begbert2 said a Reductio ad Absurdum meant I was saying the proposition itself was absurd.
But it doesn’t mean that, and I’m not saying that. I’m saying that the proposition leads to an absurd consequence. It might be the case that people who believe in the proposition might bite the bullet and accept the consequence.
“Undesirable” is not the same as “false”.
But why should an argument become valid or invalid based upon observation?
To give an example, Schroedinger’s Cat was originally intended as a Reductio ad Absurdum. So…is it a valid argument or not?
Does someone need to do the experiment before we can say?
Just to summarise
begbert2 is desperately trying to suggest that I was accusing Egoists of something directly with my analogy. He’s just doing what he obviously does best: being a dick, because it’s obvious I didn’t mean that.
My point was simply one part of my argument against the proposition that because a person enjoys doing voluntary action X, then that necessarily is their reason for doing X.
Many Egoists do believe in this proposition, which is why it’s not a straw man to be arguing against it.
To be technically accurate, I said “reduce the argument in question to something absurd” - so clearly you’d have to be some kind of moron to think I was saying that there was no reduction going on to get from the argument being criticized to an absurd consequence.
I did make an error though - I said “not if you have to make shit up and reduce that”, which implies that you actually did some reducing. You didn’t, of course; you just dropped your nonsequiter/ad hominem into the thread ex nihilo, without extablishing or even implying (except by its placement in the thread) that it had any relation to Egoists, outside the labyrinthine twists of what passes for your mind.
The neat thing about the Shroedinger’s Cat thought experiment is that it bore at least a tangential similarity to the theory that he was rebutting. Your little nonsequiter/ad hominem, not so much.
Actually, what I do best is displace air. I do it with remarkable consistency - even in my sleep!
And it’s not at all obvious what you were attempting to do with your nonsequiter/ad hominem, becuase you left out the part where you made your little of nonsense look like the argument you were trying to criticize, which is necessary to make it a Reductio ad Absurdum argument as opposed to just being a random bit of nonsense babbled by a confused person.
Now, the proposition the “because a person enjoys doing voluntary action X, then that necessarily is their reason for doing X.” There are probably Egoists who believe this. (It has nothing to do with me of course, as anyone with even a vague awareness of what my position was would have understood - the idea that a person only has one ‘reason’ for doing anything is practically antithetical to my position - any description that appears to imply such is necessarily a simplification.)
Of course, “because a person enjoys doing voluntary action X, then that necessarily is their reason for doing X,” isn’t the same as the statement you were attacking: “because a person is doing INvoluntary action X, then necessarily they must be enjoying action X.” At best this is an example of the Affirming the Consequent logical fallacy - though you kind of have to squint one eye, tilt your head, and stand on one foot to see how to get from ‘voluntarily desired results’ to ‘involuntary undesired results’, and from ‘a person enjoys, and therefore does’ to ‘a person does, therefore chooses to enjoy’. Those changes look strawmannish - or outright nonsensical. Take your pick.
Was that my error? When I looked at your statement I didn’t manage to see past the stupidly nonsensical strawman’d parts of the argument** to see the logical error you were making that was ruining your fumbling attempt to make a Reductio ad Absurdum argument?
No, its not. You left out the part about the relevance of the absurdity of the consequence, and the requirement that the path from the proposition to the consequence be tenable.
I didn’t mention observation. The first question is nonsensical in the context of this discussion. Maybe you should avoid such obvious attempts at deflection. The second part is more gibberish. To reject the absurdity of a cat that is both dead and alive, I would need to accept the proposition that cats can be both dead and alive. The validity of the argument hinges on this, and it is used in systems where the indeterminacy is allowed.
Also, an invalid argument does not imply an invalid proposition, only an invalid argument.
What the fuck are you talking about now? When did I talk about INvoluntary actions?
Hello? My exact words were: “The other meaning, the common and legal meaning, is of an argument showing that a proposition leads to an absurd consequence”.
Sure, I could’ve added necessarily leads. And maybe at the end, in brackets put: (and that absurd consequence implies the proposition is either false or at least stranger than otherwise expected). But this hardly justifies you
“correcting” my definition with the same definition. Twice.
OK, read back to yourself what you’ve just written. Do you see the self-contradiction?
You first say that you didn’t mention observation and that my first question is ridiculous. Fine; although observation was implied when you suggested that when QM mechanics vindicates itself (i.e. through experiment), that determines whether arguments against it were valid.
Then you say that the only way you could verify whether the Schroedinger’s Cat argument is valid is by evaluating whether a cat can be both alive and dead (that is, whether superposition of states actually happens to classical objects prior to wavefunction collapse).
Well, we don’t know for sure. We have yet to design a suitable experiment to observe whether it happens.
