# Re: Do you think 12:00pm is noon or midnight?

jenny_b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jul 19, 11:07 am, zookumar yelubandi <zooku...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
jenn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
[...]
How would we get from 11:59 a.m. to 12:01 p.m if 12:00 p.m. was
not noon? And, likewise, how would we get from 11:59 p.m. to
12:01 a.m if 12:00 a.m. was not midnight?
[...]
"affirming the consequent"
If A, then B.
B.
Therefore, A.
If its raining, then it's cloudy.
Its cloudy,
Therefore it's raining.

Are you saying:
If we are in the middle of the period 11:59AM - 12:01PM, then it's
12:00PM.
It's 12:00PM.
Therefore, we are in the middle of the period between 11:59AM -
12:01PM
.... and we don't know we are in that period because 12:00PM can be
noon or midnight?

No. Here is what I'm saying:
[A]= 12:00 noon equal to 12:00PM
[B]= 12:01PM
What?
Where did he say 'noon is 12:00PM' exists therefore 12:01PM exists?

My, you are obtuse.

"... if 12:00 p.m. was not noon ..."

Indeed, his statement, which is not in the *format* of the
logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, can nonetheless be reduced
to said fallacy by actually recognizing what was said. He is arguing
that if 12:00 PM was *not* noon, then the given transit from 11:59 AM to
12:01 PM would *not* be possible. That is the same as saying the given
transit is only possible if 12:00PM is noon. More concisely, if 12:00
pm is noon, then given transit. Since we can represent the given
transit by its *endpoint* , 12:01 PM, we have thus restructured the
original statement into the format of the logical fallacy in question.

If 12:00 PM is noon,
then given transit (representable by endpoint).

... which is identical to the following ...

If 12:00 noon equal to 12:00 PM,
then 12:01 PM
(which, of course, is the first part of the logical fallacy of
affirming the consequent)

In short, his statements are packaged in a different format
from the official format of affirming the consequent, but they are
unmistakably a respresentation of said logical fallacy.

It's circular reasoning at its finest. Indeed, one can replace
Affirming the consequent is NOT the same as circular reasoning!!!

True. Mea culpa. ATC is deductive reasoning: from B, we can
deduce A.

[A] with [A']= 12:00 noon equal to 12:00AM, and get an equally circular
logic result (which, indeed, was my counterexample to Gordon's
fallacious reasoning).
This is circular reasoning:
God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is infallible
because it is the word of God.
Or, 'begging the question' (commonly called circular reasoning):
The universe could only be created by a god, therefore god exists.

Yup. There is bi-directional flow in circular reasoning.

Affirming the consequent does not have the feature of an unproven
premise being restated as a conclusion.

I'm aware of that. Gordon's argument suffers from
self-reference not from circular reasoning. However, the differences
are minor and subtle; they're certainly not as great as you pretend them
to be. In circular reasoning, there are two unanchored points, either
of which can be the antecedent. In affirming the consequent, there's
one unanchored point, and it *is* the antecedent (which goes on to
affirm the consequent).

To the extent an unproven premise is stated in the conclusion of
Gordons statement, your statement that Gordon's argument is fallacious
because of it is Argumentum ad Logicam.

Perhaps. But that doesn't ignore the fact that Gordon's
argument is, indeed, affirming the consequent. See above. In any
event, I have since exposed Gordon's statement to be the inelegant,
"badly put" statement that it is with my apple, mango, orange bin
metaphor. You claimed that Gordon's fallacious statement was "nicely
put".

Gordon was simply saying that you cross into PM at some point, and
that switching, called noon, happens at 12:00PM for practical purposes
(or if you prefer YOU can say 12:00.00000000000000000000000000000001
PM) and from here you get to 12:01PM, and that it doesn't make since
to go from 12:00AM to 12:01PM in the span of a minute.

The above begs a lot. My "double-bin" metaphor doesn't require
*any* begging.

You are concerned with "coupling," but you think the insanity of going
from 12:00AM to 12:01PM makes more "coupling" sense than does
12:00.xPM = 12:00PM as x approaches 1/infinity.

The insanity can be removed by employing a step function. There
is considerable hysteria in your argument. The reality is that 12:00 AM
can *safely* , *rationally* , *intuitively* , *sanely* exist alongside
12:01 PM. This is not a case of bringing Matter (12:00 AM) dangerously
close to antiMatter (12:01 PM), thereby jeopardizing the future of the
solar system and beyond. A mere step function can render the six-degree
jump to a brave new interval, twice daily. Indeed, this jump could just
as easily be effected between "11:59 AM" and "12:00 PM" (as per your
instructions). Oooooh, the insanity!! ;^)

Again, the fruit bin metaphor eloquently describes the problem
of placing a mango in either the mango bin or the orange bin, neither of
which are present at the loading area. Here, the mango bin doesn't
exist; and the orange bin had been displaced by the apple bin some
twelve hours before, and won't be in place again at the loading area
until the apple bin is removed, and that only happens *after* the Post
Meridiem arrives, and not *as* it arrives). Since the only bin at the
loading area when the mango arrives is the apple bin; it makes rational
sense to toss the mango into the apple bin. Not a perfect match; but
an available fit nonetheless. Ergo, the logical basis for 12:00 AM.
12:00 M would have been best, of course, but we only have the two bins.

-zookumar-

.