Kees
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2006
- Posts
- 4,619
- Likes
- 26
Quote:
I think we agree for a large part. The only part you don't understand is that the rules you use for your logic don't apply.
First of all: there is no causal relationship like you make in your first statement.
I never stated anything like "if x=true and y=true then z=true"
Your translation of: "if a and b are an integral part of c" into the above is false.
Therefore you, again, chose a wrong analogy. Your operators "true', "false" and "=" do not adequately represent the relation I describe as "integral part of"
By doing that you changed the playing field and the rules. You made a model that does not represent the situation you want to investigate.
Your rules apply in your playing field, but this in no way represents the described situation, so they don't apply there. They are not universal, they only apply in your playing field, within the apropriate context (given the right definitions of the elements x, y and z and the operators true, false and =, and probably a lot more).
Quote:
Argumentation is not the same as logic.
In my experience though, most people master neither...
| Originally Posted by Superpredator /img/forum/go_quote.gif .... Allow me to explain myself one last time. If I fail once again I'll give it up. You said that: a) good manners and grammar are an essential part of communication b) decline of thoughtful communication would most probably result in the decline of both good manners and proper use of grammar You set up (what appeared to be) a logical argument with two variables and then proceeded to draw a conclusion not from the variables themselves but by using what should have been the conclusive variable as a variable to create a proof regarding the original two variables. manners = x grammar = y communication = z good = true decline of = false If x is true and y is true then z is true. If z is false then x and y are false. This statement is not valid because if z is false it does not necessarily follow that both x and y are false. Either x or y may be false for z to be false. A valid argument, whether sound or relevant to our discussion at all, would have looked more like this: a) good manners and good grammar are an essential part of good communication b) decline of good manners or decline of proper use of grammar would most probably result in the decline of good communication (If x is true and y is true then z is true. If either x or y is false then z is false.) |
I think we agree for a large part. The only part you don't understand is that the rules you use for your logic don't apply.
First of all: there is no causal relationship like you make in your first statement.
I never stated anything like "if x=true and y=true then z=true"
Your translation of: "if a and b are an integral part of c" into the above is false.
Therefore you, again, chose a wrong analogy. Your operators "true', "false" and "=" do not adequately represent the relation I describe as "integral part of"
By doing that you changed the playing field and the rules. You made a model that does not represent the situation you want to investigate.
Your rules apply in your playing field, but this in no way represents the described situation, so they don't apply there. They are not universal, they only apply in your playing field, within the apropriate context (given the right definitions of the elements x, y and z and the operators true, false and =, and probably a lot more).
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Superpredator /img/forum/go_quote.gif You said that you consider grammar the manners of language. At least equally fundamental to language is the proper use and understanding of argumentation. |
Argumentation is not the same as logic.
In my experience though, most people master neither...
