For those wondering where the thread entitled, "Who thinks they are a Genius?", has gone, Dan accidentally deleted it last night while trying to delete another thread.
That it has vanished forever seems indubitable, unless someone out there has a copy of it on their computer.
-
Missing thread
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Missing thread
Good lesson in evils of censorship. :-) Karma and all that (censored word that you all know).
It's just a ride.
-
Pincho Paxton
- Posts: 1305
- Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am
Re: Missing thread
Doh! That was a good thread.
Re: Missing thread
Well, that's inconvenient. I had just logged on looking for the name of the geometry Victor used in his argument there.
-Katy
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Missing thread
Here's a part of the deleted thread, rescued from the google cache:
----------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby David Quinn on Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:53 am
So far, there has been no attempt to address my argument. There has been one appeal to authority, and two attempts of belittling.
Good work, guys.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby David Quinn on Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:55 am
Unidian wrote:
Do you really think that academic theorizing is beyond question by default?
Why would anyone think that?
I smell a man of straw.
Victor simply made an appeal to authority, as though that alone was enough. Philo backed him by laughing at my questioning of this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby Philosophaster on Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:56 am
David Quinn wrote:Do you really think that academic theorizing is beyond question by default?
Haha. No. Lots of academic theorizing is stupid and pointless; much of postmodernism falls in that category, for example. But there is a lot of worth as well, if you know what to look for.
But you guys don't.
The clueless seem to think it their privilege to deride academia as monolithic and completely worthless. This attitude is about as intelligent as that of the bumpkin who neglects sending his kids off to college for fear of the way all the "book larnin'" will affect their tender minds.
I am WOMAN, hear me roar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby Unidian on Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:59 am
Um, I hate to take up for Victor, but he addressed your argument quite adequately. You claim that no rebuttal was made because you didn't like the one that was made. It's a tried-and-true tactic - if you don't like your opponents response, simply claim that they haven't actually said anything. It's a surprisingly effective rhetorical tool.
Your problem is not so much your dismissal of the logical formalism, but you more general approach which holds that "any definition of logic and reason which results in conclusions other than those of David Quinn is not a valid or useful definition of logic and reason."
I've been pointing this out for years, from as far back as the debates at KIR.
Nat
Man, I feel like a Woman!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby Neil Melnyk on Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:01 am
David,
Can we really comprehend your enlightened argument and debate with you when we are plagued by delusional attachments from the get-go?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby vicdan on Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:04 am
David Quinn wrote:Victor simply made an appeal to authority, as though that alone was enough. Philo backed him by laughing at my questioning of this.
Dude, you are so totally off your rocker, it's not even funny. Trying to explain proof by contradiction to you is like trying to explain basic arithmetic to someone. If you are this dumb and ignorant, there's really no point in trying.
Yes, I speak as an authority here. A fucking trained money could speak as an authority here. Proof by contradiction is one of the most basic tools in the logic toolbox, it's like expanding x(a+b) into xa+xb to arithmetic. The general outline goes like this:
X entails some proposition P
P is demonstrated false (usually by showing that it entails a contradiction)
Therefore, X is false.
The very point of a reductio ad absurdum is to arrive at an illogical place -- while showing that that's where the premises in question (X) lead. Thast's why your objection, about the argument entailing a self-contradiction, was so laughable.
P.S. it goes back to ancient Greece, and is by no means a 20th century invention.
Last edited by vicdan on Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Forethought Venus Wednesday
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby Nick Treklis on Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:06 am
Philosophaster wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Do you really think that academic theorizing is beyond question by default?
Haha. No. Lots of academic theorizing is stupid and pointless; much of postmodernism falls in that category, for example. But there is a lot of worth as well, if you know what to look for.
But you guys don't.
The clueless seem to think it their privilege to deride academia as monolithic and completely worthless. This attitude is about as intelligent as that of the bumpkin who neglects sending his kids off to college for fear of the way all the "book larnin'" will affect their tender minds.
Wow! I think you over estimated Philo's chances of posessing a soul a while back, David. If he can't even recognize how you do in fact have an appreciation for academic science, (as you have stated it many times) then there's no telling how shallow his mind really is!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby Philosophaster on Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:09 am
That might be interesting if we were discussing academic science. As it is, the subject was academic philosophy.
I am WOMAN, hear me roar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby David Quinn on Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:22 am
Victor,
X entails some proposition P
P is demonstrated false (usually by showing that it entails a contradiction)
Therefore, X is false.
