We can do it here or in debate....

[Uccisore]

@James S Saint

1. Do you accept that words are given definitions some of which are to represent concrete objects?
2. Such words and their definitions are merely language tools for communication?
3. Anyone can irrefutably define any word to mean anything within their own local arguments?
4. What something is called by definition is irrelevant to the structure and soundness of an argument?

Sure, as long as 4 doesn’t lead a person to equivocation.

Consider my argument about God being the conjunction of cows and crows.  Whatever else you may think of it, you have to acknowledge that it's not going to convert anybody to theism, and the reason why is because the definition of "God" in the first premise isn't actually addressing theism.  And that's been my contention throughout this thread, is that when you make an existential argument about a concrete object, all such premises fail to accurately pinpoint the object to be argued for (or against), even honest attempts.  Again, classic rebuttal to the Cosmological argument is that showing that there is a first cause is wholly insufficient to conclude that there is a God in any meaningful use of the term. i.e, a person can agree that the Cosmological argument is sound and remain an atheist.  I'm saying all arguments of that type (deductive, existential about a concrete) have that same problem to a greater or lesser degree. That's what I'm arguing here.   

In the first argument that I presented, I gave a scenario;
1.) “The larger object in my right hand at this moment is ‘Brick A’.” - Declaration of definition; “Brick A”

That’s doesn’t read to me as just a declaration of definition. That’s also an assertion that there is a larger object in your right hand at this moment, which makes arguing that there is such an object (that it exists) circular. If you don’t intend that part of the premise, then it reads odd to me, but we can say “Brick A is defined as 'the largest object in my hand right at this moment”, which no implicaton intended as to whether or not there is such an object.

For that scenario;
Is That a true statement?

Sure, without the assertion that the object exists, that the object is named Brick A for the purpose of the argument is true.

2.) “You see and feel the larger object in my hand.” - [b]Stipulation of current situation; “you saw and felt…”[

For that scenario;
Is That a true statement?

You haven’t established it in any way, and since you aren’t the ‘you’ spoken of in the premise, you have no way TO establish it in anyway, so whomever you’re addressing is free to say ‘no I don’t’ and then you’re screwed. But even if they concede it, what you have is two premises here:
2a) You see and feel something
2b) The thing that you see and feel is the larger object in my hand.

2a is fine other than the problem I cited above, 2b makes your argument circular, as it asserts the existence of the thing you are trying to prove the existence of. Now if you want to modify it to read something like “You see and feel what appears to be the larger object in my hand”, then that problem goes away, but it underlines the problem with premise 3.

3.) “You could not see and feel the object if it did not exist.” - Axiom; property of existence.

And that premise is simply false, or circular, or both. If you really mean to carry over your assertion taht there is in fact an object from premise 2, then you’re asserting what you intend to prove, which is circular. If you don’t mean to carry over such an assertion, then what you really have is the premise that ‘you could not see and feel what appears to be an object in my hand unless the object existed’, which is clearly false as we have any number of counter examples- even if you want to say that people having hallucinations are seeing figments of their imagination and those figments are real, that figment certainly doesn’t meet the criteria in premise 1 anymore- it’s not in your hand, it’s in their mind (if indeed it can be said to be anywhere).

So in summary, the most cheritable way I can read your argument (not trying to twist it, trying to avoid as many of the problems with it as written as I see, is)
1.) “Brick A” is defined as 'the larger object in my hand".
2.) You see and feel what appears to be an object meeting the criteria for “Brick A”
3.) You could not have such sensations if the object did not exist.

In which case there’s no circularity or reliance on existence as a predicate, but 3 is false if ‘the object’ means an object meeting the criteria for “Brick A” defined in 1. It is generally the case that when we see and feel objects they exist, and when we see and feel things we rightly infer that they exist, but exceptions exist as well- people do sometimes see and feel what appears to be an object in a hand where in there is actually no object in the hand.

Now, if you want to define a ‘hand’ in premise one in such a way that the mere appearence of a hand sastisfies the criteria, you might be able to get around this problem, but I wonder how you feel about that.

