by your local colleges logic professor and have him point this all out to you. Seriously, this is like arguing with someone who denies that 2 + 2 = 4. <BR/><BR/>~PMErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77396904504152010852007-06-11T20:52:00.000-04:002007-06-11T20:52:00.000-04:00Jon,"Where did I say that you denied the above?"Wh...Jon,<BR/><BR/><I>"Where did I say that you denied the above?</I>"<BR/><BR/>When you intimated that you *sided* with "T-stone's" argument. If you thought we *both* agreed with that premise, then why not say that we were *both* right? And, that wouldn't have been what we were *debating* since you only debate what you *disagree* and you were telling us about how you viewed the *debate.*<BR/><BR/>Typical. You, like Loftus and T-stone, can't seem to grasp the logical implications of your position.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-62201252227616151842007-06-11T16:38:00.000-04:002007-06-11T16:38:00.000-04:00Jon,I stand corrected.--twinkieJon,<BR/><BR/>I stand corrected.<BR/><BR/>--twinkieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73091281786628755462007-06-11T16:28:00.000-04:002007-06-11T16:28:00.000-04:00No surprises there, it's the natural(ist) way.It's...<I>No surprises there, it's the natural(ist) way.</I><BR/><BR/>It's not that I wouldn't like to see people abandon Christianity and face the world as it really is, it's just that I have no expectation of that happening here. I say that to anybody that would want to post here. Don't expect anyone to change their view. That doesn't happen with T-bloggers. Note that Touchstone admitted his mistakes and apologized for them, yet Paul, who in my opinion is guilty of far more egregious ad hominem statements, simply cannot bring himself to concede that he is guilty of anything. It's the triablogue way. Steve once accused me of being an atheist, and when I replied that I wasn't he simply re-defined the word atheist to include Mormons, Muslims, etc. Anything but concede error. Anything but admit mistakes. I do not expect anyone here to change their view. If I want to talk with Steve, I don't do it in hopes that he will get something out of it. I will do it if I get something out of it or I think a lurker might get something out of it. I don't expect him to learn anything from me.<BR/><BR/><I>When have you been on the T-blogger side?</I><BR/><BR/>Well, I am on the Christian side in a lot of cases, and I spend time defending them against false charges. For instance I have Muslim colleagues at work and I debate with them all the time. Right now we're discussing the Quran. They think it is superior to the NT in that there are no textual variants amongst the manuscripts, whereas the Bible has many. I defend the Bible against that charge, saying that it is preferable to have a variety of readings. That way doing textual criticism you have a better chance of having confidence that you have successfully reconstructed the original reading. Muslims because they don't have textual variants, must simply trust that Caliph Uthman was successful in developing the text (presuming this is in fact what occurred) and don't have the variant readings to compare with that. If they had the variant readings they could test the Uthmanic revision and revise it if necessary. I prefer the Biblical method.<BR/><BR/>I also defended James White against criticisms from RC's at Dave Armstrong's blog regarding the Beckwith situation. I am also pro-life. So I find myself in agreement with T-bloggers all the time.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-4135212178680792552007-06-11T15:57:00.000-04:002007-06-11T15:57:00.000-04:00Look the convo. has been about 95% substance and 5...<B>Look the convo. has been about 95% substance and 5% "descended to insults."</B><BR/><BR/>That's a very charitable interpretation of the discussion. Not because there were so many more insults, but for the most part, this has been a futile exercise in connecting you with the claims you thought you were objecting to. In other words, so much wasted "substance" over the mistaken view that (A) does implies (B) (see above).<BR/><BR/>Even at the end here, you offer this:<BR/><BR/><B><BR/>"It might be the case, at least its inductively highly probable, that all beliefs should have evidence for them!!!'<BR/><BR/>John never said, "might."