Okay, so applying this to the current discussion, your premise (X) that "We can never, ever, tell seeming indubitability apart from actual indubitability" is false. This is because it automatically generates a contradiction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby Unidian on Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:26 am
Wow! I think you over estimated Philo's chances of posessing a soul a while back, David. If he can't even recognize how you do in fact have an appreciation for academic science, (as you have stated it many times) then there's no telling how shallow his mind really is!
Well, that's my fault. Apparently, I ruined him for Wisdom. Had it not been for my meddling, he would have become a Quinnologist and achieved True Loftiness.
Oooooh, I'm so evil! <cackles>
Nat
Man, I feel like a Woman!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby Nick Treklis on Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:34 am
Philosophaster wrote:That might be interesting if we were discussing academic science. As it is, the subject was academic philosophy.
Either way, I still think he over estimated you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby vicdan on Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:39 am
David Quinn wrote:
X entails some proposition P
P is demonstrated false (usually by showing that it entails a contradiction)
Therefore, X is false.
Okay, so applying this to the current discussion, your premise (X) that "We can never, ever, tell seeming indubitability apart from actual indubitability" is false. This is because it automatically generates a contradiction.
oh? And how would that be -- because that proposition is indubitable? Because you can't comprehend English?..
Dude, you are so lost, you couldn't find your way with a GPS and a tour guide.
Forethought Venus Wednesday
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby Philosophaster on Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:40 am
Well, if believing that academic philosophers have said things worth my consideration makes me "soulless,"then soulless is what I am. :-)
I am WOMAN, hear me roar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby Neil Melnyk on Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:44 am
David is bringing up the good old contradiction once again of saying "there is no absolute truth" and calling it a contradiction by assuming the existence of "absolute truth" in the first place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby Unidian on Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:56 am
Well, if believing that academic philosophers have said things worth my consideration makes me "soulless,"then soulless is what I am.
I'm also soulless, in that case. Some of them have said very worthwhile things. Hegel was an academic, for example. And Wittgenstein is probably the most important philosopher of the 20th century. Sure, a lot of academics have spent their careers doing timid, unoriginal readings of real thinkers and wasting people's money with other trivialities. But not all of them have done so.
Granted, no one needs to go to school to do philosophy. But if we reflexively ignore anything that comes from academia, we are depriving ourselves of a potentially valuable resource. Good philosophy can potentially be found everywhere, in all sorts of surprising places, all the way from the bag boy break room to the university lecture hall.
Nat
Man, I feel like a Woman!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby David Quinn on Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:59 am
vicdan wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
X entails some proposition P
P is demonstrated false (usually by showing that it entails a contradiction)
Therefore, X is false.
Okay, so applying this to the current discussion, your premise (X) that "We can never, ever, tell seeming indubitability apart from actual indubitability" is false. This is because it automatically generates a contradiction.
oh? And how would that be -- because that proposition is indubitable? Because you can't comprehend English?..
Dude, you are so lost, you couldn't find your way with a GPS and a tour guide.
You'll have to state your objections more clearly, otherwise people will think that you are fudging and hiding behind your endless torrents of abuse.
I'm simply applying the "proof by contradiction" template that you spelt out. If X automatically contradicts itself, then it is false. That is the basic dynamic of the proof by contradiction argument. We assume X is true, it automatically leads to a contradiction, therefore X is false.
But instead of doing this, you are ignoring the contradiction and clinging to the conclusion that it is impossible to distinguish between seeming indubitability and actual indubitability. So you're not really adhering to the proof by contradiction argument at all. This is evidenced by the fact that you continue to treat your premise (X), not as though it were a claim just for arguments sake, but as though it were indubitable truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby Philosophaster on Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:00 am
So, David, how do you distinguish between things that seem indubitable and things that actually are indubitable?
I am WOMAN, hear me roar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby David Quinn on Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:02 am
Neil Melnyk wrote:David is bringing up the good old contradiction once again of saying "there is no absolute truth" and calling it a contradiction by assuming the existence of "absolute truth" in the first place.
Victor is the one who is assuming the existence of absolute truth in his premise and then tries to deny it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby Unidian on Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:03 am
He probably uses the Captain Crunch Secret Dubitability Decoder Ring.
Nat
Man, I feel like a Woman!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby Dan Rowden on Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:06 am
One would think David has already shown how in this thread. I think you guys need to read more closely before going all teen-wolf on us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby David Quinn on Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:08 am
Philosophaster wrote:So, David, how do you distinguish between things that seem indubitable and things that actually are indubitable?
Something is indubitably true if it is impossible to challenge it without entering into contradiction. The existence of my consciousness in this very moment is one such example. A=A is another example.
-----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby David Quinn on Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:53 am
So far, there has been no attempt to address my argument. There has been one appeal to authority, and two attempts of belittling.
Good work, guys.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby David Quinn on Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:55 am
Unidian wrote:
Do you really think that academic theorizing is beyond question by default?
Why would anyone think that?
I smell a man of straw.
Victor simply made an appeal to authority, as though that alone was enough. Philo backed him by laughing at my questioning of this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby Philosophaster on Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:56 am
David Quinn wrote:Do you really think that academic theorizing is beyond question by default?
Haha. No. Lots of academic theorizing is stupid and pointless; much of postmodernism falls in that category, for example. But there is a lot of worth as well, if you know what to look for.
But you guys don't.
The clueless seem to think it their privilege to deride academia as monolithic and completely worthless. This attitude is about as intelligent as that of the bumpkin who neglects sending his kids off to college for fear of the way all the "book larnin'" will affect their tender minds.
I am WOMAN, hear me roar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby Unidian on Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:59 am
Um, I hate to take up for Victor, but he addressed your argument quite adequately. You claim that no rebuttal was made because you didn't like the one that was made. It's a tried-and-true tactic - if you don't like your opponents response, simply claim that they haven't actually said anything. It's a surprisingly effective rhetorical tool.
Your problem is not so much your dismissal of the logical formalism, but you more general approach which holds that "any definition of logic and reason which results in conclusions other than those of David Quinn is not a valid or useful definition of logic and reason."
I've been pointing this out for years, from as far back as the debates at KIR.
Nat
Man, I feel like a Woman!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby Neil Melnyk on Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:01 am
David,
Can we really comprehend your enlightened argument and debate with you when we are plagued by delusional attachments from the get-go?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby vicdan on Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:04 am
David Quinn wrote:Victor simply made an appeal to authority, as though that alone was enough. Philo backed him by laughing at my questioning of this.
Dude, you are so totally off your rocker, it's not even funny. Trying to explain proof by contradiction to you is like trying to explain basic arithmetic to someone. If you are this dumb and ignorant, there's really no point in trying.
Yes, I speak as an authority here. A fucking trained money could speak as an authority here. Proof by contradiction is one of the most basic tools in the logic toolbox, it's like expanding x(a+b) into xa+xb to arithmetic. The general outline goes like this:
X entails some proposition P
P is demonstrated false (usually by showing that it entails a contradiction)
Therefore, X is false.
The very point of a reductio ad absurdum is to arrive at an illogical place -- while showing that that's where the premises in question (X) lead. Thast's why your objection, about the argument entailing a self-contradiction, was so laughable.
P.S. it goes back to ancient Greece, and is by no means a 20th century invention.
Last edited by vicdan on Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Forethought Venus Wednesday
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby Nick Treklis on Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:06 am
Philosophaster wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Do you really think that academic theorizing is beyond question by default?
Haha. No. Lots of academic theorizing is stupid and pointless; much of postmodernism falls in that category, for example. But there is a lot of worth as well, if you know what to look for.
But you guys don't.
The clueless seem to think it their privilege to deride academia as monolithic and completely worthless. This attitude is about as intelligent as that of the bumpkin who neglects sending his kids off to college for fear of the way all the "book larnin'" will affect their tender minds.
Wow! I think you over estimated Philo's chances of posessing a soul a while back, David. If he can't even recognize how you do in fact have an appreciation for academic science, (as you have stated it many times) then there's no telling how shallow his mind really is!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby Philosophaster on Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:09 am
That might be interesting if we were discussing academic science. As it is, the subject was academic philosophy.
I am WOMAN, hear me roar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby David Quinn on Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:22 am
Victor,
X entails some proposition P
P is demonstrated false (usually by showing that it entails a contradiction)
Therefore, X is false.
Okay, so applying this to the current discussion, your premise (X) that "We can never, ever, tell seeming indubitability apart from actual indubitability" is false. This is because it automatically generates a contradiction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby Unidian on Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:26 am
Wow! I think you over estimated Philo's chances of posessing a soul a while back, David. If he can't even recognize how you do in fact have an appreciation for academic science, (as you have stated it many times) then there's no telling how shallow his mind really is!