[Uccisore]

@Ecmandu

You made a meta-argument above your claims, that your claims weren’t deductive, and I’m making a meta claim beyond your meta claim that they necessarily are.

Whatever I did or didn’t do, it was sufficient to get you to concede the debate, so now that business is concluded- I have no interest in beating the horse I killed considering how utterly revolting the process was of getting you there. If you still want to debate me after your thrashing, I’m flattered but it changes nothing.

I may poke fun of you or try to teach you something once in a while, but that’s about it.

[James_S_Saint]

@Uccisore

@James S Saint

1. Do you accept that words are given definitions some of which are to represent concrete objects?
   2) Such words and their definitions are merely language tools for communication?
   3) Anyone can irrefutably define any word to mean anything within their own local arguments?
   4) What something is called by definition is irrelevant to the structure and soundness of an argument?

Sure, as long as 4 doesn’t lead a person to equivocation.

So no one can ever define anything if anyone else in the entire world might get confused by it?

My Supreme Lord, exactly when may someone define the words they are using and remain correct?

@Uccisore

2.) “You see and feel the larger object in my hand.” - [b]Stipulation of current situation; “you saw and felt…”[

For that scenario;
Is That a true statement?

You haven’t established it in any way, and since you aren’t the ‘you’ spoken of in the premise, you have no way TO establish it in anyway, so whomever you’re addressing is free to say ‘no I don’t’ and then you’re screwed.

The statement is establishing the scene or situation. I am NOT talking about a time when such was not the case.

Is it ever at all possible that the statement would be true?
THAT is the moment to which the entire argument applies.

@Uccisore

3.) “You could not see and feel the object if it did not exist.” - Axiom; property of existence.

And that premise is simply false, or circular, or both.

Name even one thing that a person can truly see and feel even though it doesn’t exist.

[Uccisore]

@James S Saint

@Uccisore

@James S Saint

1. Do you accept that words are given definitions some of which are to represent concrete objects?
   2) Such words and their definitions are merely language tools for communication?
   3) Anyone can irrefutably define any word to mean anything within their own local arguments?
   4) What something is called by definition is irrelevant to the structure and soundness of an argument?

Sure, as long as 4 doesn’t lead a person to equivocation.

So no one can ever define anything if anyone else in the entire world might get confused by it?

It’s not a matter of confusion, it’s a matter of anyone being convinced your argument is sound. If you make a deductive argument that turns on you defining ‘rabbit’ as ‘an aquatic carnivore known for it’s unpredictable disposition’, then people will say the argument isn’t sound. Now, obviously it’s not usually that clear cut because philosophers aren’t out to make themselves look foolish. But you see this all the time with theistic arguments- an argument that is only sound IF some characterization of omnipotence is true, or if evil means what the arguer says it means, and then the critique of the argument explores the varacity of the definitions. Granting that ‘the argument is sound given all the arguers’ definitions and stipulations’ is long way of saying ‘The argument is valid.’

My Supreme Lord, exactly when may someone define the words they are using and remain correct?

When whomever they are trying to convince doesn’t in good faith dispute them. I see no other way to explain why my “God is the conjunction of cows and crows” argument isn’t going to convince Dawkins to be a theist.

@Uccisore

The statement is establishing the scene or situation. I am NOT talking about a time when such was not the case.

OK, so in your hypothetical scenario, you have asked the person if they see the object, they have said yes, and you are now using it as a premise. That’s fine. But you still have to seperate
“You see and feel something”
from
“What you are seeing and feeling is an object in my hand”
in order to keep from being circular. ‘has the appearence of’ works fine for this.

Name even one thing that a person can truly see and feel even though it doesn’t exist.

“Seeing and feeling X” can be used in two slightly different ways. One sense of ‘seeing and feeling X’ implies an object in the state of being seen, another sense of ‘seeing and feeling X’ impiles only that a person had an experience.
If you mean “You see and and feel X” in the sense that “There is an object X that is in the condition of being seen and felt by you”, then you are, to repeat myself, assuming your conclusion. If you mean “You see and feel X” in the sense of “You have had a sense experience like unto X”, then of course that doesn’t entail there is an X, and there are any number of exceptions in the world - people see and feel spiders on them when under the influence of drugs, people see and feel just about anything when dreaming. So anything that can be seen and felt in a dream would be something seen and felt even though it doesn’t exist, in that sense.

