100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: A reflection of thought... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Something... anything other than ad hominem?  Do you get a kick out of antagonizing other people? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Something... anything other than ad hominem? Ad hominem? Do you even know what that term means? It has to do with 'arguments'. I wasn't even making an argument in the previous post.  All I was doing was attempting to convey standard social information that I would think should be common knowledge. If you have an opinion that differs from the opinion I've given them I'm sure we'd all like to hear your opinion. In the meantime, I'm not even arguing with you. I'm just trying to explain to you that if you have a differing opinion it's up to you to voice it. It's not up to me to defend against your empty personal insults. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Show me a personal insult which I made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 10/18/09 06:11 PM
|
 You think you are so slick. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You think you are so slick. The real irony is in the original topic offered in the OP of this thread. "Is it safe to conclude that how one writes is a reflection of how one thinks?" I think in some cases, not only is it safe, but it's all too obvious. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Sun 10/18/09 09:05 PM
|
|
Alright...
One post caught my attention through the sheer amount of unreasonable/illogical thoughts contained within it. That one post required much thought and time to address. I will not choose to do this with all of them, because there simply is not enough time in the day that I want to spend doing so. Abracadabra wrote: #1.) I'm truly not concerned with any personal traits or beliefs of CreativeSoul.#2.) I make no personal assumptions about him at all #3.)despite what he may have convinced himself of. I inserted the numbers above for later reference... 1.) Abracadabra is not concerned with any personal traits or beliefs of creativesoul. 2.)Abracadabra makes no personal assumptions about creativesoul. 3.)Abracadabra is currently guilty of #2.) by openly claiming that creativesoul has convinced himself of... *whatever*  My entire argument (with him) in this thread has been to defend against his accusation that it is 'illogical' to begin with the premise that spirit exists. It is important that this be understood for what it is. This is my logical assessment of this post and the words contained therein. Assertions are not accusations. That is of utter importance, because that term is thrown around here as if I am making personal accusations. I am addressing the claims. Positive assertions regarding existence such as *whatever* exists" are fallacious in nature. The reason is because those claims presuppose the very thing which is in question - whether or not the thing exists. It is circular reasoning/begging the question and that is fallacious reasoning. Fallacious equals illogical. I have said before and will say again that I could give just as valid an argument for a pink and black elephantic smooge by using the very same kind of argument, therefore that form of argument being used to positively assert existence is invalid... illogical. That is a textbook refutation. It is the very reason that imagined things which are called 'real' by some, but cannot be proven to exist are not considered to exist. That is a false accusation regardless what his personal beliefs might be. As Jeanniebean had suggested it tends to imply that he believe just the opposite (that starting with the premise that spriit does not exist is therefore logical). Either that or we must conclude that he believe any approach is illogical. Fail. Wrongful definition. Strawman. Non sequiter. False dichotomy. Guilty of #2.) in the beginning of this post. First of all, an assertion is not an accusation. That thought is fallacious in nature. Assertions address a claim, and accusations address the person. They are not the same thing. Secondly, an assertion which claims that the premise 'Spirit exists' represents an illogical foundation does not logically imply or necessitate the conclusion that that claimant's premise must be 'Spirit does not exist' any more than it necessitates or suggests that it must be 'Snow is white'. There is no logical connection which can be made that neccessitates it must be one or the other. That thought alone is fallacious in nature. It certainly does not follow that because one claims 'Spirit exists' is illogical then it must be the case that the claimant is also claiming that any approach is illogical. That thought alone is fallacious in nature as well. I truly don't care what his position is. Ah, but you should, because you're definitely making all kinds of claims based upon what you *wrongfully* think it is. There have been plenty of words, which had you been reading and absorbing all of them, perhaps would have led you to a different place in your thoughts about what my claims actually are... His claim was wrong irrespective of what he may, or may not, personally believe. He even pointed to a web page that actually contained a statement that shows that his claim is false. He pointed to the following web site: http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/LogAnalogy.htm