Fallacy of Logic, Pt1 (Revisited)
This is precisely what I mean about checking your assumptions. You have made your point of view well known in over 3 dozen posts on this topic. Go back and reread my post. If you still don't understand, read it again...and again...until you do. I don't have another 8 hours to explain it all over again, and I'd have to get out an easel and my logic textbooks which don't post on here so easily.
Pay attention to the very beginning of my first part, and all of the second part. It shows a reasonable set of assumptions which would lead someone to come to the very same conclusion which you have been kind enough to repeat here. The last part shows exactly where those assumptions can be disproven, and thus are logically false.
Your quote above also indicates to me that you have not actually read the words...only your interpretation...and I'm curious if you are actually able to separate the two. Mono never said he didn't agree with SC about anything. Only that he knew some poly people who agreed with SC.
I want to make something very clear. I understand both your interpretation of the text and the how you arrived there. That does not mean the interpretation is correct. I'll refer to it now as Interpretation J in the following proof:
Unstated Assumption A: All three sentences form single statement.
Unstated Assumption B: When speaking of a mono mind, the poster means all mono’s
Proposition C: SC said this book is New Agey
Proposition D: Mono's text
If A and B and C and D, then E:
So...to review, you're logic is internally valid.
A+B+C+D -> E
E+B -> J
J+F -> H
So, Back to my previous post:
C is True...SC said what he said.
D is True...mono said what he said. (and it a moment it won't matter how he worded it)
A+B+C+D -> E
False + False + True + True -> False
E = False
I'm going to focus for a moment on a specific portion of E:
Therefore...E is False...twice
E+B -> J
False + False -> False
J = False
F is True.
I'll spend a moment here, and this specific part I will also address to Ceoli. F as I see it, is basically a generally accepted truth that the attributes of a group does not determine the attributes of an individual. This is Fallacy of distribution.
Overcoming this fallacy is a key driver in the progress we have made over the last few generations to oppose racism, sexism, or most of the other -isms. I doubt there would be many, if any (...maybe the Russian Spammer), people on this board who would disagree with this. I also expect that the passion in which this has been pursued would probably be commended or admired by many here, including some of those on the other side of this particular discussion. I'm hoping a more generic and impersonal discussion about F will bare this out, such as this one...I have high hopes.
F = True
J+F -> H
False + True -> False
H = False
If and only if...A and B had been true, and E actually followed from D at all, then you could have proven H.
However, due to False premise, the following applies to E, J, and H:
Now, I know there was never any personal malice in your words.
I understand there has been a lot of confusion about your bluntness and personal attacks. And I know you never intended to make a personal attack on Mono, regardless of what may have been perceived. So I expect you'll understand the following:
The bulk of your 40 posts attempting to prove by assertion on this thread has frankly bludgeoned the living tar out of the subject, were based on and contained incorrect statements, (and now cost me no less than 11 hours that I could have been sleeping...and I haven't even got to Pt2 yet) in addition to bogging the thread down in argumentum ad nauseam.
The upshot of Vulcan's...they'd at least admit it…and might even go find a more productive, and abstract discussion to have that didn’t involve emotional human names.
“People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.” - Chinese Proverb
How did I get here & Where am I going?