RE: MD SOLAQI confirmed?

From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Sat Jan 17 2004 - 17:39:35 GMT

  • Next message: Paul Turner: "RE: MD Matt's Favorite Antipragmatist Statement"

    Bo

    Bo said:
    Anyway, you agreed that the Greek experience=the emergence of the
    intellectual level, and as it also is the emergence of SOM ...you affirm
    the SOLAQI.

    Paul:
    Your logic is flawed, this is a genetic fallacy. An example of which is:

    Life began with viruses
    Human beings are a form of life
    Therefore, human beings are viruses

    In your case, your argument goes like this:

    Western intellectual patterns began with SOM
    X is a western intellectual pattern
    Therefore, X is SOM

    Your problem, for which your fifth level is his solution, starts where X
    is the MOQ.

    While I am pointing out flaws in your logic, here are a couple more.

    Your SOLAQI argument commits a formal fallacy - that of affirming the
    consequent, an example of this fallacy is:

    A horse has two eyes, a nose and hair
    You have two eyes, a nose and hair
    Therefore you are a horse

    In your case, your argument goes like this:

    If you use S/O logic you are acting intellectually
    You are acting intellectually
    Therefore you are using S/O logic

    Or, it can be shown to be a "some/all ambiguity," an example is this:

    Englishmen like drinking tea
    You are an Englishman
    Therefore you like drinking tea

    In your case, your argument goes like this:

    Intellectual patterns are based on SOM
    The MOQ is an intellectual pattern
    Therefore the MOQ is based on SOM

    This non sequitur forces you to deny that the MOQ is an intellectual
    pattern. However, with the simple addition of "some" to the premise, the
    implied "all" is removed and the problem is avoided:

    Some intellectual patterns are based on SOM
    The MOQ is an intellectual pattern
    The MOQ is not based on SOM

    Or we can use good old petitio principii, begging-the-question:

    The conclusion of your argument - SOM=Intellect - is often your premise,
    this is evident whenever we see this - Intellect (SOM) - when you are
    debating the definition of intellect.

    Just thought I'd bring these to your attention.

    Regards

    Paul

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 17 2004 - 17:38:46 GMT