[split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-01-2014, 12:05 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(04-01-2014 09:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  Yes, ink and paper stores data precisely as a flash drive does. It's data.

I was imprecise with my comment. I should have said "unless you're saying ink and paper stores actual meaning the way a flash drive stores ones and zeros, there is no meaning on a page."

I used "data" in the sense of meaning, but that was imprecise.

(04-01-2014 09:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  If you don't understand that, it explains your bizarre interpretation of meaning.

I can't address the rest of your points until that misunderstanding is cleared up.

Evasive BS. You haven't the foggiest idea how to approach my concerns or the scholarship beyond just saying "Nu-uh" and coming up with ad hoc and provincial little claims.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2014, 12:07 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(04-01-2014 12:05 PM)maklelan Wrote:  ...
I was imprecise with my comment. I should have said "unless you're saying ink and paper stores actual meaning the way a flash drive stores ones and zeros, there is no meaning on a page."

I used "data" in the sense of meaning, but that was imprecise.
...

Ah! That makes more sense.

Apology accepted. I'll shut up now.

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2014, 12:21 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(04-01-2014 07:45 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(04-01-2014 12:58 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Both GOTGs arguments and this moon argument fail for the same two logical fallacies.
1. Ignorance
2. Begs the Question.

But a belief is not an argument, ignorance is not a logical fallacy, and there's no begging the question anywhere in the argument as you've presented it.
Argument from ignorance - Finding a gap in knowledge and using it to insert a "therefore it must have been..." is an appeal to ignorance. E.G. we don't know why the moon always faces one side to the Earth therefore God did it. or We don't know how existence came to be therefore God did it, or we don't know how such and such a structure evolved therefore God did it...

Begging the question - All these GOTGs (and similar arguments which insert god into gaps LOL) beg the question. Because they assume the conclusion a.k.a. God did it, but they offer no positive evidence for existence of god nor evidence for any activity of god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
04-01-2014, 12:49 PM (This post was last modified: 04-01-2014 12:52 PM by Chas.)
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(04-01-2014 12:05 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(04-01-2014 09:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  Yes, ink and paper stores data precisely as a flash drive does. It's data.

I was imprecise with my comment. I should have said "unless you're saying ink and paper stores actual meaning the way a flash drive stores ones and zeros, there is no meaning on a page."

I used "data" in the sense of meaning, but that was imprecise.

Ink and paper store information just like a flash drive stores information, or paint on a cave wall, or marks on a clay tablet. Your simile is a poor one as it mixes levels of abstraction.

Quote:
(04-01-2014 09:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  If you don't understand that, it explains your bizarre interpretation of meaning.

I can't address the rest of your points until that misunderstanding is cleared up.

Evasive BS. You haven't the foggiest idea how to approach my concerns or the scholarship beyond just saying "Nu-uh" and coming up with ad hoc and provincial little claims.

No, not evasive. Your statement implied a gross misunderstanding of information storage.

It appears you and I have a very different understanding of the word 'meaning'.
I contend that information contains meaning. The reader of the text can retrieve that meaning.
The reader may also create meaning that was not embodied in the text by connecting those ideas with ideas in his mind.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
04-01-2014, 12:51 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(04-01-2014 10:34 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Can we take a step back for a moment. Mak what exactly are you saying here, because to me it is almost like you are proposing some bizarre form of literary solipsism.

No, what I'm promoting is a pretty standard understanding of linguistics that's been around for decades. I'm actually pretty surprised that I'm running into so many people who have no idea what I'm talking about. This is standard stuff.

(04-01-2014 10:34 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  A text has no meaning unless a reader interprets it? I can understand wanting to contextualise what is written but at some point the words on the page (in whatever form, chas is right ink and parchment is no different in application to a flash drive) say what they say.

No, ink and paper can never "say" anything. Absolutely all texts must be interpreted by an informed reader within a context or else they mean absolutely nothing at all, pragmatically and ontologically. While it is true that many linguistic expressions are pretty semantically clear, and have plain and simple readings, this in no way means they have meaning apart from a reader. The meaning must still be constructed within the mind of an interpreter according to their particular experience of the world. What the example of "it's in the boot" shows is that meaning is directly and entirely contingent upon the reader's understanding of and experience with the world. No one can ever find meaning in a text that they did not already have in their brain or cannot construct in their brain. If we didn't know the source of the "it's in the boot" text, we have all the tools to be able to interpret the text, but cannot accurately do so because our brains can't choose between which meaning it should assign.

