Page 9 of 24
Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:15 pm
by Skepdick
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:55 pm
But that in no way amounts to a normative. There is no meaning attached to it, there is nothing prescribing anything to anyone, etc. in those shapes on paper in themselves. They're just marks on a particular sort of material.
This is also incoherent nonsense.
Lets suppose that there are no such things as normatives. not-N.
What is the logical implication of their absence? What does not-N imply?
(¬ N) ⇒ ???
How would this implication be different if N was "the case"?
N ⇒ ???
Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:15 pm
by Terrapin Station
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:12 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:46 pm
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:50 pm
Why would you want to refer to a world without referrers?
I'm interested in what's the case.
You are confused as hell, mate.
How could you (a referrer) be interested in a referring to a world without referrers?
Because a world independent of referrers is the majority of what's the case.
Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:16 pm
by Skepdick
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:15 pm
Because a world independent of referrers is the majority of what's the case.
Non-sequitur.
How could any referrer be interested in a world without referrers?
Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:17 pm
by Terrapin Station
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:15 pm
Lets suppose that there are no such things as normatives. not-N.
What is the logical implication of their absence? What does not-N imply?
You mean if they didn't exist period?
Then there would be no normatives, no one would even think "I ought to x," etc.
Why wouldn't this be obvious?
It would be different than if there were normatives because then there are normatives, people might think, "I ought to x," etc.
Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:18 pm
by Terrapin Station
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:16 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:15 pm
Because a world independent of referrers is the majority of what's the case.
Non-sequitur.
It wasn't an argument.
Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:19 pm
by Skepdick
That's also a non-sequitur.
Your responses fail to address your interlocutor's questions.
What would you like for dinner? 67!
Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:20 pm
by Terrapin Station
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:19 pm
That's also a non-sequitur.
That also wasn't an argument.
Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:21 pm
by Skepdick
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:20 pm
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:19 pm
That's also a non-sequitur.
That also wasn't an argument.
Non-sequiturs are not constrained to arguments.
It's non-sequitur within this interaction/dialogue.
Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:21 pm
by Terrapin Station
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:21 pm
Non-sequiturs are not constrained to arguments.
Yeah, they are. Fallacies are about argumentation.
Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:22 pm
by Skepdick
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:21 pm
Yeah, they are. Fallacies are about argumentation.
Non-sequiturs are not only fallacies.
They are also replies that don't follow the previous statement/question.
Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:23 pm
by Terrapin Station
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:22 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:21 pm
Yeah, they are. Fallacies are about argumentation.
Non-sequiturs are not only fallacies.
They are also replies that don't follow the previous statement/question.
"Following" is a concept in argumentation.
Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:24 pm
by Skepdick
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:23 pm
"Following" is a concept in argumentation.
This is not an argument. This is a dialogue.
Your response is mis-matched to my question. It does not follow. Non-sequitur.
Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:24 pm
by Terrapin Station
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:24 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:23 pm
"Following" is a concept in argumentation.
This is not an argument. This is a dialogue.
Hence why fallacies, concepts like following, etc. do not apply.
Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:26 pm
by Skepdick
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:24 pm
Hence why fallacies, concepts like following, etc. do not apply.
Non-sequitur (in the non-fallacious sense/use of the phrase).
Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:27 pm
by Terrapin Station
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:26 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:24 pm
Hence why fallacies, concepts like following, etc. do not apply.
Non-sequitur (in the non-fallacious sense/use of the phrase).
Non-sequitur doesn't make sense outside of that context. Or at least you'd have to present whatever alternate usage you're employing that you feel makes sense.