1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDon't just hint that I'm wrong. Argue why. All you ever say is "You're equivocating", "You're confused", etc, etc. Tell me why I'm equivocated and why I'm confused. Else it's just ad homini and derogatory comments.
Now you're just equivocating, compounding the confusion introduced by the already confused notion. (The quotes and "simply" are a big clue, the same sort of confusion exhibited by phrases like "true Christian".)
Do you think no1's definition is a good one?
I've already listed how you jumped the gun by equating the two propositions that I've highlighted above. You argue that they are equivalent, I argue that they are not. I provided a counter-example. Show me how it's wrong.
And no, I don't think it's the best possible one, but I also disagree with yours (i.e. "a position whose propositional content is subjective" ). I'd rephrase it to "a position whose propositional content is, at least, partially subjective". All I need to add is that incomplete information inserts a degree of subjectivity because different people assign different weights to different parcels of information.
Originally posted by PalynkaYou're equivocating on your use of the term 'matter of opinion'.
Don't just hint that I'm wrong. Argue why. All you ever say is "You're equivocating", "You're confused", etc, etc. Tell me why I'm equivocated and why I'm confused. Else it's just ad homini and derogatory comments.
I've already listed how you jumped the gun by equating the two propositions that I've highlighted above. You argue that they are equivalent, I ...[text shortened]... ferent people assign different weights to different parcels of information.
I don't know what you mean by that, or how it is different from the terms '"matter of opinion"', 'simply a matter of opinion', and 'simply a "matter of opinion"'.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAt least use the definition provided without disingenously changing it.
Attention all forum members...
Who else here calls a belief held without proof or positive knowledge an opinion?
Opinion - A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof
Let's imagine a trial where the issue is how fast a car was going before an accident. Plaintiff's expert testifies that based on the skid marks left by the car's tires in his opinion the car was going 60 MPH. Defendant's expert testifies that in his expert opinion the car was going 40 MPH.
According to you, neither is giving an opinion. Yet that is what they are called in thousands of cases every day. Are you right and everybody else is wrong?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAgain, a complete lack of substance. Tell me why I'm wrong. Tell me why I'm confused.
You're equivocating on your use of the term 'matter of opinion'.
I don't know what you mean by that, or how it is different from the terms '"matter of opinion"', 'simply a matter of opinion', and 'simply a "matter of opinion"'.
Else it's worthless.
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, that's correct. I have a better framework for epistemic analysis, which is one of the reasons I am more intelligent that most people.
According to you, neither is giving an opinion. Yet that is what they are called in thousands of cases every day. Are you right and everybody else is wrong?
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI just did. You can't throw together a bunch of undefined terms that look like other vaguely defined terms and that resemble the terms of proposition A, perform deduction on those terms (even if it's valid) to reach Not-A, and then claim that you have constructed a counterexample. Your construction is what lacks substance because of its linguistic wiggling.
Again, a complete lack of substance. Tell me why I'm wrong. Tell me why I'm confused.
Else it's worthless.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThanks for sharing. I'll be sure to remember that next time a case requires an expert's opinion that according to Scribblian analysis there is really no such thing.
Yes, that's correct. I have a better framework for epistemic analysis, which is one of the reasons I am more intelligent that most people.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThanks, and believe me, you'll be the very first person I run to if I ever forget what an indirect proof is.
Thanks for sharing. I'll be sure to remember that next time a case requires an expert's opinion that according to Scribblian analysis there is really no such thing.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAgain, no substance.
I just did. You can't throw together a bunch of undefined terms that look like other vaguely defined terms and the resemble the terms of proposition A, perform deduction on those terms (even if it's valid) to reach Not-A, and then claim that you have constructed a counterexample. Your construction is what lacks substance because of its linguistic wiggling.
Where do my terms not apply? Why do they not apply? Just stating that they don't doesn't make it so. Unless you tell me with what you don't agree, we can't really have an argument.
Originally posted by snowinscotlandHey. Anyone who wants to take their own lives is perfectly okay with me. Especially if they're religious.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/7078455.stm
Can anybody out there tell me what is the Biblical rationale for allowing two babies to lose their mother in this way?
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaAnd unless you tell me what the various forms of the terms mean, I don't know what your argument says, but I do know that it resembles other fallacious arguments exhibiting the same symptoms.
Again, no substance.
Where do my terms not apply? Why do they not apply? Just stating that they don't doesn't make it so. Unless you tell me with what you don't agree, we can't really have an argument.
Define 'matter of opinion':
Define 'simply a matter of opinion':
Define '"matter of opinion"':
Define 'simply a "matter of opinion"':
3 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI could.
Attention all forum members...
Who else here calls a belief held without proof or positive knowledge an opinion?
For me opinion -> something I think it's true, although I don't have or can't have confirmation, or that simply depends on my judgment and so can't be absolute.
The difference from opinion to belief is: An opinion no one cares if it's refuted, because by definition I know it depends on my judgment. In a belief, I truly believe something to be true.
This is only my opinion.
1 edit
Originally posted by serigadoI see. So, would you consider "Chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla ice cream" an opinion? If so, it it because you haven't confirmed that it is so? Or maybe because you're not absolutely sure about it?
I could.
For me opinion -> something I think it's true, although I don't have or can't have confirmation, or that simply depends on my judgment and so can't be absolute.