[James_S_Saint]

@Uccisore

My Supreme Lord, exactly when may someone define the words they are using and remain correct?

When whomever they are trying to convince doesn’t in good faith dispute them.

So in your world, the truth of what a word means is determined by either the most nay-sayer among your friends, or those who don’t care what you think, not your friends, not trying to convince you of any truth. It’s no wonder there is such contention in your world.

Answer this;
If I replaced the words “brick” or “gun” with the term “X”, would the argument be more sound?

1.) “The larger object in my right hand at this moment is ‘X’.” - Declaration of definition; “X”
2.) “You see and feel the larger object, X, in my hand.” - Stipulation of current situation; “you saw and felt…”
3.) “You could not see and feel the object, X, if it did not exist.” - Axiom; property of existence.
4.) "Thus the object called “X” exists. - Deductive Conclusion; Existential state of a concrete object

@Uccisore

“Seeing and feeling X” can be used in two slightly different ways. One sense of ‘seeing and feeling X’ implies an object in the state of being seen, another sense of ‘seeing and feeling X’ impiles only that a person had an experience.
If you mean “You see and and feel X” in the sense that “There is an object X that is in the condition of being seen and felt by you”, then you are, to repeat myself, assuming your conclusion.

No.
YOU are assuming the consequent and thus denying the premise. YOU are declaring that because my premises logically lead directly to my conclusion, my premises are “circular”. YOU are playing “Circular Denial” games.

I am saying “because you felt it, it exists”.
YOU are saying you did not feel it because that would imply that it exists.
YOU are the one playing games.

@Uccisore

people see and feel spiders on them when under the influence of drugs, people see and feel just about anything when dreaming. So anything that can be seen and felt in a dream would be something seen and felt even though it doesn’t exist, in that sense.

Now you are simply lying. To win an online debate?
You already know that they are NOT actually, truly seeing and feeling, else you wouldn’t have bothered to stipulate “influence of drugs” and “dreaming”. You already know that they are NOT seeing and feeling the real, true thing but rather their imagination.

I had asked a more relevant question:

@James S Saint

Is it ever at all possible that the statement would be true?
THAT is the moment to which the entire argument applies.

[Uccisore]

@James S Saint

[
So in your world, the truth of what a word means is determined by either the most nay-sayer among your friends, or those who don’t care what you think, not your friends, not trying to convince you of any truth. It’s no wonder there is such contention in your world.

It’s not about the truth of what the word means, it’s about the soundness of the argument, which means the truth of the premises, which includes whether or not your definitions map onto reality. If you were in a closet talking to yourself, then every valid argument you make would be sound to you, because how would you know any better? But if you base an argument on premises that are highly controversial, you need to defend them, or critics who disagree with those premises will say the argument isn’t sound and move on. That’s why…and I feel like this isn’t news to you…people use the least controversial premises they can when constructing a deductive argument that they intend to actually have value.

Answer this;
If I replaced the words “brick” or “gun” with the term “X”, would the argument be more sound?

 If the argument is about an analytic truth, then replacing the words with variables wouldn't affect it's soundness. If the argument isn't about an analytic truth, then there's no way to determine the soundness with just variables- all you have is validity. 

1.) “The larger object in my right hand at this moment is ‘X’.” - Declaration of definition; “X”
2.) “You see and feel the larger object, X, in my hand.” - Stipulation of current situation; “you saw and felt…”
3.) “You could not see and feel the object, X, if it did not exist.” - Axiom; property of existence.
4.) "Thus the object called “X” exists. - Deductive Conclusion; Existential state of a concrete object

This argument isn’t unsound because of your definition of X, I don’t recall ever saying it was. This argument is unsound because you’re assuming your conclusion in premise 2 (but see below), and because premise 3 is false.

The gun one is a better example of what you're asking.   In that one, if you just call 'mechanical device' = X, then nobody is going to argue that there are non-X's that fit your defnition, because essentially you've made up your own word.  In that argument you still have the circular problem where you stipulate the existence of the very thing you're trying to prove the existence of.  And that goes back to soundness and other people's opinions. 

“X” means A.
P used an A
In order for B to use an A, A must exist.
An X exists.

Or at least that’s how I remember it going. The problem there is that nobody who thinks “X exists” is false is going to accept that “P used an A”. They’ll either say it’s circular- you’re assuming the existence of an X in that premise or will challenge the fact that P used an A. If they already believed that P used an A and X means A, they would already agree that “X exists”. I happen to think this argument is circular- it becomes clearly so if you drop the bit about defining an X and just talk about A.

But keep in mind here, my thesis all along has been that  sound deductive arguments can't be used to establish the (non)existence  of concrete things. If you DO have some explanation for why this argument doesn't assume it's conclusion in the second premise, all you will have shown is that there are sound arguments for the existence of concrete objects [i]given the existence of the concrete object[/i], because you've relied on that being a given in both your arguments so far. 

Could an argument for God’s existence be sound if you were allowed to take God’s existence as a given when constructing your argument? Perhaps. But that’s not what I’m discussing here.

I am saying “because you felt it, it exists”.

Which is false, unless you are presuming the existence of "it’ In that clause, which is circular. Again, people feel things that don’t exist (in the second sense) all the time.

YOU are saying you did not feel it because that would imply that it exists.
YOU are the one playing games.

I’m giving you two options, are you not reading clearly? EITHER your statement implies that the object was seen and felt, which makes your argument circular, OR your argument merely implies that a sensation was had, in which case your following premise is false.

“You saw and felt X” is identical to “There is an X that was seen and felt by you” as used in the first sense, which is the one you seem to be going for.

P1 There is an X that is Y.
Conclusion: There is an X

Is about as circular as it gets.

And with THAT, I’m conceding this portion of the debate to you. After doing a little research, it turns out that circular arguments are sound. So the premise of mine that we’ve been arguing about lately “Deductive argument about the existential nature of concrete objects cannot be sound,” is false:

1.) God exists.
Conclusion: God exists.

Is a perfectly sound argument. So you’re correct, and congratulations. If you’re interested in exploring the issue further, as I said above my thesis through most of this thread was actually,

Deductively arguments cannot be used to prove existential truths about concrete objects, as the definitions are too imprecise.

And about that I’m still right, since circular arguments don’t prove their conclusions. This thesis that deductive arguments of this sort cannot be sound seems to have arrived from me endlessly saying my thesis over and over, sometimes 5-6 times a day, in slightly different words in order to get Ecmandu to comprehend it.

[James_S_Saint]

@Uccisore

It’s not about the truth of what the word means,… which means the truth of the premises, which includes whether or not your definitions map onto reality.

So you seriously believe that reality chooses and dictates what words “really” mean? It is ordained by God that an apple is called “apple”??

You are no longer in a position to be calling Ecmandu a “moron”.

Definitions are subjective, somewhat arbitrarily chosen by men. Often the same word gets different meanings for different people. In such cases they either argue endlessly or they announce their definitions so that they can harmoniously communicate.

---

The rest is you saying that no one can say, “I felt it therefore it exists”.
What they have to say is “it exists, therefore I felt it”.

Intelligent people deduce reality from what they experience. FROM their experiences, they deduce what must be true. You seem to want to deduce what you experience from what you think that you know of reality. Intellectually honest people do not presume to know such as to dictate what their senses tell them. You see what you decide must be there (leaving God/Reality/Truth out of the picture).

Cart before the horse.
I had never thought of you as one of those.
I guess if you don’t know of something, you can never experience it.
You must lead a very limited life.

And for the third and last time:

@James S Saint

Is it ever at all possible that the statement (2) would be true?

And the second and last time:

@James S Saint

Name even one thing that someone truly sees or feels yet truly does not exist

[Uccisore]

Did I miss the part where I said you won the debate? Arguments for the existence of concrete objects can indeed be sound, because circular arguments such as the ones that you’re making are sound.

