Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Jose

Ayn Rand's Popcorn-tradiction.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Jose does not appear to be making an argument based on proof by contradiction. He's saying that Rand was wrong, not that she contradicted herself.

His premise isn't that there are no contradictions in reality. His premise is that there are contradictions in reality. Rand claims there aren't, and so she's wrong. His argument isn't contradictory. It's arbitrary, because he hasn't provided any evidence for a contradiction in reality.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

Jose does not appear to be making an argument based on proof by contradiction. He's saying that Rand was wrong, not that she contradicted herself.

His premise isn't that there are no contradictions in reality. His premise is that there are contradictions in reality. Rand claims there aren't, and so she's wrong. His argument isn't contradictory. It's arbitrary, because he hasn't provided any evidence for a contradiction in reality.

Um... 

Jose wants to prove Rand is wrong.  Rand says there are no contradictions.  Assume Rand was right.  Rand being right would necessarily imply the premise that there are no contradictions.  Jose found a contradiction which contradicts the premise that there are no contradictions.  Therefore, the premise is false and therefore Rand could not be right i.e Rand must be wrong.

 

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not his argument. You're equating "Rand is wrong/right" with "there are/are not contradictions." Jose doesn't do that. Syllogistically, his argument is this:

If there are contradictions, then Rand is wrong.

There are contradictions.

Rand is wrong.

It's hard to follow his reasoning, because he can't string two proper sentences together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

That's not his argument. You're equating "Rand is wrong/right" with "there are/are not contradictions." Jose doesn't do that. Syllogistically, his argument is this:

If there are contradictions, then Rand is wrong.

There are contradictions.

Rand is wrong.

It's hard to follow his reasoning, because he can't string two proper sentences together.

Why would Rand be wrong if there are contradictions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Why would Rand be wrong if there are contradictions?

"Rand is wrong" is shorthand for "Rand is wrong about there not being contradictions." Note that in this syllogism the phrase is held together and not equated with "there are contradictions." Also, the soundness of the argument is not established, only its validity. In fact, Jose cannot prove either premise to be true. If he tried, then, yes, he would fall into your trap trying to use the non-existence of contradictions to prove their existence. But he doesn't actually do that. He merely asserts the existence of a contradiction, which avoids your trap but renders his argument arbitrary. It's like if I were to say Bob is wrong about there being no dragons, because Sara has proven that a dragon does exist. Okay, fine, that's valid reasoning, but now I have to prove that Sara has proven dragons. 

To explain further, next I'll analyze Jose's own formal argument...

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2019 at 10:01 PM, Jose said:

Also I did not use contradiction on my proof. Using symbolic logic:

(all) AB ..........(1)

Where A is valid system B is does not have contradiction.

So if is prove that exist one valid system that allow contradiction (1) is false. In other words if

(exist) A~B is true then (1) is false. (exist) A~B is science and the contradiction is the spooky action at distance.

(1) is just his way of symbolically representing Rand's position. His real argument comes later, when he says "in other words...":

if A~B, then ~1

A~B

~1

It doesn't matter what you plug into that argument, it's going to be valid.

If man without body, then not bicycle.

Man without body.

Not bicycle.

Perfectly valid, yet nonsensical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

What does it mean to be wrong?

I've stated that the argument is unsound and that trying to prove the premises will get me caught in your trap. Trying to avoid the trap, Jose resorted to the old "there are no absolutes" line. But I'll enter your trap by answering directly. Being wrong means that your statement contradicts reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

I've stated that the argument is unsound and that trying to prove the premises will get me caught in your trap. Trying to avoid the trap, Jose resorted to the old "there are no absolutes" line. But I'll enter your trap by answering directly. Being wrong means that your statement contradicts reality.

It seems we agree...  he has not avoided the "trap" of logic to make his case, "prove" his position, somehow... he has abdicated logic, and by doing so he has given up what makes proof possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

(1) is just his way of symbolically representing Rand's position. His real argument comes later, when he says "in other words...":

if A~B, then ~1

A~B

~1

It doesn't matter what you plug into that argument, it's going to be valid.

