Either you have misunderstood what I said, or I am being unclear.

I never said that two arguments with contradictory conclusions can both be "sound". What I did say is that two arguments with contradictory conclusions can be "reasonable."

To say an argument is sound is to say that it's premises are all true and that it is logically valid. In other words, if an argument is sound, then I am rationally obligated to accept its conclusion.

While the term "reasonable" doesn't have an unambiguous technical definition like "soundness" does, I would say an argument is reasonable if it is logically valid AND there are rational grounds for the assertion that the premises are true. But, "rational grounds" doesn't mean that the premises are IN FACT true, but merely that there are at least some good reasons to think that they are.

In an earlier post somewhere, I mentioned how chessplayers sometimes debate about whether or not White (who always moves first in a chessgame), has a forced win. In other words, is the right to move first such a big advantage that with "perfect play", White can convert his or her first move advantage into a forced checkmate of Black.

Both sides of the debate have put forth "reasonable" arguments (by my definition), but obviously at least one those arguments is unsound. In other words, somebody is right and somebody is wrong, but it isn't clear whose right and whose wrong.

I think that it was tame-deuces who pointed out somewhere something about how quantum mechanics and relativity theory have some contradictory premises with respect to each other. But, by my definition, both theories are "reasonable", even though it would seem that they can't both be true (based on our current understanding anyway).

In summary, to my mind (what's left of it ), to say that an argument or belief is "reasonable" is simply to say that there are "good reasons" to believe it, even though further investigation might reveal that the "good reasons" aren't that good after all.

Hope I successfully expressed where I'm coming from.

Have a blessed day, and I look forward to continuing this dialogue.

It should be noted that there are frameworks that resolve these contradictions and explore the relationship between these models, for example quantum field theory or string theory. I'm no physicist beyond the pop-science aspect of it all, so don't take my word as some kind of definitive teaching (lest some SMP physicist comes in here and flail me). Though as I understand it quantum field theory has stumbled into problems of its own that suggests it is not a fundamental theory as one had hoped, and though string theory can seemingly resolve (some of?) those issues, it is a tough model to test in practice.

So it's not like scientists go "oh well, here is a contradiction, let's ignore it". But it was a decent example to use about a debate on contradiction.

After all, when information is too limited then disagreement might also be a case of both being right, but wrongfully concluding that the other is wrong, and the greatest analogy about that is of course the parable about the blind men and the elephant.

But your definition of 'reasonable' included 'logically valid' and 'premises that are true [prima facia]'. That's the definition of a sound conclusion, but since you don't think that TD's valid argument is sound, you must be saying that the premises are not actually true.

Your use of 'prima facia' seems like a polite fudgy way of saying 'I think you're wrong but I can't show you why'. At the very least then you must now hold your own beliefs in reasonable doubt?


You're a street preacher, you actually take to the streets to try to convince total strangers to believe what you believe. But despite this extraordinary level of commitment to your beliefs, and a highly abnormal level of motivation to disseminate them, you back off the second you're presented with 'reasonable' counters by the posters here who I can testify are smarter and better informed than your average person on the street.

How 'intellectually honest' do you think that comes across as? Combine that with the fact that you don't appear to have good reasons to hold your beliefs since you don't have counters to standard criticisms....

Not me.

The multiverse hypothesis is science, but it's not a 'Theory'. Gosh TD, after all this time you still don't see this not even that subtle distinction in my viewpoint. I could conduct an experiment in my garage, looking for physical evidence of something, and I could call that 'science', and it would be, but my conclusion could never be considered to be a Theory until it met those criteria that determine what is and what isn't a Theory.

Gee golly MB, after all this time you still don't see that the arbitrary application of an arbitrary list of criteria involving arbitrarily capitalized words has almost nothing to do with actual science theories. It's like you believe that because *you* have declared this list of terms, that it must be the right way to view things.

Remember that "willful ignorance" conversation? It's happening again.

I don't intend to be rude, but do you actually READ the entirety of the posts that you are responding to?

I explicitly said that some beliefs that I hold I am more confident about their truth than others. When I am street preaching, I only preach those beliefs of mine that I personally believe have exceptional strong grounds for believing them.

The discussions that I "walked away" from in this forum were unrelated to the core message of the Gospel that I preach. I "walked away" from certain philosophical arguments that I was advocating. The veracity of the Gospel doesn't stand or fall on any one philosophical argument.

My defense of the Gospel message is in no way hindered by my abandoning certain philosophical arguments. If I think an argument is good, I use it; if someone gives a successful counter to it, I abandon it. I have no idea why you seem to have a problem with this approach.

