Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 12:13 am
Your argument is full of the very same fallacies it condemns.
That you think so tells me you don't understand ad hominems at all.
That is a diversion from the argument towards the speaker...thus ad-hominum.
Nope. If you know any grammar, then you know that "think" is the simple subject of the sentence, and "you" is adjectival to it. So it's not a claim about the person, but about his incorrect idea.
The idea is being criticized there. Hence, not ad hominem.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 12:16 am
That you think so tells me you don't understand ad hominems at all.
That is a diversion from the argument towards the speaker...thus ad-hominum.
Nope. If you know any grammar, then you know that "think" is the simple subject of the sentence, and "you" is adjectival to it. So it's not a claim about the person, but about his incorrect idea.
Fallacy again. The claim about the person's idea is a claim about a person as the idea is an extension of the person.
The idea is being criticized there. Hence, not ad hominem.
False. You state "you don't understand ad-hominems at all" not "your idea is incorrect."
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 12:04 am
"All" arguments are inseperable from a point of view as the argument is the angle of one phenomena derive from many phenomenon.
I told you before. It’s one phenomenon (singular), many phenomena (plural).
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 12:04 am
"All" arguments are inseperable from a point of view as the argument is the angle of one phenomenon derive from many phenomena.
I told you before. It’s one phenomenon (singular), many phenomena (plural).
My bad, it is that and the its/it's I mix up. The point still stands.
TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2020 11:12 pmThe views that are in your passionate opinion...
Heh. I have no "passion" in this opinion.
Don't try to have a "passionate" opinion. It's better to have a true one. And then show it's true, but providing reasons and evidence.
Nothing else counts.
Your view is unatural. Or, an artiface.
When in Brothers Karamazov all evidence, blood on his hands and coat he claimed was from a bloody nose, his hate of his boss, the threats to sell him as a serf to worse masters, convict the non-guilty man, all speak of the evidence. Evidence can misslead us. You want to pretend only evidence that leads right is evidence at all.
Now, suppose someone
tells me they are standing in front of their car. By phone. They see it. The speak truly. That is evidence. Maybe, though, they are the kind that mistake a car of the same make for their own.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 12:04 am
"All" arguments are inseperable from a point of view as the argument is the angle of one phenomenon derive from many phenomena.
I told you before. It’s one phenomenon (singular), many phenomena (plural).
My bad, it is that and the its/it's I mix up. The point still stands.
Here’s how I learned about “it”:
“It” isn’t important enough to own anything. So, no apostrophe for something that belongs to it.
TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2020 4:18 pm
To regard something as knowledge is an opinion or act of some being. If a being regards themselves as knowing something I call that evidence for its being true. There is no other way knowing can happen, or knowledge be had (by a being.)
Yes, it is an opinion that something is knowledge but once its been verified, it becomes knowledge. As an opinion need not be justified, an opinion cannot be evidence of anything.
Things don't become knowledge anywhere else than in being and their beliefs. The beings may always be faulty who claim the knowledge exsists, or, in your bizarre notion, has "become."
TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2020 4:18 pm
To regard something as knowledge is an opinion or act of some being. If a being regards themselves as knowing something I call that evidence for its being true. There is no other way knowing can happen, or knowledge be had (by a being.)
Yes, it is an opinion that something is knowledge but once its been verified, it becomes knowledge. As an opinion need not be justified, an opinion cannot be evidence of anything.
Things don't become knowledge anywhere else than in being and their beliefs. The beings may always be faulty who claim the knowledge exsists, or, in your bizarre notion, has "become."
Clever (and obfuscating)—you used “being” as a conjugation of the verb, “to be” and “beings” as a synonym for the plural of the noun, “creature”. Its onomatopoeia is deceptively distracting!
Anyway, it's obvious opinions are evidence. And if someone has the opinion that they are not, that too is evidence. We must have good working scales or minds. Vision alone can always decieve and likely doesn't exist.
I have no "passion" in this opinion.