</B><BR/><BR/>If you understand the nature of an inductive argument, you know that "might" doesn't need to said: it's inherent in the argument! Reading this, I'm convinced you still have a basic misunderstanding of what's been offered here, and either by misunderstanding, or simple intransigence, do not face the substance of the argument: an empirical argument, going from the specific to the general, cannot logicall *avoid* a "might". It is necessarily tentative to some degree (even if it is vanishingly small). <BR/><BR/>So, I read this from you and conclude that my original hypotheis, based on the text of your first comment to Loftus, was correct: the "substance" of John's argument wasn't important on it's own, but only useful as a catalyst for your itchy regress gun trigger finger. It isn't hard to understand the elements of induction that are being applied here, and it's trivially understood that an inductive argument comes with a necessary element of tentativity -- the "might" is built in, and in fact can't be dismissed unless all possible nodes in the phase space are examined (and even then, temporal dynamics may not eliminate the "might"!).<BR/><BR/>Since this *isn't* hard to understand, and you are more than capable of understanding, the "this can be target for my regress gun!" hypothesis performs a lot better than "engaging on the substance". <BR/><BR/>When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail, as they sail. When you're a regress gun-slinger...<BR/><BR/>Anyway, the real "noise" in the channel - worse than the ad hom stuff - is the skirmishing over what it was John was *saying* and what basis it rested on. Forget the "merits" here, we couldn't get past the basic facts. I need only point to your choice of "John is a lying snake" as your response to establish the poverty of the discussion in terms of "substance"; there isn't much more noise and less signal than those kinds of postures.<BR/><BR/>It happens, but no point in kidding ourselves. This was a wasteful exercise in trying to get Paul to consider what was actually being argued. If we ended up with Paul complaining that John never said "might", then I conclude it was a nearly substance free exchange, at least with respect to where we started.<BR/><BR/>As an aside, I happened to be watching "Dumb and Dumber" a few nights ago with my kids, and with the caveat that this doesn't mean you are "dumb", Paul, there is a scene in there that is apropos for this discussion. In the movie, Jim Carey's character makes an awkward appeal to a woman he's enamored with, and it finally boils down to: what are my chances with you, honey?<BR/><BR/>The woman's response is "one in a million", offered as a way to let Jim Carey's character down easy, yet get the point across. Jim Carey's character doesn't get the message, though, and exalts in his good fortune: "So you're saying I have a chance!!!!". The woman never said "might" either, but it was implied in her answer. <BR/><BR/>My sense of Paul's position on this thread is similar to Jim Carey's character's here; "See, you are conceding that I *might* have a chance at this whole beliefs-without-evidence thing." It's true, it can't be ruled out, any more than "one in a million", but triumphalism on this "concession" makes no more sense than Jim Carey's character doing a dance at the woman concede he might have a "one in a million" chance. To make *that* the focus really is to miss the point of the discussion, which is that our experience provides a deep and broad set of evidences for the utlitity and efficacy of evidence as the basis for belief.<BR/><BR/>In any case Paul, you can rest assured that neither I, nor Loftus (as I read him) has denied you the "might", the "one in a million". You have steadfastly maintained what wasn't questioned here to begin with. But just like Jim Carey's character in the movie, I don't think you are really hearing what is being said -- the major point: that evidence works, and demonstrably so. It may not be a firm requirement in 100% of all cases, but there's enough support for its efficacy that one should not eschew it as a resource lightly.<BR/><BR/>It really isn't controversial, which is why my assessment of this discussion leans much more toward "trainwreck" than "95% substance". If that's substance, it's a very thin gruel, indeed.<BR/><BR/>-TouchstoneTouchstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03733806892886921425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63670987209355649002007-06-11T15:49:00.000-04:002007-06-11T15:49:00.000-04:00Jon said:"I'm here for my own benefit."No surprise...Jon said:<BR/><BR/>"I'm here for my own benefit."<BR/><BR/>No surprises there, it's the natural(ist) way.