Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site oddjob.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!oddjob!matt
From: matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Absence of Thought
Message-ID: <890@oddjob.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 28-Jul-85 19:01:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: oddjob.890
Posted: Sun Jul 28 19:01:31 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Jul-85 08:04:12 EDT
Reply-To: matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford)
Organization: U. Chicago, Astronomy & Astrophysics
Lines: 77

Somebody said I should take a look at net.origins.  I'm not sure
whether to thank that person.  What I see here is quite a
collection of atyles of argument.  Some people try to be careful
about their deductive process but get involved in some v-e-r-y long
arguments about their premises or evidence.  Others proceed from
point to point with no regard whatsoever for any rules of inference
and sometimes, it seems, without even understanding the words they
use to demonstrate their ignorance.

As an illustration, here are some samples from a few articles by a
person I will call "Dan"  (because that is what he calls himself).
Don't worry about the chance that these excerpts are taken out of
context.  There is no context in which they would look good, except
perhaps in the context of the National Lampoon.

>   What is the difference between "described by" and "predicted by"? If the
>   model "describes" a certain set of observable circumstances, wouldn't
>   this also constitute "predicted by"?

I have to hand it to this guy, he's not shy about his stupidity!
The urge to form parodies is irresistable.  How about: "My model
of the United States includes the fact that Ronald Reagan is the
president.  Therefore I have predicted that Ronald Reagan is the
president."

Dan says:
>>>  I can just as easily say that I believe in creation because species
>>>  seem to have a common design.
"Mike" replies:
>>You can say it.  But that doesn't make it valid reasoning.
Dan answers:
> Why isn't it valid reasoning?

Let's suppose it were a valid argument.  In that case stars must
have been created by god because they are all round in shape, and
that watches are not created because different ones work on such
different principles.

Here's another choice tidbit which I found amusing.
> Wrong! My conclusion was this: Since there is nothing in the present
> structure of natural law that can account for its own origin, the Universe
> could not have created itself. Therefore, it must have had a supernatural
> origin.

Now Dan might mean one of two things by this, depending on how you
interpret his phrase "present structure of natural law".  He could
be saying that because we do not yet know a scientific cause for
the the existence of the universe, there cannot be a scientific
cause.  Or he could mean that he knows somehow that the laws of
nature forbid the spontaneous origination of a universe.  Either
way, he's wrong.  Dare I go into the reasons?  If I don't I will
probably be accused of "proof-by-assertion" and if I do I will
probably get ridiculed by those who either can't understand the
reasons or can't refute them.  That seems to be how this group
runs.  Examples:
> Ahhh! Now I understand what valid reasoning is! Quote a book title!
-----------
>>Once again, a bald statement, with no reasoning.  (And where you have 
>>presented a case in the past, it has been shown to be bad, if not
>>dishonest.)
>
> Once again, an attack on my reasoning, with no explanation! Again, why
> isn't it valid reasoning? Dishonest? Please explain!
--------
>>Neither conclusion stems from rational thought.
> Prove it!
(I thought the last shows a good use of irony.)


I hope I have captured the proper tone and style in this, my first
and possibly last, contribution.  I will watch as long as it
remains amusing but perhaps net.origins could be replaced by a
linear combination of net.flame, net.religion, and net.bizarre.
Anyone who is not offended may write to me for individual attention.
_____________________________________________________
Matt		University	crawford@anl-mcs.arpa
Crawford	of Chicago	ihnp4!oddjob!matt