3 ms·

>Nonetheless, we can fairly argue that both hypotheses lack a firm grounding in the evidence. Then make that argument. Because just saying "I don't like it" o

by asdasf 13y ago

>Nonetheless, we can fairly argue that both hypotheses lack a firm grounding in the evidence. Then make that argument. Because just saying "I don't like it" over and over is not making any such argument.

jarrett 13y ago
Which of the above posts is "just saying 'I don't like it' over and over?" This thread is a discussion of the structure of a certain argument. To recap: swombat3 explains why he thinks Princeton's method of reasoning by analogy is flawed. ronaldx disagrees, asking why the analogy wouldn't be applicable. I reply that, in my view, ronaldx has disagreed with a different point than the one swombat3 made. ronaldx replies in defense of Princeton's claims, citing the testability and falsifiability of the hypothesis. I reply that there is little evidence for the hypothesis, despite its testability and falsifiability. So, all participants have advanced specific, well-articulated arguments throughout. I don't see anything similar to "I don't like it." Humorously, this discussion has become rather meta by now. We're now arguing about the form of argumentation used in a discussion that was itself about forms of argumentation. It's like we're living out an LSAT question. I find that sort of conversation hard to resist, so I suppose I'm just rising to the bait.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  >swombat3 explains why he thinks Princeton's method of reasoning by analogy is flawed. ronaldx disagrees, asking why the analogy wouldn't be applicable. I reply that, in my view, ronaldx has disagreed with a different point than the one swombat3 made. ronaldx replies in defense of Princeton's claims, citing the testability and falsifiability of the hypothesis. I reply that there is little evidence for the hypothesis, despite its testability and falsifiability. There's not an argument in this entire paragraph. Is it meant to be a list of pointers to arguments? Neither "X is(n't) flawed," "X is(n't) applicable," nor "X has (very little/lots of) evidence" is an argument. An argument for falsifiability is an argument that the statement of a particular belief has content and is not just a trick of language, but can't be said to be an argument for or against that particular belief.
  - jarrett 13y ago
    > There's not an argument in this entire paragraph. Is it meant to be a list of pointers to arguments? As stated, it's a recap, or summary, of arguments previously made. So no, the arguments themselves are not contained or fully expressed in the summary. In this sense you're correct that it's a list of pointers to arguments--arguments which can be readily located earlier in the same thread. > Neither "X is(n't) flawed," "X is(n't) applicable," nor "X has (very little/lots of) evidence" is an argument. Correct. Those are conclusions. The arguments presented in support of those conclusions are available earlier in the thread. > An argument for falsifiability is an argument that the statement of a particular belief has content and is not just a trick of language, but can't be said to be an argument for or against that particular belief. Agreed. That's why I said the falsifiability of Princeton's hypothesis was not an argument for the likelihood of that hypothesis. I think we're on the same page about this.

by asdasf 13y ago

jarrett 13y ago

Which of the above posts is "just saying 'I don't like it' over and over?" This thread is a discussion of the structure of a certain argument. To recap: swombat3 explains why he thinks Princeton's method of reasoning by analogy is flawed. ronaldx disagrees, asking why the analogy wouldn't be applicable. I reply that, in my view, ronaldx has disagreed with a different point than the one swombat3 made. ronaldx replies in defense of Princeton's claims, citing the testability and falsifiability of the hypothesis. I reply that there is little evidence for the hypothesis, despite its testability and falsifiability. So, all participants have advanced specific, well-articulated arguments throughout. I don't see anything similar to "I don't like it." Humorously, this discussion has become rather meta by now. We're now arguing about the form of argumentation used in a discussion that was itself about forms of argumentation. It's like we're living out an LSAT question. I find that sort of conversation hard to resist, so I suppose I'm just rising to the bait.

pessimizer 13y ago
>swombat3 explains why he thinks Princeton's method of reasoning by analogy is flawed. ronaldx disagrees, asking why the analogy wouldn't be applicable. I reply that, in my view, ronaldx has disagreed with a different point than the one swombat3 made. ronaldx replies in defense of Princeton's claims, citing the testability and falsifiability of the hypothesis. I reply that there is little evidence for the hypothesis, despite its testability and falsifiability. There's not an argument in this entire paragraph. Is it meant to be a list of pointers to arguments? Neither "X is(n't) flawed," "X is(n't) applicable," nor "X has (very little/lots of) evidence" is an argument. An argument for falsifiability is an argument that the statement of a particular belief has content and is not just a trick of language, but can't be said to be an argument for or against that particular belief.
- jarrett 13y ago
  > There's not an argument in this entire paragraph. Is it meant to be a list of pointers to arguments? As stated, it's a recap, or summary, of arguments previously made. So no, the arguments themselves are not contained or fully expressed in the summary. In this sense you're correct that it's a list of pointers to arguments--arguments which can be readily located earlier in the same thread. > Neither "X is(n't) flawed," "X is(n't) applicable," nor "X has (very little/lots of) evidence" is an argument. Correct. Those are conclusions. The arguments presented in support of those conclusions are available earlier in the thread. > An argument for falsifiability is an argument that the statement of a particular belief has content and is not just a trick of language, but can't be said to be an argument for or against that particular belief. Agreed. That's why I said the falsifiability of Princeton's hypothesis was not an argument for the likelihood of that hypothesis. I think we're on the same page about this.