<BR/><BR/>Translation:<BR/><BR/>"I'm here to buttress my prejudices against Christianity with the opponent's arguments"<BR/><BR/>When have you been on the T-blogger side?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64409955051343573002007-06-11T15:36:00.000-04:002007-06-11T15:36:00.000-04:00Where have I denied the above? Do you even know my...<I>Where have I denied the above? Do you even know my position?<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Where did I say that you denied the above?Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1884310214367676382007-06-11T15:08:00.000-04:002007-06-11T15:08:00.000-04:00Jon,"We've learned through experience that having ...Jon,<BR/><BR/><I>"We've learned through experience that having more accurate models of the world are beneficial for us in various ways that I probably don't need to explain."</I><BR/><BR/>No I must call you names too! :-)<BR/><BR/>Are you the ray Charles of Atheology?<BR/><BR/>Where have I denied the above? Do you even know my position?<BR/><BR/>You have not really read through the discussions, have you? You're just here to throw pebbles into my shoe by focusing on the emotional problems your having here. You're tryiong to take away from the discussion and draw the focus on to a suibjective debate where no one can win. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, this assumes that you *already know* what the world is like to say that your model is "more accurate" than the next model. To say it's been "beneficial" for us, ore has helped us "acheive" certain ends, is to resort to a pragmatic argument. This doesn't lead to *truth,* though.<BR/><BR/>In fact, my model that the world is a giant video game where I must work, avoid cars, avoid deadly creatures, etc., allows me to survive as well. But, all my beliefs are false.<BR/><BR/><I>" Debates that descend to insults usually make it difficult for participants to be involved. That stifles inquiry and lessens my chances of learning something."</I><BR/><BR/>What are you, a fundamentalist or something? Don't drink, don't smoke, don't dance.<BR/><BR/>Look the convo. has been about 95% substance and 5% "descended to insults."Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13014489134198209512007-06-11T14:59:00.000-04:002007-06-11T14:59:00.000-04:00"That's what I'm here for. I'm not here to convert...<I>"That's what I'm here for. I'm not here to convert anybody. I'm here for my own benefit. I've learned a lot, but I've had to hold my nose through insult in a lot of cases. If Paul chases Touchstone out of here with repeated insults you will suffer for it, because you will learn less."</I><BR/><BR/>But T-stone might chase me out of here because he called me a legend in my own mind.<BR/><BR/>Aren't you concerned about that? You might "suffer" for it.<BR/><BR/>Or, is this just an outlet for you to take out your prejudices on Christians?Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-10314089769553087232007-06-11T14:58:00.000-04:002007-06-11T14:58:00.000-04:00T-stone,I do forgive you, but I did not take offen...T-stone,<BR/><BR/>I do forgive you, but I did not take offense. <BR/><BR/>PaulErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46303402038002942142007-06-11T14:53:00.000-04:002007-06-11T14:53:00.000-04:00And Jon, upon what basis would you assert that ad ...<I>And Jon, upon what basis would you assert that ad hominems are wrong? Given your world view, what's wrong with them?</I><BR/><BR/>The problem with them is that they just make it difficult to have a conversation. I enjoy challenging my beliefs and subjecting them to scrutiny. I suppose that's partly because I recognize as true some of the arguments Touchstone has made here. We've learned through experience that having more accurate models of the world are beneficial for us in various ways that I probably don't need to explain. Insofar as I believe what is false, I know that that is not good for me. For me debate is a great way to help turn my false opinions into true ones. Debates that descend to insults usually make it difficult for participants to be involved. That stifles inquiry and lessens my chances of learning something.<BR/><BR/>That's what I'm here for. I'm not here to convert anybody. I'm here for my own benefit. I've learned a lot, but I've had to hold my nose through insult in a lot of cases. If Paul chases Touchstone out of here with repeated insults you will suffer for it, because you will learn less.