Which begins with the following statement: A valid argument is one in which the conclusion must be true — can’t be false — if the premises are true. I never said that the premises must be true for an argument to be valid. Your arguing against your own thoughts. Quote where I said that a premise must be true in order to have a valid argument. Fail. Strawman and guilty of #2.) in the beginning of this post. Premises don't need to be true for an argument to be true. Therefore there is nothing illogical about starting with false premises. The logic is still sound. The only thing that remains to be proved is the premise. Nothing is illogical about starting with a false premise? Oh my! You clearly do not understand what you are talking about. In order for an argument to be valid the conclusion must logically follow from the premises - which do not have to be proven, but cannot be false! I never said anything to the contrary. In fact, I said already that it was not impossible to give a valid argument beginning with the premise 'Spirit exists'. A valid argument is not necessarily true. A logically sound argument is one in which the premises are true, the form is valid,(the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.) I used the quantum field as an example of how science proceeds in quite some depth using premises that have no yet been proven to be true. This is bullsh*t. You have it all backwards. Science did not start with a premise which says 'Quantum field exists'. The premises which logically lead to the conclusion that quantum field exists are proven through observation and are considered scientific facts. Postulates are derived from scientific knowns. Those same knowns do not conclude that 'Spirit exists', or that spirit equals the quantum field. That is all your unsupported and biased opinion. Any connection between the quantum field and spirit is totally beside the point. Beside the point? In a discussion regarding logical validity and soundness? The connections and how they have been made constitute the form and that alone determines the logical validity. The logical connections(which do not exist, as of yet) between quantum field and spirit constitute the entire logical form of your argument which fallaciously equates the two based entirely upon what you think spirit must have. I do personally make those connections too, but for my argument that was a totally unnecessary connection to make. So what? We all know(at least we should), and I have even said in this thread, should one choose to go back and look past the erroneous references to my claims and look at the claims themselves, that it is possible to give a valid argument based upon the premise 'Spirit exists', but you have yet to offer one. My example of the quantum field was made simply to show a concrete example of a logical system that starts with an unproven premise. It could have been anything. It shows a concrete example of how you confuse the fact that it is the scientific knowledge that leads to postulates such as quantum field. Not the other way around. Science did not postulate the quantum field and then arbitrarily assign properties to it, which is exactly what you are claiming and attempting to do yourself by acting as if your logical grounds are equivalent to the grounds which support and give rise the postulates you mentioned. Claiming 'It could have been anything.' completely disregards the very reasons why the postulate exists. Ever heard of the scientific method? It could not have been 'anything'. 'Quantum field exists' is not the premise from which the postulate was inferred. 'Quantum field exists' is the conclusion drawn, and has been logically based and confirmed through the scientific observations of QM and particle physics, and supported by our intuitive nature which tends to think that all things must have a source. Also in regard to what Creative might personally believe: It's not so much whether or not he actually believes it, but what his accusations and assertions imply. He seems to be implying that science does not support the concept of spirit and therefore it is illogical use such a concept as a premise. However, that implies that science does support that there is no spiritual element to human essence. But that's not true either! Once again guilty of #2.) in the beginning of the post. What I might or might not personally believe is not the focus. WhatI claim is. Seeing how you have no clue what constitutes my belief, I suggest you stick to addressing what is written, rather than what you think I may or may not personally believe. I am not attempting to logically justify my personal irrational/illogical beliefs here. I have not stated any of those. Quote my words, and show exactly how what I have written implies what you claim it does. Science itself, makes no assertion either way. And that's really the bottom line. Science doesn't support the idea that there is no such thing as spirit. That idea is equally unproven. So to suggest that it would be any more logical to begin with that premise is unsupportable. So it truly doesn't matter what Creative believes or not on a personal basis. His accusation about the logical validity of how other people approach the topic doesn't hold water. But no matter what he may or may not believe on a personal level, his arguments imply that he