My experience is that people respect me a lot more when I am willing to abandon an argument that I am using that proves to be suspect. I try to answer any question can I honestly can, but if I am asked a question I don't know an answer to, I'll respond with something like, "I don't know the answer to that question right now, but I'll try to find an answer for you."

Maybe I have misunderstood you, but I don't why you think that I "back off
the second" I am presented with a "reasonable" counterargument. False! I only "back off" WHEN I DON'T HAVE A COMPELLING RESPONSE to their counterargument. I said this many times, and I have no idea why you can't comprehend this: An argument can be reasonable AND not be sound AT THE SAME TIME. In two different posts, I gave a chess example which I don't think you ever responded to.

Anyway, it is quite apparent that either I am being unclear about what I am saying or that you are not comprehending what I am saying.

Either way, it seems to me that we've reached a dead end here. If we continue to go in circles like this, then I will "walk away" from this dialogue as well.

If you show at least some evidence that you even understand what I am saying, then I will continue this discussion.

By the way, I am NOT saying that it is necessarily your fault that you aren't understanding what I'm saying. It's quite possible that I am not making myself clear. If that's the case, I apologize. I'm doing the best that I can.

Peace!

Given that I've demonstrated an understanding of logical validity and the concept of soundness, what you must be saying here is 'agree with me or I'll walk'. lol.

What is still puzzling me is your definition of 'reasonable', it's so close to 'sound' as to be a little pointless.

Hi, Mightyboosh.

Actually, I think a more accurate rendering of what I'm saying is "Make a noticeable attempt to understand what I'm saying, or I'll walk."

That you think that my definition of "reasonable" is "so close to 'sound' as to be a little pointless", just proves to me that either you are not comprehending what I am saying, or I am being unclear about what I'm saying.

Either way, we're obviously not making any progress here.

I am not "walking" because we disagree, I'm walking because we're obviously talking past each other.

I'll only respond to any further posts of yours in this thread if there is even a modicum of evidence that you understanding what I'm saying.

For the sake of being charitable, I will assume that we are talking past each other because I am being unclear.

Have a blessed day!

I guess it's true that you've demonstrated *AN* understanding...

You've gotten as far as the following:

Logically valid argument: The conclusions follow logically from the premises.
Sound argument: A logically valid argument whose premises are true.

What you haven't understood:

Prima facie true: Statements that appear to be true "on their face" and would require evidence or argumentation before taken to be false.

This is distinct from "true" in the sense that there's no guarantee or promise that something that is prima facie true is actually true. So when you say

and

you're literally staring right at your mistake and behaving as if it's not there. Furthermore, this distinction was made explicit:

This is an example of what makes me think that Mightyboosh doesn't even read my posts IN THEIR ENTIRETY before responding to them.

im a witness of God and im here to share my testimony.

for like four years ago, i was locked down in mental asylum for months and in the end Jesus Christ created me a new and pure heart in my soul and its a great miracle and wonder promised to all of His children that seeks Him with all of their hearts, according to Gods Word and Holy Scriptures.

i have had many holy visions and dreams. for example i had this while i was in mental asylum, it was like i was in the body of Christ, and it was HUGE and His arms was stretched over all the world and i remembered Jesus Christ as He was hanging on the Cross and it was like got to feel the great love God has for all of His creation and children. the vision might have stayed for a second or so, earthly time, but im sure, if God wills, that it will stay in my memory forever and ever.

if you now think you apointed to fight the faith of Gods Son, Jesus Christ and against God father Himself - THE HOLY SPIRIT- who has given me these experiences, i just have one thing to say to you, a servant of Satan: NO PLAN FROM HELL CAN SNATCH ME FROM THE ARMS OF THE LIVING GOD, JESUS CHRIST!

I think he reads them, but he doesn't process the information very well. I don't even know if he actually understands the term prima facie, for example. He just thinks he does.

Because he's in "attack mode" he's not particularly trying to see your perspective. He's just trying to prove some sort of point. Once he decides what his argument will be, he simply digs in and then tries to reframe your statements to fit what he thinks your argument is. Then he might also reframe his own statements to fit whatever he thinks his argument is, even if it makes no sense in the argument he was making originally (but he will argue that he's been saying the same thing the whole time). This is his current "science" argument and this was his "Thales of Miletus" argument from long ago.

Good luck with whatever happens next.

Thanks, Aaron.

In Mightyboosh's defense, maybe he didn't understand the term prima facie because in my posts I misspelled it.

