|
|
In article <mt8ef29gdo5uilroin165efoncsgfrkf8v@xxxxxxx>,
Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:48:05 -0600, Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> You're not doing much of anything that I can tell.
Then Zick can't tell much.
>
> >> >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?
>
> The point is you claim modern math axioms and definitions are not
> true.
To say that one does not claim something is true is not equivalent to
saying that one claims it not true.
There are those incompetents, like Zick, who are unable to tell the
difference.
>
> >> >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.
>
> See above.
The only evidence of anything above is evidence of Zick being unable to
tell the difference between not saying something is true and saying that
it is not true.
>
> >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.
>
> See above.
The only evidence of anything above is evidence of Zick being unable to
tell the difference between not saying something is true and saying that
it is not true.
>
> >Such claims without evidence are instances of the fallacy of argumentum
> >ad hominem.
>
> Jesus, Virgil, you can't even get that right. My claims are not ad
> hominem. They're evidence of your begging the question.
What question am I accused of begging?
As I have explicitly refused to claim the truth of what I am unable to
prove, Zick's claim the I am begging any question is indeed argumentum
ad ignorantiam.
>
> ~v~~
|
|