Re: Affirming the consequent or circular reasoning?
- From: zookumar yelubandi <zookumar@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 00:55:09 GMT
Kile@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 03:24:42 GMT, zookumar yelubandi
<zookumar@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
monty wrote:No.
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:18:52 GMT, zookumar yelubandi
<zookumar@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
A = [transit from 11:59 AM to 12:01 PM]I read Jenny's reply to your post under the subject "Is 12:00pm noon
B = [12:00 pm is noon]
C = [arbitrary assignment]
If [transit from 11:59 AM to 12:01 PM],
then [12:00 PM is noon];
[12:00 pm is noon],
therefore [transit from 11:59 AM to 12:01 PM]
Good ROMulans, what kind of fallacy is this exactly? First I
argued it was affirming the consequent; then uncertainty crept in, and I
argued it was circular reasoning; but could it not be, in fact, both ACT
and CR?
I mean, if B is a consequence of A, then are you not, indeed,
committing the ACT fallacy? After all, B could be a consequence of C.
And if B is a consequence of A, then are you not begging the
question when you state that A is a consequence of B? IOW, are you not
committing the CR fallacy through mutual self-reference?
I'm sure I'm missing something here. Anyone have the solution?
Is the misstep due to that B is *not* a consequence of A? Indeed, that
it is a consequence of C and is being incorrectly portrayed as a
consequence of A?
-zookumar-
or midnight," which this is regarding. What she said about the correct
name of your argument is correct.
True. And I offered a mea culpa for mislabelling the fallacy of
circular reasoning as ATC, in a subsequent post, as you will note.
At that point I was still not convinced that Gordon's remark was not
also ATC (by now, I was fully convinced it was CR).
But having studied it further, I concede the point. Gordon's
statement is not ATC because he doesn't explicitly commit to the second
part of the ATC.
You still don't get it. It couldn't be more clearly stated.
It would not matter if he "explicitly" committed "it."
I keep hearing your own words "why do you resist concise logic?"
Try your hand at something other than logic.
I got it. Thanks all the same. I'm not going to explain this
again. If Gordon had committed to the second part, then he would have
committed ATC *and* CR. As it is, he only committed CR. But I note
that you purposefully avoid the mathematical solution I offered in a
subsequent thread in order to continue chasing this particular goose.
Here it is again:
12:00 AM is the limit of 11:59.999999999999999999999999999999 ... AM.
Noon is also the limit of 11:59.99999999999900000000000000999 ... AM.
Ergo, 12:00 AM is noon.
Corollary: 12:00 PM is *not* noon.
But you and Jenny have claimed all along that 12:00PM *is* noon
... and you mocked other interpretations. Will you admit your error
now? Or will you continue to chase *illogical* gooses?
-zookumar-
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Affirming the consequent or circular reasoning?
- From: 'foolsrushin.'
- Re: Affirming the consequent or circular reasoning?
- References:
- Affirming the consequent or circular reasoning?
- From: zookumar yelubandi
- Re: Affirming the consequent or circular reasoning?
- From: monty
- Re: Affirming the consequent or circular reasoning?
- From: zookumar yelubandi
- Re: Affirming the consequent or circular reasoning?
- From: Kile
- Affirming the consequent or circular reasoning?
- Prev by Date: Re: Do you think 12:00pm is noon or midnight?
- Next by Date: Re: Do you think 12:00pm is noon or midnight?
- Previous by thread: Re: Affirming the consequent or circular reasoning?
- Next by thread: Re: Affirming the consequent or circular reasoning?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
