I would think so. It's all very basic. But then, you seemed not to understand the difference in me supposedly being illogical and ACB's failed argument, equivocating between the form of my argument and the substance of his. You also confused the logical point with a philosophical one, so, again, I would hope you knew all the above. I'm not sure, then, why what I said wasn't care. But we'll revisit this below.Audie wrote:Um sorry to sorta set you up to say all that, but I do know those things.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say science proves but that it doesn't disprove. To disprove is simply to prove false. If science doesn't prove, then it doesn't prove false. You can't even say that science doesn't prove true but can prove false, because to prove false would be to prove true that something is false.Audie wrote:Science is real good at disproving things.
Ya-uh. If we are discussing whether or not the flood happened and someone quotes AiG, and then you reject AiG on the basis of them being a perjured witness on the basis that the flood did not happen, then you are assuming that the flood did not happen and using that as a basis on which to count AiG (or whomever) perjured. But the discussion itself is whether or not the flood happened. That just is begging the question, Audie. No bones about it, and to be blunt, if you can't see that, then you're just pulling an ACB here.I am not beggibg no question.
I have absolutely no idea what your example is supposed to illustrate--that the scrap of cloth is unrelated to the case? If so, that isn't begging the question. It would be a non-sequitur. But a non-sequitur isn't petitio principii. A non-sequitur is when the conclusion is unrelated to the premise (usually because there is no middle term). A petitio principii (begging the question or circular reasoning) is when the conclusion is found in the premise of the argument. Again, our discussion is whether or not the flood happened. You say AiG is perjured because they argue scientifically that a flood happened. But implicit in that claim (that AiG is so perjured) is that they are making a FALSE claim precisely because the flood did not happen. And thus the conclusion (that the flood did not happen) is embedded in the premise (that AiG is a perjured witness) and so cannot be used as a premise that the flood DID happen.You might as well be saying as the prosecutor "But what about this scrap of cloth from the murder scene!!!" , after, you know, the defendant shows that he was having
tea with Queen E., in the Palace Garden at the very moment Mr Green was killed in Bangkok with a lead pipe.
(In the study, no less)
Tell the judge that your opposite number is beggin' the q!
He will doubtless say "How droll", or some functional equivalent.
And that gets back to all this stuff that you say you get. I would expect you to see this very clearly. You want to say that you aren't committing a genetic fallacy or that such shouldn't matter. You want to ask me if I'm committing an argument from authority. You want to deny that you are begging the question. All of these, however, are blatantly obvious. So while I hope that you are familiar with everything I posted in my longer post above, your recent contributions suggest either that you don't or that you weren't being very careful in your approach. Now, you can always argue that AiG is perjured via a modus ponens or tollens in which one of the premises does presume the flood did not happen. That is, you could say,
1. If anyone argues scientifically that there was a global flood, then they do not understand science (and so should not be cited in scientific discussion);
2. AiG argues scientifically that there was a global flood
3. Therefore, AiG does not understand science (and should not be cited in scientific discussion)
Or
1. If anyone understands science or can be cited appropriately in a scientific discussion then they do not argue scientifically for a global flood
2. AiG argues scientifically that there was a global flood
3. Therefore AiG does not understand science and cannot be cited appropriately in a scientific discussion
Again, these are legitimate arguments. But please notice clearly that in both cases the premise that the flood did not happen (at least, not a global flood) is assumed in the premise. So while it's a fine argument in and of itself, you cannot use this argument to discredit AiG when discussing whether or not there was a global flood to begin with. To so use it is to beg the question and to commit a genetic fallacy. And for someone as interested in being rational as you say you are, then you ought to abhor illogical arguments, even if you accept their conclusion, as you say you already understand from my previous post.