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71441942545548468632007-06-11T14:09:00.000-04:002007-06-11T14:09:00.000-04:00Hey, isn't Loftus in Po Dunk, Indiana? Not that t...Hey, isn't Loftus in Po Dunk, Indiana? Not that there's any difference, mind you.<BR/><BR/>And Jon, upon what basis would you assert that ad hominems are wrong? Given your world view, what's wrong with them?<BR/><BR/>Paul, I love you man...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-89035545170985983972007-06-11T13:07:00.000-04:002007-06-11T13:07:00.000-04:00"Your lawn *might* be green, but so what? You migh...<I>"Your lawn *might* be green, but so what? You might as well think John was asserting that your lawn can't have green grass!"</I><BR/><BR/>So now the claim is:<BR/><BR/>"It might be the case, at least its inductively highly probable, that all beliefs should have evidence for them!!!'<BR/><BR/>John never said, "might."<BR/><BR/>If John had said:<BR/><BR/>"All lawns have brown grass."<BR/><BR/>And I said mine has green grass."<BR/><BR/>T-stone would have came in and said:<BR/><BR/>"You're so sta sta stoooopid, Paul. John didn't say that *all* lawns are brown, it was an inductive generalization based off his experience in po dunk Iowa. Quite being so pedantic."<BR/><BR/>:-)Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-14088066133923085752007-06-11T13:04:00.000-04:002007-06-11T13:04:00.000-04:00More examples of thick-headesness:JL claims: "I'd ...More examples of thick-headesness:<BR/><BR/><B>JL claims:</B> "I'd also argue that the fewer things we believe without evidence the better. And those things which we believe without evidence are limited to those things which by their nature are evidence translucent, that is, the need for evidence doesn't apply to said beliefs.<BR/><BR/><B>T-stone claims:</B> That doesn't jibe with your production from his claim that no true belief can obtain without evidence. ....<BR/><BR/><B>Paul PREVIOUSLY claimed:</B> This is ridiculous. Now it's not just T-stone who can't understand and misrepresents me, but Loftus joins the fun too. (a) I know there are some things we believe without evidence. The issue here is, "should" we believe anything without evidence? Or, is a belief *warranted* or *justified* if it does not have evidence in its favor? Therefore, the fact that we may have some beliefs that have no evidence, the question arises: "If I come to reflect on this belief, and realize that I have no propositional evidence in its favor, should I reject it?"<BR/><BR/>***********<BR/><BR/>You can't get much more clear than this. T-stone blatently and violently misrepresents statements I make explicitly contradicting his straw man assumption of what I'm arguing. He's too busy pip-pip-pipping away with his Anti-triablogue ray gun that he can't slow down to actually make sure he's shooting at a real T-blogger rather than one of the straw men aboard our ship.<BR/><BR/>I have explicitly said, at least 3 times now, that I know one can *have* true beliefs without evidence (lucky guesses are examples), the question is SHOULD WE if we wanted to be warranted or justified, or maintain positive epistemic status. If we should (in this sense) for all our beliefs, then I want it for *that* belief.<BR/><BR/>Now, T-stone can say that he doesn't have propositional evidence for this belief but is nevertheless warranted, justified, or in positive epistemic status. Fine, he grants my position and therefore we "shouldn't" have propositional evidence for *all* our beliefs.<BR/><BR/>Or, he may say, "Yes, I have evidence, my senses." Well, this is sloppy, but he's resorting to *beliefs about* what he *remembers* his senses reporting. Okay, give me evidences for *those* beliefs. Give me propositional evidence supporting the reliability of memory. If T-stone says, that he "doesn't have propositional evidence for this belief but is nevertheless warranted, justified, or in positive epistemic status." Fine, he grants my position and therefore we "shouldn't" have propositional evidence for *all* our beliefs.<BR/><BR/>If he denies this, then he's saying that he is doing something he shouldn't. If one "shouldn't" do something, then they never should. Rapists shouldn't rape, and never should. Same with murderes. Same with thiefs &c. A rapist *should not* rape. Likewise, T-stone then *should not* hold to his belief that has no evidence. he needs to 8drop it.