If man without body, then not bicycle.

Man without body.

Not bicycle.

Perfectly valid, yet nonsensical.

Valid in logic means that if the prepositions are true then the conclusion also is. So if it’s sensical, no sensical or trivial is irrelevant. In this thread people show that they do not know logic, nor physics. Called to do a fallacy while that was not true. But reply one of my arguments with a fallacy. All this while having my questions ignored. So have fun doing your naval gazing and enjoy your live in your “logical” bubble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jose said:

Valid in logic means that if the prepositions are true then the conclusion also is. So if it’s sensical, no sensical or trivial is irrelevant. In this thread people show that they do not know logic, nor physics. Called to do a fallacy while that was not true. But reply one of my arguments with a fallacy. All this while having my questions ignored. So have fun doing your naval gazing and enjoy your live in your “logical” bubble

If you could prove the existence of a metaphysical contradiction in reality we will believe you are right that Rand is wrong.

No hand waving, we need detail and you need to explain WHY the phenomenon is actually a contradiction in reality rather than just some thing which is mysterious or puzzling.. or something which merely contradicts our intuition or our initial assumptions... it has to incontrovertibly exist AS a contradiction in reality.

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jose said:

Valid in logic means that if the prepositions are true then the conclusion also is.

And what does "sound" mean in logic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

If you could prove the existence of a metaphysical contradiction in reality we will believe you are right that Rand is wrong.

No hand waving, we need detail and you need to explain WHY the phenomenon is actually a contradiction in reality rather than just some thing which is mysterious or puzzling.. or something which merely contradicts our intuition or our initial assumptions... it has to incontrovertibly exist AS a contradiction in reality.

What for ... Point to any point that I made related to her

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

You never identified the contradiction so I’m giving you the opportunity to present it.

After you explain the "Rand said that contradictions  are impossible but contradictions are possible is not a contradiction" preposition ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jose said:

After you explain the "Rand said that contradictions  are impossible but contradictions are possible is not a contradiction" preposition ...

If that is supposed to be a quote it is inaccurate.  As for anything I actually said, you should be able to understand it as it is written, even if English is not your first language.

 

I think it would be more fruitful for your position, to spend more time focusing on the metaphysical contradiction you have identified which you use to prove Rand wrong.

What is the metaphysical contradiction?  What IS its nature?  What makes it a contradiction in reality? How is it something different from other things in nature which are not contradictions?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

If that is supposed to be a quote it is inaccurate.  As for anything I actually said, you should be able to understand it as it is written, even if English is not your first language.

 

I think it would be more fruitful for your position, to spend more time focusing on the metaphysical contradiction you have identified which you use to prove Rand wrong.

What is the metaphysical contradiction?  What IS its nature?  What makes it a contradiction in reality? How is it something different from other things in nature which are not contradictions?

 

And the answer is ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2019 at 11:56 AM, StrictlyLogical said:

No Louie, I'm sensing something here and wish to investigate...

 

 

TO JOSE:

I'm making a proposition that the following statements A and B are BOTH true.

 

A. Contradictions in reality are possible.

AND

B. RAND was RIGHT that “contradictions in reality are impossible”

 

Do you agree that the proposition that A and B are BOTH true is a possible state of the universe?  YES or NO?

Here you are a textual quote. Can you explain what you mean?

Now an example of a contradiction, even if members of an online former antre strictly logical they find all types of excuses to do not explain their positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Rand was right, but she ain't right no more, because:

1. She's dead

and

2. Contradictions only became possible after her death.

Do I win a prize?

No, StrictlyLogic said that the two statements where done by Rand, I just could not find a post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2019 at 4:44 AM, StrictlyLogical said:

1.  Rand is correct that in reality "contradictions are impossible"

AND

2.  Rand is incorrect that in reality "contradictions are impossible"

 

Here is the post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...