It’s still true that such arguments can’t prove anything about the existential nature of concretes, as I said in my original thesis, but that’s not what you were interested in discussing.

[James_S_Saint]

@Uccisore

@James S Saint

So you seriously believe that reality chooses and dictates what words “really” mean? It is ordained by God that an apple is called “apple”??

No, the people you’re trying to prove something to do that.

And you believe that an argument is only truly sound if people agree to it?
If you were writing it down before men could think much at all and in a language that they were yet to learn, your argument would necessarily be unsound and untrue?

You can “..this… is what I mean by this word” but if they do not agree that you really mean that, then you are wrong.

[Uccisore]

See above, you seem to have missed the most important point of my post from two posts ago.

[James_S_Saint]

@James S Saint

And you believe that an argument is only truly sound if people agree to it?
If you were writing it down before men could think much at all and in a language that they were yet to learn, your argument would necessarily be unsound and untrue?

You can say “..this… is what I mean by this word” but if they do not agree that you really mean that, then you are wrong?

[James_S_Saint]

And realize that even:

1.) “The larger object in my right hand at this moment is ‘NOTHING’.” - Declaration of definition; “NOTHING”
2.) “You see and feel the larger object, NOTHING, in my hand.” - Stipulation of current situation; “you saw and felt…”
3.) “You could not see and feel the NOTHING, if it did not exist (assuming your sight functions).” - Axiom; property of existence.
4.) "Thus the object called “NOTHING” exists. - Deductive Conclusion; Existential state of a concrete object

[Uccisore]

Ah, there seems to be some basic confusion here on two key issues:

1. ) Sound arguments about the existential nature of concrete objects do in fact exist- circular arguments being one example. They simply fail to prove their conclusions. That’s my bad, I should have stuck to my original formulation, and this latest formulation we’ve been debating has been defeated. Your circular arguments gave me cause to explore the nature of circularity, and what I discovered is that circular arguments are sound. Well, that’s the learning process for you. You trying to defend your argument from accusations of circularity, or defending your novel ideas of how definitions work with regards to soundness is all rather besides the point.

That said, my original thesis remains; Logical arguments can’t prove the existential nature of concrete objects because the definitions are always too imprecise. Circular arguments prove nothing, arguments with abstract stipulated definitions either can’t be tested for soundness or else have conclusions too vague to establish the existence of a concrete. This was all covered in my points that you declared were ‘too small’ or ‘too numerous’ to address (especially my first reply to you where I gave the analogy of the atheist being asked to accept that God acted in the world as a premise in an argument to establish the existtence of God), which is ironic given the stubborn way you insist I answer ALL and ONLY the questions you ask of me while not exetending the same courtesy to me- you ignore questions I pose and points I make at will, but now are into triple posting your insistence that I address what you’ve decided is super important in a debate you already won. And I may well address those points were it not for key issue number 2:

2.) In the past few replies, you’ve for some reason called me a liar, a moron, accused me of playing games, and so on. I don’t recall having debated you before, but apparently you’re a miserable piece of shit who can’t discuss even highly technical matters with fellow academics without flying into a rage and spitting up all over yourself. Since I have some basic dignity, you and I won’t be discussing anything further. I don’t just mean philosophy. You can fuck off with regards to logic, you can fuck off with regards to politics, you can fuck off with regards to relgion, you can fuck off with regards to matters of common interest or shooting the breeze. In fact, you can take this as a general, catch-all reccomendation for you to fuck right off.

[quantum]

Define creator.
If I did designed a humanoid intelligence, then I become creator to it.
veda states the same idea, that there might exist creator .
but againn , that creator might have got caught up in situation who not suppose to be entirely eternal.
creator might have no answer how itself got created.
there surely might be enough lot limitations with creator of ours.

If I created humaniod inteligence of conscieousness , then surely it will be like getiing created by some neighbour alien.

what if i technically achieved to create new space and time and conciousnesss in an successful experiment.
the conciousness in that space is programmed to know its own origin and want to reach to the creator if existed .
why would I want it that way?
It is one of the way of creating computer to dig out the answer which inreturn will help me dig out answer to my question (query about my existence).

