LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
skyrider44 said:
So, you think the internet is the great purveyor of the unvarnished truth, huh?

Too, too funny.
Click to expand...

No, he did not say that. What you're arguing against is a Straw ManWP.

You should work on these fallacies that you're piling up here. There are plenty of friendly skeptics that can help with critical thinking skills, if you're interested.
 
His argument is deteriorating into the standard nitpicking,logical fallacies and "the internet is always wrong" thing we see so often on here.

It's okay man, when you have no evidence, it's kinda all you've got left! ;)
 
skyrider44 said:
Obviously, you're free to propagate what [you] believe to be the truth. Thanks for tacitly admitting that belief requires an element of faith.
Click to expand...
You are equivocating again. That's really intellectually honest skyrider. We've already been through this. Belief = acceptance.

If I accept that there is no evidence of unicorns and I say that I don't believe in unicorns, it doesn't mean I have faith. I simply lack a belief in unicorns. When I refer to what I "believe" to be the truth I'm saying that which I accept based on evidence.

You are playing a semantic gotcha game. It's dishonest and poor form. Please stop?
 
StankApe said:
His argument is deteriorating into the standard nitpicking,logical fallacies and "the internet is always wrong" thing we see so often on here.

It's okay man, when you have no evidence, it's kinda all you've got left! ;)
Click to expand...

Not quite.... He could just admit to being wrong. I've done it a couple of times. :boxedin:
 
skyrider44 said:
So, you think the internet is the great purveyor of the unvarnished truth, huh?
Click to expand...
Straw man. skyrider, I never said that. Of course the internet is full of nonsense. But the truth is there and the honest can find it.

Too, too funny.
Click to expand...
Straw men are logical fallacies. They are dishonest. I honestly think you are new to logical debate so I get that there is a learning phase, but please don't persist in them.
 
skyrider44 said:
Upon review: No "may have had," eh? I see.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. You do not see. You have failed to grasp the meaning.
The 'may have ' stands.
It means that despite condition A being true, condition B is also true.
For example:
It may be hot and sunny now, but the washing is still wet.
 
carlitos said:
. . .You should work on these fallacies that you're piling up here. There are plenty of friendly skeptics that can help with critical thinking skills, if you're interested.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the offer, but I'm reasonably well versed in avoiding fallacies in logic and argumentation. Madsen Pirie's book How To Win Every Argument is especially instructive. I also recommend Nils Ch. Rauhut's The Big Questions.
 
skyrider44 said:
I appreciate the offer, but I'm reasonably well versed in avoiding fallacies in logic and argumentation. Madsen Pirie's book How To Win Every Argument is especially instructive. I also recommend Nils Ch. Rauhut's The Big Questions.
Click to expand...
You may be well versed in avoiding fallacies, but you are not putting that knowledge into practice.
(see how 'may be' works?)
 
kerikiwi said:
Incorrect. You do not see. You have failed to grasp the meaning.
The 'may have ' stands.
It means that despite condition A being true, condition B is also true.
For example:
It may be hot and sunny now, but the washing is still wet.
Click to expand...

In the context of the sentence, your use of "may" cast doubt on Newton's
scientific credentials. In effect, you expressed reservations about the scientific stature of one of the greatest scientists of all time. That's why, "on review," you felt constrained to post a clarification. I understand; you did the right thing.
 
skyrider44 said:
I appreciate the offer, but I'm reasonably well versed in avoiding fallacies in logic and argumentation. Madsen Pirie's book How To Win Every Argument is especially instructive. I also recommend Nils Ch. Rauhut's The Big Questions.
Click to expand...

If this is so, why do you persist in equivocation, strawmanry, and arguments ad hom?
 
skyrider44 said:
In the context of the sentence, your use of "may" cast doubt on Newton's
scientific credentials. In effect, you expressed reservations about the scientific stature of one of the greatest scientists of all time. That's why, "on review," you felt constrained to post a clarification. I understand; you did the right thing.
Click to expand...

Larry Bird may have been a great player, but he was a poor public speaker...
 
skyrider44 said:
In the context of the sentence, your use of "may" cast doubt on Newton's
scientific credentials. In effect, you expressed reservations about the scientific stature of one of the greatest scientists of all time. That's why, "on review," you felt constrained to post a clarification. I understand; you did the right thing.
Click to expand...

No


I made the statement in question, and I said "these men may have had rational scientific beliefs, but their religious beliefs were irrational"

I was using "may have" not in the manner "I may have a letter waiting for me at home " but rather in the manner of "well you may have just hit a home run, but you are still getting benched tomorrow"

both proper uses of the word, yet slightly different.
 
skyrider44 said:
In the context of the sentence, your use of "may" cast doubt on Newton's
scientific credentials. In effect, you expressed reservations about the scientific stature of one of the greatest scientists of all time. That's why, "on review," you felt constrained to post a clarification. I understand; you did the right thing.
Click to expand...
May I refer you back to post #1012, and its author. It was not I.
I have reviewed nothing.
The clarification was to remedy your error in comprehending what the 'may' actually means in English.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom