4 ms·

Not to get too pedantic, but by inviting him to provide concrete evidence, are you not asking him to dispute it and thus proving his point?

jlgreco 13y ago
Asking him to prove his point is the correct thing to do. If he is correct, then I want to hear it. If he can't prove his point, I want it to be apparent that he is unwilling to attempt it.
- bobbydavid 13y ago
  But his claim, that it is disputable, is quite weak and therefore trvially proves itself. By disputing it, he proves it can be disputed. You are seeking to resolve said dispute, which is also important but not exactly the same thing.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - zenocon 13y ago
    alt.non.sequitur much?
    - chris_wot 13y ago
      No, what he's saying is valid logic. Somewhat pedantic though!
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    His claim is that there are legitimate questions, though he does not claim that he is asking them. Legitimate is subject to interpretation, but I'm willing to be reasonable here. Regardless, I would settle on him saying that he is somebody who has questions, and telling us what those questions are. Alternatively, if he isn't the person with those questions, just a quick link to somebody that does have those questions would be nice. It should be trivial to prove if it is true (though the claim does not prove itself), which is why I feel comfortable in asking to see that proof. It isn't asking much.
    - chris_wot 13y ago
      He's talking about trivial proofs. Rephrase it like this: If I dispute that the EFF are "the good guys", then the EFF are not indisputably "the good guys". Or, more formally it is: p →q p is "I dispute that the EFF are good guys" q is "the EFF are not indisputably the good guys" A trivial proof can only be so if can be shown that q is true. As p is also true (he disputes this) then q is also true. Ergo, this is proven true, thus is a trivial proof.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        > he disputes this See, he doesn't actually say that; he has not actually said that he himself has legitimate questions about the EFF, nor has he identified anybody that does. He implies that he does, but has avoided giving any sort of clarification. If you claim that they are not the good guys, then it is indeed proven that they are not indisputably the good guys. Merely claiming that there are other who dispute them proves nothing of the sort though, unless you can prove that those others exist (Just a name or contact information would do, I could go ask them to confirm their position myself). I could say "It is disputed that sugar is sweet", but that statement would not prove itself (maybe I do not dispute that sugar is sweet, and am unable to find any examples of people that do). Now, if I said "It is disputed that sugar is sweet. I dispute it.", that proves itself. If I say "It is disputed that sugar is sweet. Vladimir Putin disputes it", then (assuming Vladimir Putin confirms this) it is again proven. We need to know who actually disputes/questions this before we can accept it as disputed/questioned. This is why my question to him was "Who's asking those questions?" I expect his answer, were he kind enough to give one, would be "Me.", at which point his statement would be proven and the discussion could continue in a more productive manner.
        chris_wot 13y ago
        Ok. But reread the original comment that brought up the matter of a trivial proof.
        siddboots 13y ago
  - wpietri 13y ago
    When people in conversation say something that is trivially true, they generally mean something deeper. For example, consider the phrase, "It is what it is": http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/it_is_what_it_is http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/it_is_what_it_is Logically, it's an obvious tautology. Idiomatically, it means, "This circumstance is simply a fact and must be accepted or dealt with as it exists." So lightyrs was A) trying to say something substantive about the EFF, or B) making an incredibly obvious statement about the literal meaning "indisputable", which etfb clearly was using hyperbolically for effect. I think the charitable thing to do is to assume A, which is what siddboots did.
    - lightyrs 13y ago
      You seem to have come the closest to my actual meaning, while still missing a point of subtlety that perhaps I did not convey. Given your dichotomy, my statement would fall under the banner of B, however, what I am really driving at is the fallacy of the inherent trust that we tend to place in institutions and political actors that are supposedly 'on our side'. This is a vector that can be exploited and as such, must be minimized at every opportunity. I am playing the role of skeptic here to contribute to a mainline of skepticism that may serve to ultimately enhance the authority that the EFF asserts when they claim to 'speak for us'. You say this is 'obvious', however, I would argue that it can never be obvious enough and that it is not actually as obvious as you might think. I am very often bewildered by the trust people are willing to place in institutions. I am disturbed by this trust — by this weakening of the foundations of authority. My comment came from these emotional and intellectual underpinnings.

jlgreco 13y ago

Asking him to prove his point is the correct thing to do. If he is correct, then I want to hear it. If he can't prove his point, I want it to be apparent that he is unwilling to attempt it.

bobbydavid 13y ago
But his claim, that it is disputable, is quite weak and therefore trvially proves itself. By disputing it, he proves it can be disputed. You are seeking to resolve said dispute, which is also important but not exactly the same thing.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- zenocon 13y ago
  alt.non.sequitur much?
  - chris_wot 13y ago
    No, what he's saying is valid logic. Somewhat pedantic though!
- jlgreco 13y ago
  His claim is that there are legitimate questions, though he does not claim that he is asking them. Legitimate is subject to interpretation, but I'm willing to be reasonable here. Regardless, I would settle on him saying that he is somebody who has questions, and telling us what those questions are. Alternatively, if he isn't the person with those questions, just a quick link to somebody that does have those questions would be nice. It should be trivial to prove if it is true (though the claim does not prove itself), which is why I feel comfortable in asking to see that proof. It isn't asking much.
  - chris_wot 13y ago
    He's talking about trivial proofs. Rephrase it like this: If I dispute that the EFF are "the good guys", then the EFF are not indisputably "the good guys". Or, more formally it is: p →q p is "I dispute that the EFF are good guys" q is "the EFF are not indisputably the good guys" A trivial proof can only be so if can be shown that q is true. As p is also true (he disputes this) then q is also true. Ergo, this is proven true, thus is a trivial proof.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      > he disputes this See, he doesn't actually say that; he has not actually said that he himself has legitimate questions about the EFF, nor has he identified anybody that does. He implies that he does, but has avoided giving any sort of clarification. If you claim that they are not the good guys, then it is indeed proven that they are not indisputably the good guys. Merely claiming that there are other who dispute them proves nothing of the sort though, unless you can prove that those others exist (Just a name or contact information would do, I could go ask them to confirm their position myself). I could say "It is disputed that sugar is sweet", but that statement would not prove itself (maybe I do not dispute that sugar is sweet, and am unable to find any examples of people that do). Now, if I said "It is disputed that sugar is sweet. I dispute it.", that proves itself. If I say "It is disputed that sugar is sweet. Vladimir Putin disputes it", then (assuming Vladimir Putin confirms this) it is again proven. We need to know who actually disputes/questions this before we can accept it as disputed/questioned. This is why my question to him was "Who's asking those questions?" I expect his answer, were he kind enough to give one, would be "Me.", at which point his statement would be proven and the discussion could continue in a more productive manner.
      - chris_wot 13y ago
        Ok. But reread the original comment that brought up the matter of a trivial proof.
        siddboots 13y ago
- wpietri 13y ago
  When people in conversation say something that is trivially true, they generally mean something deeper. For example, consider the phrase, "It is what it is": http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/it_is_what_it_is http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/it_is_what_it_is Logically, it's an obvious tautology. Idiomatically, it means, "This circumstance is simply a fact and must be accepted or dealt with as it exists." So lightyrs was A) trying to say something substantive about the EFF, or B) making an incredibly obvious statement about the literal meaning "indisputable", which etfb clearly was using hyperbolically for effect. I think the charitable thing to do is to assume A, which is what siddboots did.
  - lightyrs 13y ago
    You seem to have come the closest to my actual meaning, while still missing a point of subtlety that perhaps I did not convey. Given your dichotomy, my statement would fall under the banner of B, however, what I am really driving at is the fallacy of the inherent trust that we tend to place in institutions and political actors that are supposedly 'on our side'. This is a vector that can be exploited and as such, must be minimized at every opportunity. I am playing the role of skeptic here to contribute to a mainline of skepticism that may serve to ultimately enhance the authority that the EFF asserts when they claim to 'speak for us'. You say this is 'obvious', however, I would argue that it can never be obvious enough and that it is not actually as obvious as you might think. I am very often bewildered by the trust people are willing to place in institutions. I am disturbed by this trust — by this weakening of the foundations of authority. My comment came from these emotional and intellectual underpinnings.