[James_S_Saint]

@Uccisore

Ah, there seems to be some basic confusion here on two key issues:

1. ) Sound arguments about the existential nature of concrete objects do in fact exist- circular arguments being one example. They simply fail to prove their conclusions. That’s my bad, I should have stuck to my original formulation, and this latest formulation we’ve been debating has been defeated. Your circular arguments gave me cause to explore the nature of circularity, and what I discovered is that circular arguments are sound. Well, that’s the learning process for you. You trying to defend your argument from accusations of circularity, or defending your novel ideas of how definitions work with regards to soundness is all rather besides the point.

I don’t know why you are calling circular arguments sound. A circular argument would be invalid, thus unsound.

My current issue is with your notion that it is circular.

Think of this situation;
NASA is monitoring the nervous system of a man in a space craft. The man has gotten into trouble and reports that he feels disoriented and not necessarily completely conscious. In the effort to repair the problem, NASA tells the man that he must reach into a vent and clear out any debris. The man struggles in his mental confusion, wearing space gloves, and reports that he thinks that he can feel debris in the vent but isn’t sure that he isn’t merely imagining it. So NASA checks very closely the responses of his nervous system and verifies that he is actually feeling something and not merely imagining it.

From NASA’s report, they deduce that debris actually is in the vent. They did not know that it was there until after they examined the neurological readouts.

But then you perhaps wish to argue that what he felt wasn’t debris. NASA argues that there is nothing that should have been in that vent and thus anything that he could feel is, by definition, debris.

NASA reports:
1:00 AM) Debris is anything he can feel in the vent
2:00 AM) He felt something in the vent
3:00 AM) Debris exists in the vent.

There is nothing presumptuous or circular going on. And it would not make the tiniest bit of difference to the soundness of the conclusion if you or the man disagreed with what the word “debris” SHOULD or REALLY means.

@Uccisore

Logical arguments can’t prove the existential nature of concrete objects because the definitions are always too imprecise.

In such a case as above, the logic would certainly prove something very important to NASA and the man. You may continue in your disbelief if you wish.

Definitions are as precise as men choose them to be.

@Uccisore

2.) In the past few replies, you’ve for some reason called me a liar, a moron, accused me of playing games, and so on. I don’t recall having debated you before, but apparently you’re a miserable piece of shit who can’t discuss even highly technical matters with fellow academics without flying into a rage and spitting up all over yourself. Since I have some basic dignity, you and I won’t be discussing anything further. I don’t just mean philosophy. You can fuck off with regards to logic, you can fuck off with regards to politics, you can fuck off with regards to relgion, you can fuck off with regards to matters of common interest or shooting the breeze. In fact, you can take this as a general, catch-all reccomendation for you to fuck right off.

When I see someone out and out saying the opposite of what he knows to be true (while refusing to answer direct and pertinent questions), he is lying. When his judgment is so impaired that he either cant see or refuses to see the simplest of things, he has no right calling anyone else a moron, as you had done.

[Uccisore]

If you’re going to stop being a horse’s ass, I’ll give you one more chance James.

@James S Saint

I don’t know why you are calling circular arguments sound. A circular argument would be invalid, thus unsound.

A valid deductive argument is one in which if the premises are true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. You won’t find it defined any differently anywhere else.

P1 God exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

That is clearly valid on the only definition of ‘valid deductive argument’ I know of.

From NASA’s report, they deduce that debris actually is in the vent. They did not know that it was there until after they examined the neurological readouts.

‘Evaluating neurological readouts’ gives you a conclusion based on evidence, which is inductive, not deductive. I’m not sure if that will matter for what you’re going to argue ultimately, just putting it out there.

But then you perhaps wish to argue that what he felt wasn’t debris. NASA argues that there is nothing that should have been in that vent and thus anything that he could feel is, by definition, debris.
NASA reports:
1:00 AM) Debris is anything he can feel in the vent
2:00 AM) He felt something in the vent
3:00 AM) Debris exists in the vent.