(Constructing an experiment just like the thought experiment would be child’s play. But getting data out that would tell us whether a superposition happened is another matter).
Have you been huffing paint thinner? The example in the nonsequiter/ad hominem that YOU presented was, and I quote,
Note the part about “losing a war”.
Now, if I were assuming that you were neither retarded or insane, I would assume that you did not mean that this war was being lost on purpose. That is, that the action that was inspiring the proposed (retarded and insane) reaction that YOU stated the person might think to do, was not something that was chosen by the person in question.
However, I have learned the folly of assuming that you are neither retarded or insane, so I shall ask outright - were you proposing that the person was deliberately losing the war? Rather than INvountarily losing the war?
If that is indeed what you meant, then it raises your nonsequiter/ad hominem yet another notch, because you’re saying that, because losing the war is his objective, as he’s accomplishing it he decides to change his objective to that of losing the war. This is of course completely irrational, in addition to being a nonsequiter/ad hominem. This is of course why I assumed you meant that losing the war was an INvoluntary action - at the time, I was not assuming that you were completely and utterly deranged.
Clearly that assumption was a bad assumption for me to make. I’ll try not to overestimate you again.
This was actually a common problem for him in the thread that inspired this reverse pitting - he had no damn clue what my argument was (despite repeated explanations), and so kept on trying to tell me what it was - always changing it around to be closer to that which he wished I was saying.
It’s like he has a mental filter that adapts what he sees into what he wants to see.
Dude, you’re still contradicting yourself. What’s your comeback to that, other than calling me names?
Answer the simple question: Is empirical data necessary to decide whether an argument is valid?
Note: any answer you give here will contradict something you’ve said already, but at least it might clarify your position.
And for what reason did you correct my definition with the same definition?
So you’ve posted many times, vociferously, against this one analogy I used, and yet I see now you have not understood it…at all.
Genuinely, I’m surprised you’re asking these questions, I thought you understood the point, but were dicking around for some unknown reason. Of course I was talking about a voluntary action.
Wait, hang on, this is all too much now…
You must be trolling. Boy have I been whooshed :smack:
I’m not sure it’s possible to troll in a thread that’s pitting myself. I mean, this is like my own little playground, isn’t it?
And regardless - you all read it here, folks. Mijin states that of course when you lose a war, it’s voluntary. People do not lose wars against their will - it’s all on purpose.
Unless of course he has completely failed to understand what was posted, again. Which is doubly hilarious because it is his own words he would be misunderstanding - while simultaneously criticizing my understanding of things. Comedy gold!
And Mijin, in all seriousness, there is the possiblity that I really am not understanding the point you’re trying to make. However, keep in mind - it takes two to communicate. Which necessarily means it’s not necessarily the case that I’m being dense. There is a distinct possibility that you’re being incomprehensible.
Now, you will never, ever, for a single moment, for the briefest instant, even begin to consider entertaining the idea that you even might in a theoretical world fail to be perfectly infallible in every way. But nonetheless, that is my position. I think you are babbling in a completely nonsensical manner. Now, I don’t really believe you are completely insane; I actually think that you are theoretically capable of recognizing that you’re being a moron, but that you are so dedicated to not admitting that you are wrong that you are forced to reject and deny everything I say, even if it’s obviously true. (Like, that people don’t voluntarily lose wars.)
But when the dust settles, the effect is the same. In my eyes you are babbling like a moron. Ranting like a crazy person. And honestly I don’t think you actually have a point that you’re trying to make anymore. I think you lost all that, and now are only continuing to spout incoherent refutations because you can’t swallow the bitter pill that you’re wrong, have been wrong, and are getting wronger with every deranged nugget that drops from your mouth.
I can only wonder if I’m the only person who is seeing you this way. After all, it does take two to communicate…perhaps others (besides you) do think the problem is me?
First of all, can we cut the crap?
You think I’m a retard and that my argument’s shit. I heard you the first time. All you’re doing by repeating it ad nauseum is confirming the OP.
OK, so my point was one of my arguments against Egoism. Specifically, it was one of my arguments against the proposition “Since a person enjoys doing X, then that enjoyment is the reason for doing X”. Which, I’ve said many times that of course not all Egoists believe, but certainly some do, and it was those that the message was directed to.
:rolleyes: This is the kind of immaturity I mean. This is obviously not what I meant and I can see you’re just coming back with any flippant comment you can.
My argument, you’ll remember was simply: Getting our own way tends to make us happy. But that is never the reason for doing something.
If you were losing a war, you wouldn’t think “OK, I’m going to make losing be my objective so I can experience the happiness of getting my way!”.
The “voluntary action” I was referring to was choosing which side we think should win, and/or choosing how we act in the war. “Losing the war” is not even an action in this context, it’s something that’s happening to the individual.