is arguing that it makes more logical sense to premise that there is no spirit than to premise that spirit exists. So the bottom line is that either of those premises are equally unprovable and therefore equally valid. Fail. Strawman. Again, guilty of #2.) in the beginning of this post. The only ones who are comparing 'Spirit exists' to 'Spirit does not exist' are you guys. I have no idea why you insist upon extrapolating upon things which I do not write. I offer plenty of things to quote and discuss... Do that, because I know that you may think that you know what I think and believe, but I assure you that what you think about what I think and what I do think are not the same thing. You are also confusing accusations with assertions, once again. Do you not know the difference between the two? I have already shown more than enough times - in more than one way - why the positive assertion 'Spirit exists' holds the very same logical grounding as 'Pink and black elephantic smooge exists'. If you would offer a valid logical argument based upon 'Spirit exists', I could use the very same form of argument based upon 'Pink and black elephantic smooge exists'. Here is how it works. Two things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other. If A is equal to B, and B is equal to C, then A is equal to C. A = spirit B = unproven C = pink and black elephantic smooge Spirit is unproven. Pink and black elephantic smooge is also unproven. Therefore, concerning the proven existence of either, they are equal. One is no more or less logical than the other - based upon the evidence. So, using a valid argument which begins with the premise 'Spirit exists', one can replace the term spirit with the terms pink and black elephantic smooge and retain the exact same amount of logical validity, assuming that a valid argument has been given. That has yet to have been done. Like the web site he pointed to, and like modern science does all the time (not only in quantum physics, but in many fields of study actually), it is not necessary to prove a premise before logically sound arugments can be made around it. You're confused and wrong. An argument is valid, regardless of whether or not the premise is true. Validity only requires that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. Validity measures the form. You are confusing a valid argument with a sound argument. They are not the same thing. In a sound argument, the premises are true, the form is valid, and therefore the conclusion must be true, whereas a valid argument does not necessarily equate to being true. In all cases, The truth of the conclusion is contingent upon the truth of the premises and the validity of the argumentative form. So it's equally valid to start with a premise that states that no spirit exists, as it is to start with a premise that states that spirit exists. Validity is a measure of the form an argument takes. No premise has any amount of validity in and of itself. In fact, in all honesty, the fact that Creative isn't aware of these very basic facts about logic makes me wonder if he ever took a course in logic in his entire life. Fail. Ad hominem based upon belief in strawman. Guilty of #2.) in the beginning of this post. These principles are typically taught in Logic 101. Yet here he is proclaiming that it's illogical to start with unproven premises. Fail. Strawman. No, I did not. It is only problematic when attempting to claim that a thing exists by simply proclaiming that it does. Even the web sites that he himself points to don't even agree with him on that point. No, I am making the assertion that it is illogical to begin with a premise that presupposes the conclusion in itself. It is called circular reasoning. 'Spirit exists' is such a premise. Before one can attempt to attribute things to spirit one must either assume it exists or prove it. It has yet to have been proven. So I have no clue what he may or may not personally believe, but I have very serious doubts concerning his knowledge of logic in general. He's simply arguing for things that logic doesn't even remotely support. Guilty of #1.) and #2.) in the beginning of this post. As if what you perceive when reading my words equates to the meaning of those words. The evidence here is quite clear concerning that. You very seldom(if ever) quote my words directly in context and then address them. Instead, you give your version of what you think that I think or believe, all the while openly claiming that you do not do such a thing. That is all you have done here. That's it. Wanna try again, using my words? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creative wrote: Positive assertions regarding existence such as *whatever* exists" are fallacious in nature. You'll have to take that up with the scientists. 1. Strings 2. Hidden dimensions 3. Dark energy 4. Dark matter 5. The quantum field 6. Parallel universes and membranes Even black holes at one time where postulated to exist long before there was even any serious evidence to support that notion. And the list goes on. As long as it works for science I couldn't care less what your own personal opinons and objections might be. Clearly your rant is nothing more than your own personal opinion. Scientists obviously don't agree with you. And neither do I. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I forgot to mention atoms!