Right, that's a sound circular argument. One problem is that it doesn't prove anything. If I argue that what he felt wasn't debris, then that means I'm granting you that he felt something.  The only thing in your argument persuading me of something I don't already know is that NASA has [i]decreed[/i] that I must use the word 'debris' for anything found in a vent. If I simply refuse, because I think the technical definition of debris is something other than what they state, there is no argument present in the above against my position that 'what he felt wasn't debris'.  That's why I say the proper definition is important; if I have some other idea of what 'debris' means that justifies my disagreement, you declaring that debris means what YOU want isn't persuasive, of course. 

A circular argument is a sound argument that fails to prove it’s conclusion by already assuming the conclusion is true.
Because of your P1 above, you can take out the word ‘something’ in P2.

2:00AM) He felt debris in the vent.
3:00AM) Debris exists in the vent.

And again, it comes down to one thing- the interpretation of 2. If 2 means to say,

2:30AM He had an experience of feeling something in the vent,

then this argument isn’t valid, as you require a hidden premise:

2:50AM) If he has an experience of feeling someting in the vent, then there must be something in the vent

Which isn’t true. The instruments, however accurate, could be wrong. Evil demons could be messing with people’s brains. I’m not saying he didn’t feel something, or that he coudn’t have, or that it’s not silly to suppose that he didn’t. I’m saying the jump from ‘he felt something like X’ to ‘there is something like X’ isn’t formally valid and nothing more. If it were formally valid, it would be impossible for anybody to ever feel something like X without their being an X- that’s what validity is.

If on the other hand 2 means to say (and I think it does, since you brought up the whole ‘neurological readings’ things to establish it) this:

2:45AM There is something in the vent that was felt,

then you don't need the hidden (false) premise, but your argument looks like this:

2:45 There is debris in the vent that was felt,
3:00 Therfore there is debris in the vent.

the word ‘that’ in the above signals a conjunction, which can be broken down into

2:46 There is debris in the vent.
2:47 The debris was felt
3:00 Therefore there is debris in the vent.

Which is straightforwardly circular, no matter how many things you stick between 2:46 and 3:00, and no matter how you swap the words ‘something in the vent’ and ‘debris’ which you’ve defined as identical anyway.

It’s 5:43 in the morning here, if I made some mistake or mistinterpreted your argument, it’s not because I’m an evil jackass trying to con you, and you should probably relax.

@Uccisore

When I see someone out and out saying the opposite of what he knows to be true (while refusing to answer direct and pertinent questions), he is lying.

Yeah, this would be another example of why premises like the above are false. It could be that they are lying, or that it’s 5Am and they missed something, or that you missed something in your haste to declare “Game Over” or that there is some important detail that makes their position more clear in one of the numerous points you decided were too small to bother addressing, or any number of things.

When his judgment is so impaired that he either cant see or refuses to see the simplest of things, he has no right calling anyone else a moron, as you had done.

Ecmandu is a moron. He coudn’t make a deductive argument with a piece of chalk in one hand and a copy of Socratic Logic in the other. He challenged me to a formal debate about deductive proofs, then looked up what a deductive proof is on wikipedia a week later, and still doesn’t seem to know. This thread has been a long drawn out moron-fest of him making completely incoherent statements, claiming to have literal magic powers, calling other people pawns in a spirit war that know-not-what-they do, and etc. At one point he demanded I write a ‘Magnus Opus’(sic) defending the existence of God. When I refused and clarified some earlier point, he called that (two sentence) clarification my “Magnus Opus” for the rest of the day. When pressed for a definition, he said a Magnum Opus was ‘a person’s penultimate achievement in life’. That’s what he thought a two sentence post in Off Topic was. So yes, he’s a moron. Several times have I told you that as a late comer to the thread, you are missing important elements of what’s been going on here, as well as my point.