Empirical data is not required to validate an argument, but empirical data can invalidate an argument.
Note: These two clauses are not contradictory. If you believe this answer is contradictory, please demonstrate.
I have yet to make any statements regarding empiricism. You seem to be equivocating “vindicates” with “vindicates by observation”, which may or may not be appropriate in the specific example of QM.
It’s not the same definition if you leave out any important points. You seemed to be using a definition that would allow you to prove a consequence to be absurd simply by declaring it so or that any consequence is suitable simply because you said it after the proposition.
But if I cut the crap, there’d be nothing left of your posts to respond to! (Rimshot!) Hyuk, hyuk hyuk, thank you, thank you, I’ll be here all week, try the veal!
As noted, I don’t think you’re really a retard - at least, not all the time in all subjects. You do seem to lose it when you get agitated, though. And you got agitated, and made a shit argument, which you are now defending to within an inch of your life. I’m not sure why - possibly because you think that you still have some chance of ‘winning’ the debate, and getting your own way makes you happy?
As for the OP, what was it, ‘begbert2 cannot debate like an adult’? I feel obliged to point out that you are making an affirmation of the consequent fallacy. Otherwise, the fact that I am currently not choosing to argue like an adult (assuming I’m not - it’s a poorly-defined standard so far), doesn’t in the slightest imply that I can’t.
It really just implies that I think that there’s no adult debate left to be found with you on this topic. Which is in fact what I think. I don’t think that’s an opinion I’ve been keeping secret here, either.
Egoists don’t believe “Since a person enjoys doing X, then that enjoyment is the reason for doing X”.
They believe, “When a person does X, then that action is actually motivated by a reason or reasons based in their own personal happiness.”
The difference is that the first states that any happiness-based reason that you can invent must be the actual reason for the act, whereast the second merely says that there is a reason for the act, and whatever it is, there is a ‘selfish’ basis for it. That is, the first leaves the door wide open for retarded absurd scenarios like:
Eating strawberries tends to make us happy. But that is never the reason for doing something.
If you were considering your diet, you wouldn’t think “OK, I’m going to become a vegan so I can experience the eating strawberries more often!”
or
Getting our own way tends to make us happy. But that is never the reason for doing something.
If you were losing a war, you wouldn’t think “OK, I’m going to make losing be my objective so I can experience the happiness of getting my way!”.
In both cases, the proposed happiness-based motivation is really the motivation for doing things on occasion, and the proposed action does occasionally happen (what, you never heard of surrendering?) - but the connection of the motivation and the action is absurd. People become vegans because they are made unhappy by the idea of eating meat, perhaps, but not because of a strawberry-fetish. People surrender because they are happier with the idea of losing than that of being attacked further, not because they hope to ‘trick’ themselves into enjoying the situation. And, people do do things because they like strawberries, like buying strawberries, and people do do things because they like getting their own way, like engaging in prolonged internet arguments defending fundamentally flawed positions. It’s only the nonsensical juxtapositions of motivations and actions that are absurd and wrong.
So, yeah. The only way you get to make up absurd scenarios and make us think they’re not non-sequiters is if you’re arguing from the position that any motivation you can think of is the real motivation, which is a position no Egoists hold. Therefore, you are arguing against a strawman.
Plus, even if your one example did count as a valid anecdote against the motivation being a real motivation, one contrary anectdote is no argument at all that the motivation is never the reason for doing something. So, double-fail.
What you meant wasn’t obvious at all - though I concede that I may have guessed wrong in trying to figure out the tortured logic that inspired you to post it. Based on your clarification of which strawman you were basing your argument on, though, I believe I how have things clearer.
But you are correct that I am not treating your flawed arguments and your ranting defenses of them with the respect they don’t deserve. If that means that I am at the moment being immature, then so be it - I reserve the right to only argue maturely against opponents who are doing the same. If somebody is playing in the mud I reserve the right to do the same if I so choose - since the only mature response would be to pretend I don’t hear the immature ranting at all.
Empirical data has nothing to do with whether an argument is valid. An argument is valid if its conclusion follows from its premises.
But what would happen if we constructed a cast-iron argument that X->Y and then the Universe effectively tells us X ˄ ~Y ?
Well, it’s interesting, but I don’t think you’d have people racing to say the argument is invalid until someone can show why the conclusion doesn’t follow.
Still, I’m starting to think this whole thing might be based on a misunderstanding.
When I talked about Reductio Ad Absurdum in relation to QM, and talked about QM being vindicated, I meant situations where the bizarre consequence of the RAA was found to actually happen.
No-one has given an example of an invalid argument yet.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying.
But if it’s that I get to define what is absurd, I’ve gone to great lengths to say otherwise.