Well, that's my fault. Apparently, I ruined him for Wisdom. Had it not been for my meddling, he would have become a Quinnologist and achieved True Loftiness.
Oooooh, I'm so evil! <cackles>
Nat
Man, I feel like a Woman!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby Nick Treklis on Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:34 am
Philosophaster wrote:That might be interesting if we were discussing academic science. As it is, the subject was academic philosophy.
Either way, I still think he over estimated you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby vicdan on Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:39 am
David Quinn wrote:
X entails some proposition P
P is demonstrated false (usually by showing that it entails a contradiction)
Therefore, X is false.
Okay, so applying this to the current discussion, your premise (X) that "We can never, ever, tell seeming indubitability apart from actual indubitability" is false. This is because it automatically generates a contradiction.
oh? And how would that be -- because that proposition is indubitable? Because you can't comprehend English?..
Dude, you are so lost, you couldn't find your way with a GPS and a tour guide.
Forethought Venus Wednesday
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby Philosophaster on Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:40 am
Well, if believing that academic philosophers have said things worth my consideration makes me "soulless,"then soulless is what I am. :-)
I am WOMAN, hear me roar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby Neil Melnyk on Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:44 am
David is bringing up the good old contradiction once again of saying "there is no absolute truth" and calling it a contradiction by assuming the existence of "absolute truth" in the first place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby Unidian on Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:56 am
Well, if believing that academic philosophers have said things worth my consideration makes me "soulless,"then soulless is what I am.
I'm also soulless, in that case. Some of them have said very worthwhile things. Hegel was an academic, for example. And Wittgenstein is probably the most important philosopher of the 20th century. Sure, a lot of academics have spent their careers doing timid, unoriginal readings of real thinkers and wasting people's money with other trivialities. But not all of them have done so.
Granted, no one needs to go to school to do philosophy. But if we reflexively ignore anything that comes from academia, we are depriving ourselves of a potentially valuable resource. Good philosophy can potentially be found everywhere, in all sorts of surprising places, all the way from the bag boy break room to the university lecture hall.
Nat
Man, I feel like a Woman!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby David Quinn on Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:59 am
vicdan wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
X entails some proposition P
P is demonstrated false (usually by showing that it entails a contradiction)
Therefore, X is false.
Okay, so applying this to the current discussion, your premise (X) that "We can never, ever, tell seeming indubitability apart from actual indubitability" is false. This is because it automatically generates a contradiction.
oh? And how would that be -- because that proposition is indubitable? Because you can't comprehend English?..
Dude, you are so lost, you couldn't find your way with a GPS and a tour guide.
You'll have to state your objections more clearly, otherwise people will think that you are fudging and hiding behind your endless torrents of abuse.
I'm simply applying the "proof by contradiction" template that you spelt out. If X automatically contradicts itself, then it is false. That is the basic dynamic of the proof by contradiction argument. We assume X is true, it automatically leads to a contradiction, therefore X is false.
But instead of doing this, you are ignoring the contradiction and clinging to the conclusion that it is impossible to distinguish between seeming indubitability and actual indubitability. So you're not really adhering to the proof by contradiction argument at all. This is evidenced by the fact that you continue to treat your premise (X), not as though it were a claim just for arguments sake, but as though it were indubitable truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby Philosophaster on Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:00 am
So, David, how do you distinguish between things that seem indubitable and things that actually are indubitable?
I am WOMAN, hear me roar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby David Quinn on Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:02 am
Neil Melnyk wrote:David is bringing up the good old contradiction once again of saying "there is no absolute truth" and calling it a contradiction by assuming the existence of "absolute truth" in the first place.
Victor is the one who is assuming the existence of absolute truth in his premise and then tries to deny it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby Unidian on Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:03 am
He probably uses the Captain Crunch Secret Dubitability Decoder Ring.
Nat
Man, I feel like a Woman!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby Dan Rowden on Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:06 am
One would think David has already shown how in this thread. I think you guys need to read more closely before going all teen-wolf on us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Who here thinks they are Genius?
Postby David Quinn on Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:08 am
Philosophaster wrote:So, David, how do you distinguish between things that seem indubitable and things that actually are indubitable?
Something is indubitably true if it is impossible to challenge it without entering into contradiction. The existence of my consciousness in this very moment is one such example. A=A is another example.
-----------------------------------------------------
Space, the final frontier
Non-Euclidean GeometryKaty wrote:Well, that's inconvenient. I had just logged on looking for the name of the geometry Victor used in his argument there.