(04-01-2014 10:34 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  To try and claim that there is no meaning whatsoever in words is to deny all of human culture.

Completely untrue and ridiculously hyperbolic. There is no meaning intrinsic to any texts that have ever existed, there is only meaning in the agreements shared between people regarding what concepts those words passively symbolize, and they can change at an absolute whim. I can invent a word whenever I want. Blug means sex. I had blug last night with my wife, and it was good. You understood, didn't you? Blug has no intrinsic meaning, but I told you the connection between the sign and the semantic value and you then attributed that semantic value to the sign, not because it had any intrinsic meaning that I magically assigned it, but because your brain knew the connection and your brain produced the meaning.

Let's try another experiment with the word snarm. I had snarm last night with my wife, and it was good. You still understood, didn't you? The word snarm is utterly and completely meaningless, and I never assigned it a meaning, but because of the context and because of your experience with language and the universe, you filled in the missing meaning! You created meaning where none existed. What if I told you that snarm actually means "vindaloo" now? Uh-oh, you produced the wrong meaning! Or did you? Did I assign a meaning, or did I just offer some possible meanings? But you still conjured up meaning, didn't you?

Another illustration. Read this:

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

You still understood, didn't you (the claim of the text isn't actually true). You may have read it a little slower, but you understood. But very few of those words are the actual words you read! You understood because your brain does not extract meaning from the words on a text, it assigns meaning based on a host of experiences, knowledge, and anticipations, even if the symbolic reference isn't accurate! Read this:

I GOT A DIG BICK!

Your brain probably assigned the wrong meaning there, because when you are just reading along without focusing, your brain is anticipating meaning and only using the words as rough guidelines for what it should be producing.

Regarding culture, consider an illiterate culture. Certainly the absence of the written word from such a culture, and thus its meaningless nature, does not render the culture non-existent.

(04-01-2014 10:34 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I can't believe that is what you are trying to state so can you please explain yourself so we can move on from the pedantic arguing.

I think you misrepresent the implications of my claims.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like maklelan's post
04-01-2014, 01:01 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(04-01-2014 12:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  Ink and paper store information just like a flash drive stores information, or paint on a cave wall, or marks on a clay tablet.

They store arrangements of symbols. The information to which the symbols refer are not stored in either.

(04-01-2014 12:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, not evasive. Your statement implied a gross misunderstanding of information storage.

No, it was just an imprecise word usage.

(04-01-2014 12:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  It appears you and I have a very different understanding of the word 'meaning'.

You mean a reader must assign an understanding to a word? The word doesn't intrinsically contain the understanding?

(04-01-2014 12:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  I contend that information contains meaning. The reader of the text can retrieve that meaning.

I contend that a reader assigns meaning based on a number of different factors. I am the one with several academic and scientific fields of study behind me, as well as formal training and years of experience. You're welcome to stick with your dogmas, and I'll stick with the science.

(04-01-2014 12:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  The reader may also create meaning that was not embodied in the text by connecting those ideas with ideas in his mind.

As has been shown, absolutely all texts are read that way. You have no way of showing otherwise or of challenging the science. You can only say "Nu-uh!"

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes maklelan's post
04-01-2014, 01:05 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(04-01-2014 12:21 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(04-01-2014 07:45 AM)maklelan Wrote:  But a belief is not an argument, ignorance is not a logical fallacy, and there's no begging the question anywhere in the argument as you've presented it.
Argument from ignorance - Finding a gap in knowledge and using it to insert a "therefore it must have been..." is an appeal to ignorance. E.G. we don't know why the moon always faces one side to the Earth therefore God did it. or We don't know how existence came to be therefore God did it, or we don't know how such and such a structure evolved therefore God did it...

You mean the argument from ignorance. Yes, that's a fallacy, I apologize. I misunderstood, but when your list has a single word and then a verbal phrase, it's not clear that you meant the argument from ignorance and the fallacy of begging the question. I'll give you the argument from ignorance, but there is no begging the question.

