Jose Posted July 26, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2019 20 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said: You are STILL ignoring SL's point. And his question is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterSwig Posted July 26, 2019 Report Share Posted July 26, 2019 (edited) 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 July 26, 2019 by MisterSwig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted July 27, 2019 Report Share Posted July 27, 2019 (edited) 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 July 27, 2019 by StrictlyLogical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterSwig Posted July 27, 2019 Report Share Posted July 27, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted July 27, 2019 Report Share Posted July 27, 2019 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? Harrison Danneskjold 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterSwig Posted July 27, 2019 Report Share Posted July 27, 2019 (edited) 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 July 27, 2019 by MisterSwig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterSwig Posted July 27, 2019 Report Share Posted July 27, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted July 27, 2019 Report Share Posted July 27, 2019 What does it mean to be wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterSwig Posted July 27, 2019 Report Share Posted July 27, 2019 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. StrictlyLogical 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted July 27, 2019 Report Share Posted July 27, 2019 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. Harrison Danneskjold 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Posted July 28, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2019 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted July 28, 2019 Report Share Posted July 28, 2019 (edited) 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 July 28, 2019 by StrictlyLogical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterSwig Posted July 28, 2019 Report Share Posted July 28, 2019 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrandMinnow Posted July 28, 2019 Report Share Posted July 28, 2019 An argument is valid if and only if if its premises are true then its conclusion must be true. An argument is sound if and only if it is valid and its premises are true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Posted July 28, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2019 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted July 29, 2019 Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 6 hours ago, Jose said: What for ... Point to any point that I made related to her You never identified the contradiction so I’m giving you the opportunity to present it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Posted July 29, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 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 ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted July 29, 2019 Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Posted July 29, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 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 .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted July 29, 2019 Report Share Posted July 29, 2019 (edited) I look forward to hearing your answer. If you cannot find an actual contradiction in reality, our entire argument here thus far is moot and pointless. Edited July 29, 2019 by StrictlyLogical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Posted July 30, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterSwig Posted July 30, 2019 Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 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? Harrison Danneskjold 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted July 31, 2019 Report Share Posted July 31, 2019 (edited) The location of a recent, if not a currently existing Contradiction Dance, in Washington DC of all places. Could they be looking for an instructor with demonstrable experience? Edited July 31, 2019 by dream_weaver Harrison Danneskjold 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Posted July 31, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Posted July 31, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2019 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.