I mean,  at the beginning of your latest post you seem not to know what makes a deductive argument valid, but I'm not calling you a moron because there's already ample evidence to the contrary. You've complimented my intelligence before, there's no reason to pretend you had some good reason to take it all back tonight. You were just being a cunt.  But after I told you off, I thought about it, and thought about some similar things I've said to people over the years in anger, and I have to let it slide to avoid hypocrisy. Not speaking of Ecmandu here, who is as far as I can tell literally mentally retarded and has no business being here.

[James_S_Saint]

@Uccisore

P1 God exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

That is clearly valid on the only definition of ‘valid deductive argument’ I know of.

That is tautological, not circular.
Circular means;

1. God exists because the universe exists
2. And the universe exists because of God.

A → B because B → A

@Wiki

Circular reasoning is often of the form: “A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true.”

From NASA’s report, they deduce that debris actually is in the vent. They did not know that it was there until after they examined the neurological readouts.

@Uccisore

‘Evaluating neurological readouts’ gives you a conclusion based on evidence, which is inductive, not deductive. I’m not sure if that will matter for what you’re going to argue ultimately, just putting it out there.

Emmm… no.
Induction is generalizing specifics; “It happened that way the last time, so it will the next time”.
Deduction is presuming cause and effect; “He felt something because something touched him”.

@Uccisore

But then you perhaps wish to argue that what he felt wasn’t debris. NASA argues that there is nothing that should have been in that vent and thus anything that he could feel is, by definition, debris.
NASA reports:
1:00 AM) Debris is anything he can feel in the vent
2:00 AM) He felt something in the vent
3:00 AM) Debris exists in the vent.

Right, that's a sound circular argument. One problem is that it doesn't prove anything. 

That’s just ridiculous.

[Ecmandu]

I actually have a theory about stupidity… which is that when something doesn’t make sense to someone it’s because it’s so complicated and at some point fallacious that the person is so SMART they can’t understand it.

Now, often in these scenarios these people don’t actually go through the trouble of pointing out their intuition and simplifying the matter. The reason I didn’t understand you argument is because you were claiming that you weren’t making an argument, so I went back and showed that all words must be deductive arguments. That’s new, they don’t teach that in philosophy.

The question is do you have another option when using a word? (That’s an argument)

Yes.

The question is, do you expect a certain outcome for using a particular word? (That’s deduction)

Yes.

Is it a proof… damn straight it’s a proof.

[Uccisore]

@James S Saint

@Wiki

Circular reasoning is often of the form: “A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true.”

You will find plenty of sources saying that tautologies are a kind of circular reasoning, or that they are the same thing. Regardless, the next line of your source above gives an example of circular reasoning in exactly the format I presented- simply restating the premise with ‘therefore’.

“Wellington is in New Zealand.
Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand.”

God exists,
Therefore, God exists.

Your source goes on to note that this is deductively valid, as I’m saying.

Induction is generalizing specifics; “It happened that way the last time, so it will the next time”.
Deduction is presuming cause and effect; “He felt something because something touched him”.

Presuming cause and effect is presuming that because it happened that way the last time, it is happening because of a rule that ensures it always will.
P1 He felt something

---

C Something touched him

Isn’t valid because there’s no argument. It needs a hidden premise of the sort
P2: If he felt something, something must have touched him.

Which seems false since we feel things all the time that aren’t a result of being touched. Adding that premise gives validity, but now it isn’t sound because of the false premise.

That’s just ridiculous.

Well, I took you step by step through my reasoning.

[James_S_Saint]

@Uccisore

“Wellington is in New Zealand.
Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand.”

God exists,
Therefore, God exists.

tau·tol·o·gy
(tô-tŏl′ə-jē)
n. pl. tau·tol·o·gies
1.
a. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.
b. An instance of such repetition.

@Uccisore

Presuming cause and effect is presuming that because it happened that way the last time, it is happening because of a rule that ensures it always will.
P1 He felt something

That might be your reasoning but such isn’t necessary. The word “induction” in general refers to extending influence beyond solid contact. In the case of logic it is referring to extending beyond the immediately solid logic into what is probably true rather than certainly true. And the word “deduction” refers to direct indisputable, logical, 100% certain premise-to-conclusion connections.