Atoms were postulated to exist long before they could be proven to exist. In fact, chemistry was a very controversial field of study for many years, and the arguments about whether or not atoms actually existed went on for quite some time. It wasn't until fairly recently that science was actually able to prove that atoms actually exist. So, postulating the existence of things that are not yet known to exist has been a halmark of the scientific method for much of history. If it's good enough for science, it's good enough for me.  Also, if you're going to assert that I'm 'illogical' then you have no choice but to also assert that scientists are just as 'illogical'. That's truly the bottom line. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Sun 10/18/09 10:12 PM
|
|
Creative wrote: Positive assertions regarding existence such as *whatever* exists" are fallacious in nature. Abracadabra responded: You'll have to take that up with the scientists. 1. Strings 2. Hidden dimensions 3. Dark energy 4. Dark matter 5. The quantum field 6. Parallel universes and membranes All of those postulates are derived from the need. That is quite a significant difference, dontcha think? Where is the need to equivocate between spirit and quantum whatever? Tht would be a personal need, and not a factual/scientific/mathematical need which has been established through what we best think is true. Even black holes at one time where postulated to exist long before there was even any serious evidence to support that notion. And the list goes on and on. This is bullsh*t! The field equations of GR led to the postulate. The field equations and QM have led to all of those postulates. None of those things logically lead to the postulate 'Spirit exists'. As long as it works for science I couldn't care less what your own personal opinons and objections might be. Clearly your rant is nothing more than your own personal opinion. What rant? My personal opinion has been grounded by logical reasoning. I am calm. As long as what works for science? Basing postulates upon scientific knowns? That is what they do. I am not refuting what science does, I am refuting your false claims regarding what science does in an attempt to equivocate between scientific postulates and your own personal reasoning methods. They are not one in the same. Scientists obviously don't agree with you. And neither do I. Got something to support this other than your open assertion? As if you saying it makes it so? As if they must agree with you or me? I am still waiting upon something substantive. Do you have anything to support your claims other than your opinion? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you have anything to support your claims other than your opinion? Do you? Face it Micheal, your original accusation that philosophers who consider the idea of spirit are being illogical was a bogus accusation that was totally uncalled for and unsupportable. Do you realize how ignorant such a stance truly is? You're basically saying that anyone who considers that spirit might exist is an illogical person. Get real. That's clearly nothing more than your own highly predjudiced opinion that is completely unsupportable from a philosophical point of view. All your side-tracking and wiggling, and trying to change the course of the conversation won't help. You're accusation is bogus and totally without merit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Mon 10/19/09 01:31 AM
|
|
Face it Micheal, your original accusation that philosophers who consider the idea of spirit are being illogical was a bogus accusation that was totally uncalled for and unsupportable. Do you realize how ignorant such a stance truly is? Fail. Strawman. Quote me. You're basically saying that anyone who considers that spirit might exist is an illogical person. Get real. Fail. Strawman. Quote me. That's clearly nothing more than your own highly predjudiced opinion that is completely unsupportable from a philosophical point of view. What are you referring to? My claim which is yet to have been quoted, or your strawman argument which dominates your thinking? All your side-tracking and wiggling, and trying to change the course of the conversation won't help. You're accusation is bogus and totally without merit. What you are calling 'side-tracking and wiggling' is actually what I would call a much needed reality check. What accusation? Quote me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All your side-tracking and wiggling, and trying to change the course of the conversation won't help. You're accusation is bogus and totally without merit. What you are calling 'side-tracking and wiggling' is actually what I would call a much needed reality check. What accusation? Quote me. Now don’t jump on me here. Personally, I think everyone has been slinging accusations more than actually addressing the issues. I don’t think anyone is less “guilty” of that than any other. (Except me of course, since I’m such a perfect little angel.  ) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sky,
Being guilty of fallacious reasoning produces argumentative fallacy. If one addresses a fallacious claim of another, especially one in which the author specifically says s/he does not commit in the beginning of a post, only to continue doing exactly what s/he openly claims that they do not do... well... It's reality check time. I still want to look into and read your links... I will do that eventually.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sky wrote: Now don’t jump on me here. Personally, I think everyone has been slinging accusations more than actually addressing the issues. I don’t think anyone is less “guilty” of that than any other. (Except me of course, since I’m such a perfect little angel. ) Well, I for one, have no desire to sling accusations at anyone. All I claim is that it's prefectly logical to consider a concept of spirit as a plausible explanation for observed human behavior and psychic phenomena. I also feel that the scientific mathematical construct known as "Quantum Mechanics" offers many potential mechanisms for these observed behaviors. Which is also entirely based on logical insight. So have I made any accusations about anyone else when I state these things?  I don't think so. So let's see how it goes from here on out, ok? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 10/19/09 12:09 PM
|
|
Now this might seem a bit 'personal' but I wanted to know why the feeling of this thread seems a bit unfriendly and sour so I did a tarot reading on it.
