On Wednesday, August 29, 2001 8:23 PM David G. McDivitt dmcdivitt@yahoo.com
wrote:
>>All these claims commit the genetic fallacy -- or what Rand called the
>>fallacy of the stolen concept. (You don't have to accept her other views
to
>>accept this fallacy as a true fallacy in reasoning.) This means, simply
>>put, an idea which denies that on which it logically depends.
>
> You are accusing me of using circular reasoning.
Not at all. Circular reasoning means presuming what you claim to prove.
The fallacy of the stolen concept does not mean circular reasoning, but
making a conclusion that conflicts with a premise -- typically an implicit
premise. Another way of putting it: assuming what you explicitly deny or
denying something that your denial logically depends on. See Nathaniel
Branden's "The Stolen Concept" at
http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ess/ton04.html
> Not once did I ever say
> "nothing" is true. Granted, if I said nothing was true but intended that
> very statement itself to be true, as if it is true there are no truths,
> indeed I would have spoken a contradiction. I did not say that. I did
> not imply that. You are reading your own stuff into what I said.
Let's move on to your next substantive passage to see.
> I just do not believe it is the same
> truth all the time or in all situations. Truth is relative. Realism is
> an attempt to say at least some truths are not relative. If a person
> takes the time to strictly specify context, and if a person gives
> repeated example within that same context, I admit things should not
> change. But as I have said already, people assume consistent context
> when in fact such is not always the case. This is an error in logic.
> Realism is the logical fallacy of universal context, when in fact there
> is no such thing.
Is this claim of yours that "Truth is relative" true all the time and in all
contexts, or just some of the time or in some contexts? If the former, then
aren't you making a universal claim and claiming to know a universal truth?
If the latter, which contexts? If the latter, this then leads me to believe
there is at least one universal truth -- that is that "Truth is relative"
does not apply in all contexts at all times.
I do not disagree that context is important, but you are making universal
claims and violating your own dictum above. It would be better not to make
such statements on focus instead on what particular claims or beliefs you
find to be overgeneralizations or taken out of context.
Also, it doesn't matter in this context what realism says or doesn't say.
You might be attacking it, btu your attack fails.
> Again you have failed to justify your criticism of what I said.
See above.
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
Check out "Testing Evolutionary Explanations" at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/Testing.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:22 MDT