|
|
In article <c00cf2pq47091j89m1beaupaq54k762l80@xxxxxxx>,
Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:35:51 -0600, Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> The difficulty is that things you assume
> >> to be true are only assumptions. Modern math is full of jargon and
> >> buzzwords constituting nothing but the rankest assumptions of truth.
> >
> >All carefully labeled as being conditional on a set of assumptions whose
> >"truth" is carefully not asserted.
>
> Except under a carefully contrived cover of darkness.
Then Zick must be doing it in the dark because I certainly am not.
> >One may , for purposes of discussion and to see what may be deduced from
> >them, make any assumptions one likes, even ones one knows to be false or
> >self contradictory.
>
> Whatever.
>
> >It is quite a different thing to declare, as Zick seems to be doing,
> >that one's assumptions can somehow be known to be true.
>
> I believe that's exactly what I claim and you don't.
Which axioms do you claim to be true, and why those, Zick?
>
> >I'm not interested in what you assume but can't demonstrate.
> > neither are we interested in what Zick assumes but cannot demostrate.
> >The difference being that we do not claim any of our assumptions are
> >true, we only claim only that what we deduce from our assumptions is
> >deducible from them.
>
> So your deductions are deducible and your logic is circular whether or
> not it's true.
Zick claims my logic is circular, but can give no evidence of that
circularity.
If Zick wishes to make a claim of another's illogic, and wishes to be
believed, he should provide at least some evidence in support of that
claim.
Such claims without evidence are instances of the fallacy of argumentum
ad hominem.
|
|