 I am not doing the interpreting, I am taking it directly from learntarot.com so as not to seem biased. Card # one: The Star (The past position) Regaining hope having faith in the future thinking positively believing counting your blessings seeing the light at the end of the tunnel feeling great expectation looking forward to success For further interpretations go to: http://www.learntarot.com/maj17.htm Card # 2 Five of Pentacles: (Current problem) (I posted the most obvious interpretation) being rejected lacking support having the door slammed in your face taking an unpopular position being ostracized feeling excluded standing alone receiving disapproval Further interpretation at: http://www.learntarot.com/p5.htm Card # 3 High Priestess (Advice) --look beyond the obvious, surface situation to what is hidden and obscure. She also asks you to recall the vastness of your potential and to remember the unlimited possibilities you hold within yourself. The High Priestess can represent a time of waiting and allowing. It is not always necessary to act to achieve your goals. Sometimes they can be realized through a stillness that gives desire a chance to flower within the fullness of time. LAST CARD: (INCITE) KING OF SWORDS: This is Creative's 'significator' card. The below describes the characteristics and potential attributed to that energy when it is at its best. Intellectual is comfortable in the world of the mind uses thought creatively grasps information quickly and completely inspires and challenges through ideas ably carries out research is knowledgeable Analytical cuts through confusion and mental fog applies reason and logic is talented with games and other mental challenges easily breaks up complicated subjects is adept at argument and debate understands a problem quickly Articulate is adept at language and verbal skills communicates ideas successfully is a stimulating conversationalist often serves as a group spokesperson is a lucid writer and speaker Just renders honest, insightful judgments understands and honors all sides of an issue is concerned about truth and fairness views situations with a dispassionate eye is impartial and objective Ethical is a moral/ethical leader encourages high standards works against corruption and dishonesty takes the high road in all dealings lives by his or her highest principles King Found at:http://www.learntarot.com/skg.htm _____________________________________________________ In closing I would like to thank Creative for making my experience here at Mingle2 interesting and fun, and I apologize for making any snap judgments about his personal character. I know that there is always a lot more to a person than what they project. And he is correct in that my assessments are probably colored by my past experiences with Kings of Sword personalities. P.S. I might also add that the King of Swords would naturally probably scoff at the idea of a tarot reading meaning anything at all. This is very understandable. __________________________________________________ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeannie,
Are these your cards? If so, when are you going to publish them? If not, then what deck are these cards from? Inquiring minds would like to know.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 10/19/09 01:28 PM
|
|
This is my new deck. All designs are completed. I just got some ink in the mail today and I will start printing them this week.
They can be special ordered in three sizes. Standard Tarot size: 3" X 5", Small hands, Medium size 2.5" X 4" and micro size are 3" tall. Each deck will be hand cut and laminated on both sides. They are water proof and practically indestructible. I am just finishing my website but it is not published yet. You will be able to order from that site via pay pal. Prices are $60. $50. and $40. dollars. Shipping is free in the United States. I can only make so many per month because I am doing them myself. We do not have a book with the deck as they are pretty traditional images and we recommend "Learning the tarot." and their website. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now this might seem a bit 'personal' but I wanted to know why the feeling of this thread seems a bit unfriendly and sour so I did a tarot reading on it. I am not doing the interpreting, I am taking it directly from learntarot.com so as not to seem biased. Card # one: The Star (The past position) Regaining hope having faith in the future thinking positively believing counting your blessings seeing the light at the end of the tunnel feeling great expectation looking forward to success For further interpretations go to: http://www.learntarot.com/maj17.htm Card # 2 Five of Pentacles: (Current problem) (I posted the most obvious interpretation) being rejected lacking support having the door slammed in your face taking an unpopular position being ostracized feeling excluded standing alone receiving disapproval Further interpretation at: http://www.learntarot.com/p5.htm I can’t say I “believe in” Tarot, but this is an interesting reading that appears to be quite accurate in many respects. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sky, Being guilty of fallacious reasoning produces argumentative fallacy. If one addresses a fallacious claim of another, especially one in which the author specifically says s/he does not commit in the beginning of a post, only to continue doing exactly what s/he openly claims that they do not do... well... It's reality check time. I still want to look into and read your links... I will do that eventually. I just want to reiterate that I consider this one to be the most important one in terms of the ultimate purpose of discussing the subject.http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/Change_The_Rules.pdf And there is a whole slew of other documents at http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs Some documents that are particularly pertienent to the discussion at hand: IU.pdf PRPTechnicalNote2002.pdf FP_PEAR.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can’t say I “believe in” Tarot, but this is an interesting reading that appears to be quite accurate in many respects. I can't say that I believe in it either. But it seems to work, is interesting, and its a lot of fun. |
|
|
|
|