*<BR/><BR/>This is all very basic. Read Clifford, then James, then Plantinga, then Wood, then Williams, et al. I would have at least thought T-stone would have done his homework on this subject before jumping in pip-pip-pipping away with his anti-triabloguer ray gun. I mean, he's acting like Buzz Lightyear fighting the evil emperor Zurg. he just doesn;t realize that he's a toy and I'm playing with him.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the fun, T-buzz.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46361792034843084042007-06-11T12:47:00.000-04:002007-06-11T12:47:00.000-04:00Jon,Your fine, brash hypothesis has died the death...Jon,<BR/><BR/>Your fine, brash hypothesis has died the death of a thousand qualifications. Perhaps you have quotes from *MY* dialogies with T-stone where *I* started with the pejoratives. Furthermore, the things he says and the way he phrases things are obviously meant to be insulting. That he doesn't use the *words* doesn't mean his *message* isn't the same. A perfumed pig is still a pig.<BR/><BR/>Your second comment commits the intentional fallacy. Furthermore, ad homs frequently work like this:<BR/><BR/>Debate on economics: "Well, you're a Commie, so what do you know?"<BR/><BR/>Or, "Christians are big meanies, therefore Christianity is false."<BR/><BR/>I say it again, THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE ARGUMENT OF MINE THAT RESTS ON AD HOMINEM REMARKS.<BR/><BR/>The remarks are *fillers.* And they come *after* the *showing* of the *stupid* comments.<BR/><BR/>As for your last comment, T-stone is continuing in the same vein I am, right up to his last comment:<BR/><BR/>"You are a legend in your own mind, Paul, I'll give you that."<BR/><BR/>So, the fact that you had to come here and play moral police with *me* is indicitive of your blatent prejudices and double standards. Keep the whinning to a minimum and read the convo.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-70206632699204479002007-06-11T12:45:00.000-04:002007-06-11T12:45:00.000-04:00Jon,Those are chastening remarks, and I appreciate...Jon,<BR/><BR/>Those are chastening remarks, and I appreciate them.<BR/><BR/>Paul, I apologize for suggesting you are less thoughtful than Peter Pike. I should not have done that, and do not think that is true. Please forgive me, I'll work to be more disciplined about such comments in the future.<BR/><BR/>-TouchstoneTouchstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03733806892886921425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-60255504375565968962007-06-11T12:31:00.000-04:002007-06-11T12:31:00.000-04:00Jon, did you miss the part in my post where I ment...<I>Jon, did you miss the part in my post where I mentioned that T-stone lobbed the *first* bomb?</I><BR/><BR/>The first bomb was lobbed prior to this subject coming up. If he made the first comment in this conversation, as I said, I agree with you that he shouldn't. But your use of ad hominem is far more common than his. He shouldn't either, but as I said, you do a lot more of this, and in so doing you invite it from Touchstone. It takes real mental fortitude to not respond in kind in the face of all of your bombastic comments. Look at the title of this thread you've started. It doesn't get much more blatantly fallacious than that.<BR/><BR/><I>I do not and hardly ever use "ad hominem argumentation." I may make ad hominem *remarks,* but you'll note that I rest ZERO conclusions on ad hominem remarks.</I><BR/><BR/>This is the same misconception about how ad hominem operates that Jason had. Of course you don't say "Touchstone is stupid, therefore Touchstone is wrong." But that is never the way ad hominem works. Nobody would be so foolish as to lay clear the logical underpinnings of their fallacy, because doing so would be counterproductive, exposing the illogical nature of the claim. Ad hominem works by subtely trying to create an impression in the mind that the opponent is foolish or wrong or somehow untrustworthy, and does so not on the basis of the actual argumentation, but by on the side making comments that are directed to the person. This is exactly what you do, and it is fallacious.<BR/><BR/><I>I mean, to even say the things you just did is more indicative of your ignorance on these matters than it is representative of you actually being right about his "substantive critiques."</I><BR/><BR/>Well, I'm not really commenting on who it is that has the upper hand in this particular debate you are having with Touchstone. I'm just requesting that you slow down with all of the ad hominem argumentation. You can ignore me of course and there's nothing I can do about it. Touchstone has put up with a lot of it already, and for that I am glad, because the conversation has been interesting. But I'm sure you will push him out of here if you keep it up and I'd hate to see that happen. Would you hate to see that happen?Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-54196789221177895852007-06-11T10:40:00.000-04:002007-06-11T10:40:00.000-04:00Jon,"It's as if you repeatedly kick Touchstone, ov...Jon,<BR/><BR/><I>"It's as if you repeatedly kick Touchstone, over and over, and when he finally pushes you once in response you turn to me and say "He's doing it too." I suppose he shouldn't, but it's hard not to respond in kind to repeated insults and ad hominem argumentation."</I><BR/><BR/>Jon, did you miss the part in my post where I mentioned that T-stone lobbed the *first* bomb?<BR/><BR/>I do not and hardly ever use "ad hominem argumentation." I may make ad hominem *remarks,* but you'll note that I rest ZERO conclusions on ad hominem remarks.<BR/><BR/><I>"I happen to think that triabloggers do so much insulting because they want to drive thoughtful criticism out and away from this blog."</I><BR/><BR/>Or, perhaps we know that the remarks will ensure that guys like you, Loftus, and T-stone will stick around? Perhaps its because arrogant apostates need a talking to like that every once and a while.<BR/><BR/><I>"Touchstone will probably get tired of the mud slinging and leave eventually. I think that is what you want, because his criticisms of you guys seem pretty substantive to me."</I><BR/><BR/>We don't all hold to the same points, so it's not as if he has stock objections to "triabloggers." And, I don't know what "criticisms" you're referring to, but I actually think he's quite laughable. I mean, did you read our last exchange? The one where he said there would be no humans in heaven, only persons? So, T-stone draws no distinguishment between *divine* and *human* persons. Or, if you read this entire evidentialism debate from post 1 you'll note that T-stone hasn't interacted with over 75% of the substantive material I've posted. He says it *is* the case that infants learned that evidence for beliefs was good, therefore we *shouyld* have evidence for beliefs. Nevermind the doubtful cliam about infants, how is this not fallacious and absurd? Should Jon Curry still poop his pants and have mommy and daddy wipe him? I mean, to even say the things you just did is more indicative of your ignorance on these matters than it is representative of you actually being right about his "substantive critiques."<BR/><BR/>And, hey, Jon, anytime you want to step onto the mat, you're welcome. Or, perhaps you're just engaging in emotional responses because you wants me to stop my substantive critiques of T-blog? Perhaps you think I'll grow tired of talking about the emotion and woe-is-me, poor T-stone and Loftus schtick, and go away?<BR/><BR/>bye now,<BR/><BR/>~PMErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48389395768290002952007-06-11T10:19:00.000-04:002007-06-11T10:19:00.000-04:00vytautas, I do think it is inappropriate to use in...vytautas, I do think it is inappropriate to use insults in argument. This isn't to say that I've never done it or that Touchstone hasn't done it, but that it should be avoided as much as possible.<BR/><BR/>Paul, I don't deny that Touchstone has engaged in some insulting language, but it appears to me that this type of thing is far more common in your posts than in his. Even in your post to me you are again declaring yourself the victor. You just can't help yourself.<BR/><BR/>It's as if you repeatedly kick Touchstone, over and over, and when he finally pushes you once in response you turn to me and say "He's doing it too." I suppose he shouldn't, but it's hard not to respond in kind to repeated insults and ad hominem argumentation.<BR/><BR/>I happen to think that triabloggers do so much insulting because they want to drive thoughtful criticism out and away from this blog. Touchstone will probably get tired of the mud slinging and leave eventually. I think that is what you want, because his criticisms of you guys seem pretty substantive to me.<BR/><BR/>So again I ask you to try to exercise just a little restraint with regards to your many ad hominem statements. This will make the conversation more enjoyable for me, and probably also for Touchstone. Which in theory would be what you want, because one would think that you like thoughtful conversation and intelligent criticism. If however you don't want that I guess I would expect the insults to continue.