"Begging the question" does not apply here. Begging the question is a logical fallacy where you assume the conclusion of your argument. So what's the ...
Don't worry too much about that... other people know what it means. There's no question begging here; only your confusion. In fact, you agreed I forme...
No, you're just crowing in a pathetic attempt to gaslight me. Words aren't concepts. The symbols "15" represents the weight of my cat. My cat's weight...
You're just playing games. How you define a word is arbitrary. If I want to say a brainless creature with nerves perceives something, I might want a w...
If you bake that into your concept of perception, which is fair, then sure. Sure. This doesn't work. That you're trying to tell me about a cat isn't i...
I think this counteranalysis misses two major points. The first major one... if you tell me there's a cat on the mat using a note, assuming I trust yo...
JTB's are TB's, but TB's aren't necessarily JTB's, so: ...my no correctly refutes that wrong part. The symbols "15" produced by the scale represent th...
And yet, the scale produces the symbols 15; and those symbols represent the weight of my cat. So apparently all those things the scale isn't doing, an...
Yes, you're begging the question. We'll get to that later. Meanwhile, you wrote this: The note in this case is "15". It was produced when my cat stepp...
You're not paying attention... let's back up. Here is what you said: So let me phrase it this way. If a scale produces the symbol "250", is the displa...
If I step onto a digital scale and it says "250", then I can conclude from reading that display that I weigh 250; i.e., 250 represents my weight. Ther...
This matches how I experience things as well. I certainly can consciously deliberate and then act, but the vast majority of things I do don't work tha...
Just to pick this apart... there's an unfortunate common assumption that "the I" equates to "what I am aware of when I self reflect"; as if these are ...
Apparently not, because you keep saying something follows that doesn't follow. "Negative", "zero", and "positive" are classes of numbers. In terms of ...
Sort of; it's "Kant's argument as Popper presents it" (see below). The one does not preclude the other: There is definitely a challenge here ("isn't t...
From reading your reply it appears you don't understand the diagram. Let's imagine the units of the above ruler is hours; and the unit of the below ru...
How about this one?: https://i.ibb.co/pPG7716/ep2.png ...here there's an "object" (blue line) aligned with two rulers. Per the top ruler, it extends b...
But the question here isn't about whether animals have a subconscious; it's about what this implies regarding dream meanings and dream interpretations...
Exactly... though I'm open to an explanation, I've been constantly wondering while reading this thread how certain people opining here would account f...
I've no problem with that; but to be more precise, we don't know U will prove its claim in 1 step. But we do know U will prove its claim in less than ...
FTFY. I'll take that as a position statement, since you didn't bother convincing me of anything. That leaves my position that your comparison is meani...
Yes. But in proving "some dogs are black", you have proved your initial claim futile! Searching that third dog won't do you any good. I think it's mor...
Exactly. That's why even though it takes n steps to prove there are no black dogs, if you find one on step 2 you can stop. We can also phrase this in ...
But given we're talking about empirical claims, I think you get into trouble when you entertain comparing something real to something hypothetical. Wo...
But you can only prove N if N, and you can only prove E if E. Since N and E cannot both be true, the comparison between the proof of N and the proof o...
Sure, but it's just as easy to disconfirm N as it is to prove E. Not only is it just as easy, but in our toy scenario it's literally the same thing. A...
Analogous to A3, B is missing the case where you discover a dog earlier. Despite the fact that you're trying to prove there are no black dogs (~ExBx),...
Repeating the comparison doesn't get you any closer to convincing me that it's a meaningful comparison. Suppose I have a function f(x). I can say f(0)...
According to you, I cannot prove my claim if my claim is false. That implies that being able to prove the claim true in the first place requires my cl...
Here's the discussion leading up the black dogs: ...and so on. But the reason they don't capture a difference in challenge is because the state of aff...
The basis is that you volunteered that you only talked about it because it was mentioned. Whereas that's true, it was TMF that started both the thread...
Sure. But generally speaking we agree that one of them is true, and one of them is false. And with the metric/method under consideration, we don't kno...
No, that's not the question. The question is whether it's easier to prove a negative claim or a positive claim. Here's how TMF phrased it in the OP: J...
Since attempting to let this die didn't work: What the chart indicates is what the chart was intended to indicate. It sounds like you're spinning tale...
I don't take that seriously. Okay, so you don't care about my claims (though for some odd reason you replied anyway). But why then should you expect m...
You have a warped view of what's going on. You have made a claim. You have not supported it. Therefore, your claim can be dismissed. I have made a cla...
That does me no good. It's possible that I'm wrong, but the reading is direct, so it's justified. The justification from a straightforward reading of ...
My reading is this: Those two things are separated by only one post in this thread; 180 Proof's post. The quote I have from 180 Proof is the exact quo...
That's possible. You're misinterpreting. Here's what you're doing: ...you're morphing what I did say into something easier to refute... you're doing t...
Avoid epistemic double standards... whatever burden you think the "other guy" has in proving you wrong had better be a burden you met yourself to make...
Professional psychologists hold degrees in psychology. You were arguing that the degree was irrelevant. No, you're claiming that it doesn't mean anyth...
Wrong. In your view: ...psychologists corroborate your story. You're being disingenuous. It's also mighty suspicious that I've plainly and repetitivel...
Sorry, but you're running all over the place. What is on the table is that 180 Proof's degree in psychology is relevant to this: You offered a pretens...
Comments