I’ve mentioned many times that a proponent of a proposition attacked by a RAA may disagree that the consequence is absurd / undesirable.
Well, I can’t help wondering how long this is going to continue, but when people construct arguments against me that I feel don’t work, I must respond.
I don’t care about defending the argument so much as swatting arguments that don’t work.
Believe me, if I felt that your objection was sound, even now, after all this shit, I’d have no problem saying you’re right.
In you latest post, it seems your objection now, is that it is not the Egoist position that because a person enjoys X, it is their reason for doing X.
My response is: yes, I know. I’ve said many times that the argument was intended for those Egoists that do believe the proposition, which is my experience is a high proportion of them.
Now, you could question my observation but I can’t see how you could question the logic.
If you question the observation, all I’ll say for now is, take a look at any thread / essay about “There’s no such thing as a selfless act”. How many of them are based on the implicit assumption that any positive benefit to an action is proof enough that the reason for the action was to benefit?
That is what I’ve been saying the whole time. Empirical data cannot show an argument to be valid, only invalid.
When making a RAA argument, you are effectively concluding that condition P is absurd/bad because it leads to consequence C which is
undesirable/impossible/absurd.
A slight formalization would read like this:
If C is undesirable/absurd and C is a consequence of P then P is undesirable/absurd because it has C as a consequence.
However, if I have Empirical Data/Concrete counterexample D which shows that C is not absurd/illogical/impossible/undesirable, then your argument is invalid because your premise (C is absurd) is invalid/meaningless.
Example of an RAA invalidated by observation:
Argument: I cannot possibly have 4 cats and 15 dogs, since that would mean that I had 19 animals which is absurd for the size of this one bedroom apartment.
Refutation: counts the animals You do have 19 animals in this apartment, therefore your premise is invalid, and your argument meaningless.
Note the disproof of the absurdity does not imply that the proposition is wrong. The person in the argument could have had 18 gerbils and a goldfish, and still be correct despite the invalidity of the argument.
That’s basically what I’m doing too. Isn’t it nice to find common ground?
You’re making an invalid extrapolation from the (possibly) resonable to the (inarguably) absurd. The problem with this is that, again, you are the one inserting the absurdity into the position, which is poor grounds for criticizing them.
A common approach of the juvenile, kneejerk, sophomoric subset of Egoists is to attempt to come up with “selfish” motives for “selfless” acts. (These are typically the same people who seem dedicated to the idea of pissing off altruists.) So, to invent a suitably clumsy example, such an Egoist might say “You only give dollars to beggars just so you can feel superior to them!!1!”
Now, this is not exactly stellar argument, becuase it’s not even slightly accounting for the complexities and mutliple motivations that underlie every action, not to mention it requires mind reading ability to say with absolute certainty. On the other hand, though, we as humans do credit ourselves with the ability to speculate about people’s motivations with some degree of accuracy. So it’s not inherently absurd to make a claim that a person’s actions were motivated in a particular way, so long as the speculation itself is not absurd. And it’s not even inherently absurd to gloss over the complexities and lesser motivations of an action to focus on a particular (presumably primary) motivation. So it’s not that making such statements is absurd - your problem with them is that you don’t like the particular statements they are making, which may indeed be pretty far out from actual reality in specific cases.
So, you’re annoyed at juvenile punk Egoists asserting these unproven and possibly unlikely theorized motivations at you, because you find the idea that you’re not really altruistic insulting. So far so good. But then, in the desire to debunk their approach of asserting alternate selfish explanations at you, you then make your error, in deciding based on their willingness to (probably) make stuff up that you can extrapolate that they believe that “because a person enjoys X, it is their reason for doing X”.
To be succinct, this is an erroneous extrapolation, because it is based on the presumption that there is no logic at all connecting the motivations with the actions. In a way it’s a dismissal of their entire argument style - you are stating that they do not really believe that the motivation is really motivating the action, and that instead that they are just picking something, anything that sounds selfish and proposing it as the actual justification of the action, even if they don’t really think it is the actual justification. In a way you are basically asserting that they don’t believe their own argument.
This is, of course, a strawman. It certainly isn’t the case that every Egoist that theorizes a selfish motivation for something is faking it just to be annoying.
Of course, one you’ve (erroneously) claimed that Egoists don’t require their speculated motivations to make any sense, it’s a trivial matter to swat that down with a RAA, because it is absurd. But at that point you’re just burning a strawman.
Yes, some juvenile Egoists make cough up some pretty outrageous and stupid ways to cast apparently selfless actions as being selfish. (You probably think I’m one of them, because you apparently can’t comprehend a person hating themself.) However, you still can’t use the silliest cases to justify a RAA against the entire practice about speculaing that people have suspicious motives, despite how convenient that might be for you. You still have to dispute/reject each claim individually.