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67101875009127540742007-06-11T02:49:00.000-04:002007-06-11T02:49:00.000-04:00Jon,As many times as it takes to get through to hi...Jon,<BR/><BR/>As many times as it takes to get through to him.<BR/><BR/>My actions betray, and my posts demonstrate, that *on this subject* this is not his day. He may be smart in other areas for all I care, but not here, as my posts have demonstrated. Check the rather elementary blunders.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, if you remember, his first comment to me was that I "make Peter Pike look thoughtful."<BR/><BR/>Given his comments towards Peter, this was intended to be a slam at least at the level of "moron." Furthermore, he has engaged in numerous choice comments. Here's another:<BR/><BR/><I>"Man just looks at the sneering Manata, transfixed by the shininess of new and alien philosophical gimmicks he thinks have some sort of transcendent power, and moves on, shaking his head."</I><BR/><BR/>So, it's nice to see you adhere to Loftus' ideal of what a debunker should be: "Get pity for ourselves and slander the facts."<BR/><BR/>If T-stone wants to open his mouth (and remember, he made through the slams *first*) and play tough-guy, then I'll oblige as well.<BR/><BR/>So, what you need to do is see past the rhetoric *both sides* have used, distill the actual arguments, take your emotions out of it, and see the obvious conclusions everyone else has.<BR/><BR/>Your comments show the severe bias you have and the blatent prejudice you hold against Christians/T-bloggers/me. That a fellow apostate can do those things but not get a "stern talking to" is indication that you weren't really being serious but just venting your frustration over friends getting their lunch served to them.<BR/><BR/>best to you and yours,<BR/><BR/>~PMErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26017536931726868032007-06-10T22:16:00.000-04:002007-06-10T22:16:00.000-04:00Jon: I'm enjoying the conversation, but it would b...Jon: I'm enjoying the conversation, but it would be even better if you (Paul) could refrain from all of the triumphant talk and just focus on argumentation. <BR/><BR/>Vytautas: Would you say we are never warented to use insults in arguments?Vytautashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10563655929016752682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7351681360649882812007-06-10T21:41:00.000-04:002007-06-10T21:41:00.000-04:00Paul, how many times are you going to declare your...Paul, how many times are you going to declare yourself the winner and suggest that Touchstone is an idiot?<BR/><BR/>The reality is Touchstone is a pretty smart guy. Your actions betray that you believe this as well, Paul. Nobody else has been the focus of more new threads here over the last month or two. If he was truly the moron you imply he is he would be ignored.<BR/><BR/>He treats you like your not a moron either, and I certainly don't think you're a moron. I'm enjoying the conversation, but it would be even better if you (Paul) could refrain from all of the triumphant talk and just focus on argumentation. Can you give it a try?Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-78926852174499396432007-06-10T19:22:00.000-04:002007-06-10T19:22:00.000-04:00P.P.S. One last thing, I promise.Here's what athei...P.P.S. One last thing, I promise.<BR/><BR/>Here's what atheistic profession philosophers say on the subjectL<BR/><BR/>7. Conclusion<BR/><BR/>This article has been almost entirely concerned with the epistemological problem of other minds. What generates the problem has been carefully delineated. The standard solutions have been outlined and the various critical responses discussed. <B>What is clear is that there does not seem to be what might be called a received solution to the problem. It has been argued that the problem cannot be removed, nor can it be made easier to solve, by embracing any particular philosophy of mind.</B><BR/><BR/>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/<BR/><BR/>I mean, T-stone acts like I'm an idiot for mentioning these problems, this only is autobiographical on his part, though; telling us how much he *doesn't know* about pretty much anything.<BR/><BR/>And, it is noted by most philosophers thjat the anological inference (T-stone's inference to the best explanation) is beset by problems:<BR/><BR/>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/#3.1<BR/><BR/>And that's just the beginningErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.com