Ann
medicine forum addict
Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 65
|
 Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 12:17 am Post subject:
Cognitive Dissonant Oxymoron: "Dictators
|
|
|
Is that you Jeremy,
that passionate defender of our Mr Tom? I already wondered who that
skilful programmer might be, who loves so much to evaluates expressions,
true - false, true - false  . I'll snip your angry remarks, for I
honestly do not see how I or Cloud deserved them, after all I didn't write
a word about you or your "egoless" ego. {With one exception in the very
beginning when I informed Tom that here at a.d.c. we have another science
apologetic called Jeremy. Which ought to be safe for me to say, after all
I thought I was "killfiled".} Now this Tom... we both know, of course, you
couldn't be one and the same person, yet something (see below) in the
style suggests you might be relatives, say from the Donovan's clan. Only
joking, of course.
| Quote: | On Fri, 6 May 2005, Carmen Miranda wrote:
Ann wrote:
Tom's Second Theorem:
1. (Assumption) If all words are lies,
then
2. (Conclusion) Whenever Cloud is speaking, he is lying.
"The cunning (yet honest:) 'solution' was again to let Cloud speak the |
truth in the assumption, i.e." (Ann, May 6)
| Quote: | Cloud (in the Colosseum, shouting): "all words are lies,"
ALL WORDS ARE LIES,
ALL WORDS ARE LIES,
Cloud is speaking.. the assumed 'truth', thus he is not lying.
He may not be lying, but ... if all words are lies, then it is not
possible to speak the truth and he is merely deranged enough to
contradict himself every time he shouts.
Not at all, you simply formulated a new theorem (see below). And it is |
actually you (or the one who claims both theorems) who is the first one
"deranged enough to contradict himself". Cloud was consistent within the
theorem for by definition of an If/Then statement (I thought you were the
programmer:) [the assumption is true] takes precedence over what's in the
assumption, hence your conclusion is false. Still not satisfied, need more
words/lies?
Well, as I tried to explain in another post today to Cloud and Slider, the
situation is very much like that: whoever first claims loses the game. Of
course, I can understand your scholastic urge to evaluate that nasty
expression "all words are lies" as false, yet the means you've chosen are
not the ones of logic. And can hardly be. {It eventually boils down to the
millennium-old problem of the existence of 'Truth', you think it's
resolved? Throughout the centuries the Truth had simply been imposed more
or less by force, first by religions then by science; e.g. by making
ancient skepticism a bad word.} Similar to the Axiom of Choice or any
basic axiom we may accept or reject it (depending on our preferences for
the words), but we can hardly in/validate it by means of reason. You don't
believe me? Then just look at Tom's desperate attempts so far to establish
its falsity.
And by the way, you've just fallen into the same logical fallacy as he
did. In fact the mistakes are so identical that if you didn't carry
different names I could say... Never mind, just kidding.
Jeremy's Theorem
"If all words are lies, then it is not possible to speak the truth."
That is,
1. If [all words are lies] is true,
2. Then [it is not possible to speak the truth] is true.
Check: The 'solution' again is to speak the truth in the assumption:
In the Colosseum
Speaker: "all words are lies",
ALL WORDS ARE LIES.
The assumed truth (see 1.) was spoken, hence we found an instance when it
is "possible" (at least in the context of the theorem), therefore the
conclusion and the whole claim are fallacious. QED.
| Quote: | That is, your conclusion does not necessarily follow from the
premises, therefore the theorem is a logical fallacy. And a deliberate
lie too, provided that you have read my latest postings to this and
"..Trauma" threads. To which you have already replied
It's all just bullshit anyway, because all words are not lies.
Now that's something else , one may call it 'logic' but of a different |
(fuzzier:) kind. Notice that you're not proving the "bullshit" (in
contrast to your failed yet rigorous attempt above), you're just asserting
it as an axiom, an article of faith. And you have the right to do that, we
all have, to honestly state our personal preferences for the words. It is
only when you try to impose it on others that problems might arise, e.g. I
may disagree for I may have different preferences . That's all, I guess
we are both for 'biodiversity' of ideas, so I am like a conservationist
preserving that variety.
| Quote: | Similarly, if you see anyone making an argument such as "all words are
lies", rest assured that you are conversing with a veritable master of
self-deception who has a real problem accepting the truth about
anything. -J.
I am not asserting anything, not even that "all words are lies". As |
mentioned earlier (that 18K post from May 4 in this thread) I found a
better strategy: to just doubt/question everything or believe ("accept"
nothing until the arrival of the overwhelming evidence. Otherwise, that
last conclusion about "the truth" I like it . Only those who believe in
"the truth" can assert the absolute truth of expressions, statements,
claims, theorems. Like you (or Tom), for example, who tried to assert
that: all words are lies is false. And you know well with whom the burden
of proof lies, though the theorems you offered so far, even when they
sounded plausible, contained logical inconsistencies.
Best,
Ann |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Medicine forums
»
nutrition
