Agreed. Probabilistic arguments are necessarily invalid (except when the probability of every relevant premise is equal to 1).
Is this an example of the persuasion tactic advocated (or described) recently? That is, you open with ‘agreed’ and then clearly say something that would undermine drethelin’s whole comment.
Ah, that’s too specific an interpretation of Hanlon’s razor. The razor does not say that the malice and the stupidity need all come from the same party.
Yeah, silly me. I should have provided a definition along with a link to a further elaboration of the concept so as to avoid any misunderstanding. Oh wait...
Yeah, silly me. I should have provided a definition along with a link to a further elaboration of the concept so as to avoid any misunderstanding. Oh wait...
I again refer to the relevant reply. (And incidentally let it be known that I disapprove of snarkiness both here and elsewhere. Lack of understanding of that definition does not apply so the implied meaning of the snark is non sequitur.)
Is this an example of the persuasion tactic advocated (or described) recently. That is, you open with ‘agreed’ and then clearly say something that would undermine drethelin’s whole comment.
No. I affirm all 4 sentences in drethelin’s comment. Also, I maintain that nothing in drethelin’s comment contradicts anything I have said in this discussion.
Agreed. Probabilistic arguments are necessarily invalid (except when the probability of every relevant premise is equal to 1).
Is this an example of the persuasion tactic advocated (or described) recently? That is, you open with ‘agreed’ and then clearly say something that would undermine drethelin’s whole comment.
Really I just think he’s using a stupidly strict definition of “Valid”
Thanks for applying Hanlon’s razor.
So when a logician insists that only truth-preserving (deductive, not inductive) arguments are valid, he is demonstrating his stupidity?
Ah, that’s too specific an interpretation of Hanlon’s razor. The razor does not say that the malice and the stupidity need all come from the same party.
Fair enough.
Yes, mathematical logic is “stupidly strict” with its definitions. It is designed that way.
I understand what you’ve been saying in this thread.
Unfortunately, mathematical logic is not a dialect often spoken in the comments section. Wiio’s laws are totally in play, here.
Yeah, silly me. I should have provided a definition along with a link to a further elaboration of the concept so as to avoid any misunderstanding. Oh wait...
I again refer to the relevant reply. (And incidentally let it be known that I disapprove of snarkiness both here and elsewhere. Lack of understanding of that definition does not apply so the implied meaning of the snark is non sequitur.)
No. I affirm all 4 sentences in drethelin’s comment. Also, I maintain that nothing in drethelin’s comment contradicts anything I have said in this discussion.