.... this type of comment would be less noticeable, or remarkable, if it didn't jar quite so badly with your usual, excessively polite tone, and that contradiction causes me to doubt your sincerity when you claim that people are making 'excellent points', or being 'reasonable', or that the reasons supporting their premises are 'good', or true 'prima facie'.. none of which must mean to you what they mean to me since that would cause me to have strong doubts about my whichever of my views was being criticised.

Fine with me if you want to leave it there but I probably won't engage again as I know that if I manage to make some reasonable, excellent points, you'll just say something nice and non-committal and walk away, as you've done twice already to my knowledge.

Given that my statement was followed by a silly smiley with his tongue hanging out, I thought it would be obvious that I was making a joke. However, your taking my statement seriously by not taking note of the silly smiley is consistent with an assertion I made earlier that your responses to me often suggest that you don't even read my posts in their entirety before responding. You DO know, don't you, that a silly smiley indicates a joke, right?

It seems to me at this point that you have no interest in seriously engaging me in dialogue. For example, THREE TIMES I offered to you my chess analogy about White having a forced win, and unless I've simply overlooked it (wouldn't be the first time) , you NEVER engaged that analogy and showed why it is faulty.

Rather than actually thoughtfully engaging with what I have said, you're now reduced to questioning my sincerity. There's an old saying in defense law: if you're losing the case, abuse the plaintiff.

At this point, I'll just leave it to the readers of this thread to decide who is actually attempting to engage the issues and who isn't.

I think I've addressed this point at least once in an earlier post, but since you apparently don't thoroughly read my posts before responding to them, it doesn't surprise me that you missed it.

Peace!

I think the chess example was very good.

But it's important to note that it is a case where the people disagreeing know they are operating with incomplete information, we will also have cases where people think they are operating with complete information, but are not. I think in those cases the disagreement will tend to be more harsh.

And I also think it is fair to hold that some standards of assessing evidence are better than others. We shouldn't just dive into philosophical skepticism and hold all claims as equal.

Can you see how that might come across as a passive aggressive insult via a third party? Particularly after the increasingly shouty, sarcastic tone of your posts. I'll accept your explanation though.


Fine, let's use that analogy, although I think having to resort to analogies tends to indicate an inability to adequately articulate a position, and for the record and for the sake of accuracy, I haven't abused you at all.... it's a fact that you've walked away at least twice after claiming that the other person's argument was 'excellent', 'reasonable' or contained 'prima facie' true premises... I can reasonably expect the same treatment given the evidence available to me. If you consider that as abuse, you should ask yourself why it sounds abusive to you.

It's a poor analogy since a series of moves in a game of chess are not equivalent to the truth values of premises in an argument, we don't win or lose arguments based on the order in which we get to make our case, and finally you've fudged your disagreement with this 'prima facie' qualification. If they 'appear to be true' but can't be, since that would mean that you are wrong, then show how they're not true. Walking away makes it look as if you can't, in which case isn't it unreasonable of you to continue to hold that belief?


Don't keep telling yourself this story until it becomes a fact in your mind. My lack of agreement does not indicate a failure to read your posts in their 'ENTIRETY' or 'thoroughly' (but I appreciate the capitalisation...).

I don't. A forced win only occurs because of the order in which moves are made. If only we could be right in our conclusions for the same reason.... however, two contradictory, valid conclusions can't both have true premises.

From this I understand that you didn't properly read the initial post Lagtight made.

I suppose I should take this as a form of compliment, that had I 'properly' read it, I would understand it, so the fault must be that I didn't properly read it...

Assuming I did read it, what is it that I'm not understanding about this analogy?

First of all that it is not an analogy, it's an example.

Other than that, I think it the example speaks for itself. It's a reference to two sides who present reasonable arguments and reach different conclusions, so it's pretty much to the point. It's not like chess experts are known for not doing thorough analysis.

To read Lagtight's post like the devil reads the bible and demand that "reasonable" means "sound" and then try to rhetorically pound him three times in a row is pretty silly. It's clear what is meant.

DING DING DING!

And this is the fundamental problem with trying to have a conversation with you. You assume you already know what you're talking about, and get confused and frustrated when people try to increase your knowledge, but rather than learning, you insist you actually knew what you were talking about the whole time.

Edit: "If I were wrong, I'd doubt my position. I don't doubt my position, so I must not be wrong."

We can now add "chess" (more precisely, "chess analysis") to the list.

That was my fault; I referred to it as an analogy.

Do you understand what a 'forced win' is and how they occur? That either side can do it as long as they were the initiator? Is that also true for conclusions?

Not what I did, or what I'm doing, but thanks for getting involved. He thinks you made excellent points in your debate with him, however he remains unconvinced by them. Really, how 'excellent' were they then....