(04-01-2014 12:21 PM)Stevil Wrote:  All these GOTGs (and similar arguments which insert god into gaps LOL) beg the question. Because they assume the conclusion a.k.a. God did it, but they offer no positive evidence for existence of god nor evidence for any activity of god.

No, begging the question is including the conclusion in the premise. Since none of the arguments include the conclusion in the premise (God did it because God did it), but just assert the conclusion (God did it, full stop), it's a fallacy called argument from assertion, not begging the question. Assuming the conclusion is only begging the question if they then use that assumption as a constituent of the actual argument for the assumption. I suggest you spend some time learning more about fallacies.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes maklelan's post
04-01-2014, 01:51 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(04-01-2014 01:01 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(04-01-2014 12:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  Ink and paper store information just like a flash drive stores information, or paint on a cave wall, or marks on a clay tablet.

They store arrangements of symbols. The information to which the symbols refer are not stored in either.

(04-01-2014 12:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, not evasive. Your statement implied a gross misunderstanding of information storage.

No, it was just an imprecise word usage.

(04-01-2014 12:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  It appears you and I have a very different understanding of the word 'meaning'.

You mean a reader must assign an understanding to a word? The word doesn't intrinsically contain the understanding?

The reader assigns a meaning from a constrained set of possibilities based on the source and context of the text.

Quote:
(04-01-2014 12:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  I contend that information contains meaning. The reader of the text can retrieve that meaning.

I contend that a reader assigns meaning based on a number of different factors. I am the one with several academic and scientific fields of study behind me, as well as formal training and years of experience. You're welcome to stick with your dogmas, and I'll stick with the science.

Oooh, academic bullying. Impressive. Thumbsup

I also have credentials and experience, so your bullying falls flat.

There is no dogma that I am propounding, I am analyzing the issue.

Quote:
(04-01-2014 12:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  The reader may also create meaning that was not embodied in the text by connecting those ideas with ideas in his mind.

As has been shown, absolutely all texts are read that way. You have no way of showing otherwise or of challenging the science. You can only say "Nu-uh!"

Yes, all texts are read that way. The reader does not create all of the meaning.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2014, 01:57 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(04-01-2014 01:05 PM)maklelan Wrote:  No, begging the question is including the conclusion in the premise. Since none of the arguments include the conclusion in the premise (God did it because God did it), but just assert the conclusion (God did it, full stop), it's a fallacy called argument from assertion, not begging the question. Assuming the conclusion is only begging the question if they then use that assumption as a constituent of the actual argument for the assumption. I suggest you spend some time learning more about fallacies.
There are two ways of looking at it.
One way is the approach you have done. It is superficial and intentionally plays the naive card. This fallacy is called a non sequitur because the conclusion does not logically follow from the argument.

But an honest person with an ability to think things deeper than superficial will see the obvious implicit premise that God exists and that God can cause things to happen. This is what is happening with this argument, there are the implicit (unspoken) premises which are turned into the conclusion thus "begs the question". This argument works for the believer because they assume the premise to be true thus they do not ask the obvious questions (how do you know god exists?, how do you know god can do such a thing as ...<create a universe>?)

Either way, whether you take superficial approach or a thinking approach you come up to logical fallacies. The GOTG (as per your definition) and the GOTGs as per my definition fall for the same logic fallacies. These different definitions are logically equivalent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2014, 04:16 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(04-01-2014 01:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  The reader assigns a meaning from a constrained set of possibilities based on the source and context of the text.

And the constraints (more like suggestions) exist apart from the text entirely.

(04-01-2014 01:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  Oooh, academic bullying. Impressive. Thumbsup

Right, you've never gotten tired of a hobbyist trying to dogmatically argue against something in which you've invested years of formal and professional experience.

(04-01-2014 01:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  I also have credentials and experience, so your bullying falls flat.

Credentials in cognitive linguistics, psycholinguistics, or semantics? That certainly doesn't follow from the way you've presented your argument.

(04-01-2014 01:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is no dogma that I am propounding, I am analyzing the issue.

But you've flatly ignored all my analysis and have just objected to everything I've said, despite empirical evidence and a whole host of research to back it up.

(04-01-2014 01:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yes, all texts are read that way. The reader does not create all of the meaning.

Another "Nu-uh."

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: