For Dixie: Common Sense

The assumptions made by a society and collectively shared?

That wasn't what I said. There is nothing assumptive about wisdom.

Where does logical come into it? I can present a logically valid syllogism that 'All cows are green'.

Logic is a vital part of common sense reasoning. You keep mentioning a "valid syllogism" and there is nothing valid about cows being green, and it is void of common sense reasoning. I am not sure why you keep referring to these green cows, are they prevalent in your part of the world or something?

For example, a few hundred years ago, it was collective conventional wisdom that the Earth was flat. A few thousand years ago, it was collective conventional wisdom that the actions of the seas, thunderstorms and the emotion of love were under the control of the gods.

Actually, it wasn't collective conventional wisdom. Most people with any degree of education and understanding of the sciences of the times, understood the Earth was not flat, it was only those who didn't fully understand or have adequate information, who believed such nonsense. Keep in mind, I never said that "common sense" never changes, and because people believed something a long time ago, which may have been considered "common sense" at that time, doesn't mean a thing. This was precisely why Einstein made the statement he made. When studying science it is very important to not base your conclusions on 'common sense' because it can be proven wrong, as his theory of relativity proved.

Common conventional wisdom has little approximation of truth.

This is a completely inaccurate statement. Sometimes common conventional wisdom is spot on, sometimes it is wrong. It indeed sounds as if you have made a determination of 'absolute knowledge' here, which you claim doesn't exist.

It is, as Einstein said, the prejudices (assumptions) made by the age 18 (the time by which someone is socially conditioned).

Hmmm... those words you inserted in parentheses? Are those Einsteins words, or your words? You wouldn't be trying to interject your own words into what Einstein said, would you? Damn if I don't recall you chastising me for that very thing, and here you are doing it yourself! Shame on you, Arnold!

Stating that something is 'common sense' is as useful as the idea that the gods control the actions of the seas.

Again, this is an absolute determination that can't be made if we live in a world without absolute knowledge, isn't it? I have already said, when it comes to matters regarding science and scientific discovery or theory, 'common sense' has little to do with anything, and should never be considered. That was what Einstein was talking about. This doesn't apply universally to everything, only to science and science study... what causes the ocean waves is science study.

Reasoning is the only method by which an approximation to truth is possible, through differing argument, presented with supporting reasoning, tested against logic and a posteriori evidence.

First of all, 'reasoning' is often a product of 'common sense' ...in fact, it is often called "common sense reasoning", and it has nothing to do with science. You are bringing up science lab terminology, and attempting to apply 'common sense' to it, and we have already determined this is invalid. As Einstein correctly stated.
 
(AOI): The assumptions made by a society and collectively shared?

(D): That wasn't what I said. There is nothing assumptive about wisdom.

No, that's what I said. There is assumption in all wisdom, We assume things on the basis of a posteriori evidence.

(AOI): Where does logical come into it? I can present a logically valid syllogism that 'All cows are green'.

(D): Logic is a vital part of common sense reasoning. You keep mentioning a "valid syllogism" and there is nothing valid about cows being green, and it is void of common sense reasoning. I am not sure why you keep referring to these green cows, are they prevalent in your part of the world or something?

First of all, there is no reasoning in common sense. Common sense is collective conventional wisdom. It is not required that you know the reasons behind what is claimed, just that you know what is being claimed. Stating something is common sense negates reasoning in fact. Stating "Its just common sense" is an attempt to subdue the other debator into accepting Knowledge by Authority.

If you weren't so intellectually lazy, I'd recommend you read John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty' for a more indepth explanation of this. But I remember you stating once that you only read things that agree with your viewpoint, so I doubt you will.

For the umpteenth time, something is deemed valid (ie logical) if the conclusion can be drawn from the premises. As you stated, it isn't 'common sense' that cows are green, yet it can be logically valid. So I repeat... what has logic (or reasoning) got to do with 'common sense'?

Actually, it wasn't collective conventional wisdom. Most people with any degree of education and understanding of the sciences of the times, understood the Earth was not flat, it was only those who didn't fully understand or have adequate information, who believed such nonsense. Keep in mind, I never said that "common sense" never changes, and because people believed something a long time ago, which may have been considered "common sense" at that time, doesn't mean a thing. This was precisely why Einstein made the statement he made. When studying science it is very important to not base your conclusions on 'common sense' because it can be proven wrong, as his theory of relativity proved.

No, it was collective conventional wisdom that the Earth was flat. Those that used logic and reasoning, as well as a posteriori evidence, challenged the Truth by Authority of collective conventional wisdom and were persecuted for it.

But you make my point for me, with your statement "it is very important to not base your conclusions on 'common sense' because it can be proven wrong". Whether you are studying science or any subject. You should base your conclusions on reasoning based on a posteriori evidence.

Collective conventional wisdom, the common sense that you seem to rely on so heavily, is as weak as a kitten. It is simply Truth by Authority. The assumptions made by the majority. Herd mentality.

This is a completely inaccurate statement. Sometimes common conventional wisdom is spot on, sometimes it is wrong. It indeed sounds as if you have made a determination of 'absolute knowledge' here, which you claim doesn't exist.

No, that's why I wrote 'little approximation', not 'no approximation'. STRAWMAN!

It is, as Einstein said, the prejudices (assumptions) made by the age 18 (the time by which someone is socially conditioned).

Hmmm... those words you inserted in parentheses? Are those Einsteins words, or your words? You wouldn't be trying to interject your own words into what Einstein said, would you? Damn if I don't recall you chastising me for that very thing, and here you are doing it yourself! Shame on you, Arnold!

The difference is, I didn't insert words of my own, but definitions of the terms used.

Again, this is an absolute determination that can't be made if we live in a world without absolute knowledge, isn't it? I have already said, when it comes to matters regarding science and scientific discovery or theory, 'common sense' has little to do with anything, and should never be considered. That was what Einstein was talking about. This doesn't apply universally to everything, only to science and science study... what causes the ocean waves is science study.

Nothing to do with absolute knowledge but everything to do with a posteriori evidence, where Collective conventional wisdom has shown itself unreliable.

Why does it only apply to science and not to other forms of knowledge? Explain this Dixie....

First of all, 'reasoning' is often a product of 'common sense'

Ha ha ha! Reasoning is a product of collective conventional wisdom? LMAO

Reasoning is simply presenting your argument with supporting argument (reasons). CCW is simply Truth by Authority. It doesn't require you to provide reasons for your argument, your argument is 'its just common sense..'

You are bringing up science lab terminology, and attempting to apply 'common sense' to it, and we have already determined this is invalid.

Where do you get 'science lab terminology' from? Where have I used this?

I am using philosophy, reasoning and logic to boil down the notion of common sense to understand what it really is.

Now please, argue against the points I've brought up...
 
There is assumption in all wisdom

No, there is knowledge in all wisdom, to know something is not to assume it.

As you stated, it isn't 'common sense' that cows are green, yet it can be logically valid.

It's not common sense and it's not logical, and you've not demonstrated this. It's completely illogical, and logically invalid to say cows are green.

No, it was collective conventional wisdom that the Earth was flat.

No, I am sorry it wasn't. People who believed the Earth was flat, had no knowledge, wisdom, or understanding of the universe or science. They based their opinions on religious teachings and beliefs, and it was not ever collective, conventional, or wise to believe this.

No, that's why I wrote 'little approximation', not 'no approximation'

You didn't say it "sometimes" has little approximation. Had that been your statement, you would have been correct. The context you presented made a definitive determination and conclusion that was invalid and inaccurate.

The difference is, I didn't insert words of my own, but definitions of the terms used.

You did the same thing I did, in a different way. Sorry, but if I can't add my own words to Einsteins, I don't see how you can either, that would be a double standard. Of course, you are all about those double standards.

Why does it only apply to science and not to other forms of knowledge?

Because Science requires that you not make absolute conclusions. Common sense, is an absolute conclusion. Common sense is also what you apply, when you determine conclusively, that ID 'falls at first hurdle' or is 'based on logical fallacy', you simply don't acknowledge you are applying your own 'common sense' value to your conclusion. You can call it another name, it's still the same thing.

Ha ha ha! Reasoning is a product of collective conventional wisdom? LMAO
Reasoning is simply presenting your argument with supporting argument (reasons).

Of course, and collective conventional wisdom is based on argument supported with reason. Which is why it's not common sense to think cows are green.
 
(AOI): There is assumption in all wisdom

(D): No, there is knowledge in all wisdom, to know something is not to assume it.

Yes it is. If you hold some knowledge, and believe it, you must assume it is true, even though you have no way of confirming without reproach. You can assume it is true based on evidence and supporting argument, but you are still assuming.

As you stated, it isn't 'common sense' that cows are green, yet it can be logically valid.

It's not common sense and it's not logical, and you've not demonstrated this. It's completely illogical, and logically invalid to say cows are green.

Your problem here is a fundamental lack of understanding about what logic is and how it works.

Again, something is considered logically valid if the conclusion made is supported by the premises. You might challenge the soundness of the premises, but it is still considered valid if the conclusion is reached by the premises.

So, to present a syllogism (how logic arguments are presented) to demonstrate how it can be logically valid that cows are green.

P. All that eat grass are green
P. Cows eat grass.
Ergo Cows are green.

This is logically valid, because the conclusion is derived from the premises. You might well challenge the soundness of the first premise, but it is logically valid.

Do you understand this?

No, I am sorry it wasn't. People who believed the Earth was flat, had no knowledge, wisdom, or understanding of the universe or science. They based their opinions on religious teachings and beliefs, and it was not ever collective, conventional, or wise to believe this.

Collective : Believed by the majority.
Conventional : pertaining to general agreement; established by general consent or accepted usage.

Are you claiming that in, for example, the 1500's it wasn't established by general usage and believed by the majority that the Earth was flat?

Or are you changing your definition of 'common sense' away from collective conventional wisdom to 'common sense' meaning knowledge based on reasoned argument based on a posteriori evidence. It was only by reasoned argument and a posteriori evidence that the notion that the Earth wasn't flat came about.

You didn't say it "sometimes" has little approximation. Had that been your statement, you would have been correct. The context you presented made a definitive determination and conclusion that was invalid and inaccurate.

Dixie, you aren't gonna win a debate on the use of language with me, are you.

If I had said no approximation, it would have been definitive. Little approximation isn't.

You did the same thing I did, in a different way. Sorry, but if I can't add my own words to Einsteins, I don't see how you can either, that would be a double standard. Of course, you are all about those double standards.

If you want to argue the definition of the words used by Einstein, fair enough. But not add words to his statement that he didn't make. Hence why I put my definition of terms in brackets.

Because Science requires that you not make absolute conclusions. Common sense, is an absolute conclusion. Common sense is also what you apply, when you determine conclusively, that ID 'falls at first hurdle' or is 'based on logical fallacy', you simply don't acknowledge you are applying your own 'common sense' value to your conclusion. You can call it another name, it's still the same thing.

No it isn't. Total misrepresentation or misunderstanding. Probably the latter. I say ID is based on a logical fallacy because.... it is based on a non-sequiter logical fallacy. Not because it is collective conventional wisdom.

'Common sense is an absolute conclusion' - lets examine this statement. You are confusing belief with absolute conclusion. A belief is something that someone holds true. An absolute conclusion is a conclusion that is beyond reproach. Someone could believe something is true, but it isn't an absolute conclusion. When people subscribe to 'common sense', collective conventional wisdom, they are doing so on the basis of truth by authority, If it is held true by the majority, that majority's authority deems it to be true.

In what area of existence do you have absolute knowledge over, that is dictated by collective conventional wisdom?

Of course, and collective conventional wisdom is based on argument supported with reason. Which is why it's not common sense to think cows are green.

No it isn't. Collective conventional wisdom is merely what is held to be true by the majority. It isn't reliant on the conclusion made being supported by reason.

It's not 'common sense' that cows are green, simply because the majority believe so (and they might be right) that cows aren't green. That doesn't mean it isn't possible to logically argue that cows are green. A posteriori evidence suggests to us that cows generally aren't. 'Common sense' isn't reliant on logic any more than it is on reasoning.

It is merely as it says, collective conventional wisdom, knowledge held true by the majority.

Now read carefully before replying. If there is anything you want clarifying, say so.
 
Last edited:
How to debate.

Debating is fairly easy. Initially, one person will make a statement, and then support that statement with reasons why the statement is so.

The opponent then reads the statement, challenges the statement by addressing the reasons given in support of it.

It doesn't suffice to simply say 'No it isn't', unless you support that with reasons.

The originator then reads the retort, and challenges it by addressing the reasons given to support the retort.

Etc etc etc
 
It doesn't suffice to simply say 'No it isn't', unless you support that with reasons.

From Arnold's previous post...
Yes it is...
Your problem here is...
No it isn't....
No it isn't....
It is merely as it says...
Now read carefully before replying....

All of these are followed by a repeat of what Arnold has already said, and what has already been refuted. There is no new information, no addressing of any counterpoint, and no indication he intends to do that. He simply keeps repeating the same tired old shit over and over, and then pops off the line about how to 'properly debate'. LOL!
 
Dixie, what you failed to print is that, when I say, no it isn't, I follow it up by reasons.

You haven't refuted a single point, you simply ignore the argument (for example the nature of logic) and assert your opinion. You rarely address the point Dixie, you swerve it, you dodge it, you misrepresent it but you rarely ever address it. Let alone refute it. You never bring up counterpoints. For example the discussion about the nature of logic. Rather than explaining why you believe it is logically invalid to state 'all cows are green' (baring in mind I presented a syllogism, and explained the nature of logical validity) you have simply stated 'it is illogical' without presenting reasoning.

This is because you rely on your common sense, truth by authority, and thus feel all you need to say is 'that's not common sense'.

The funny thing is, after a whole thread of you avoiding debate and simply hurling faeces about, you build yourself a little hill of dust and declare yourself King of the Debate.
 
Dixie, what you failed to print is that, when I say, no it isn't, I follow it up by reasons.

Yes, the same "reasons" you've presented for the past 3 years, which have all been addressed at least a dozen times each. You simply repeat them over and over, as if by 'osmosis' you think they will eventually sink in, or something. Follow your own advice, and address the counterpoints, rather than reverting back to your previous arguments that I've refuted already.

It is logically invalid to state that all cows are green, or that any cows are green. I can have a psychological professional come here and tell you that, if you need for me to, but that is about all I know to do, if you just refuse to accept that fact. I've never seen a green cow, and I have never heard of one, and knowing what I know of animal pigmentation and breeding characteristics, I don't believe it is possible to make a green cow, even if you wanted green cows to logically exist. So, you see... I don't know what to do with this argument, it is so utterly absurd and ridiculous, it doesn't really warrant a response, but yet.... here I am, responding!
 
Yes, the same "reasons" you've presented for the past 3 years, which have all been addressed at least a dozen times each.

You haven't addressed one. It just takes a simple scan of this thread to see that.

You simply say 'no it isn't.'

I presented you a syllogism of how an argument can be logically valid that cows are green, all you have said in reply is 'I haven't seen a green cow.'

Rather than bring a psychologist to the board (psychologists are ten a penny), why not bring a logician, as we are dealing with logic.

You fundamentally do not understand what logic is. You assume it is simply 'common sense', and bring forth inductive arguments like 'I haven't seen one'.

Read this:

In logic, the form of an argument is valid precisely if it cannot lead from true premises to a false conclusion. An argument is said to be valid if, in every model in which all premises are true, the conclusion is true. For example: "All A are B; some A are C; therefore some B are C" is a valid form.

A formula of logic is said to be valid if it is true under every interpretation (also called structure or model). See also model theory or mathematical logic.

A tautology, or tautologous formula, is truth functionally valid. Not all valid formulas of quantificational logic are tautologies. See also truth table.

Consider the following argument form in which the letters P, Q, and S represent unanalyzed or uninterpreted sentences.

All P are Q
S is P
Therefore, S is Q

The validity of an actual argument can be determined by translating it into an argument form, and then analyzing the argument form for validity. (The argument form above is valid; see syllogism.)

If (all P are Q) and (S is P), then (S is Q).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_validity
Click to expand...

This is how logical validity works.

Do you understand thus far?

So what makes a sound argument?


logical argument is sound if and only if

the argument is valid
all of its premises are true.

A proof procedure (e.g. natural deduction) for a logic is sound if it proves only valid formulas (also tautologies). Formally: a system is sound when if "", then also "".

Suppose we have a sound argument (in this case a syllogism):

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The argument is valid and since the premises are in fact true, the argument is sound.

The following argument is valid but not sound:

All animals can fly.
Pigs are animals.
Therefore, pigs can fly.

Since the first premise is actually false, the argument, though valid, is not sound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness
Click to expand...

So, an argument can be logically valid, yet not be sound.

Now, after page upon page of explaining, do you understand how it is possible to create a valid argument that all cows are green?
 
So, an argument can be logically valid, yet not be sound.

So, by your own definition, the argument that we were created by an Intelligent Designer is indeed logically valid. Correct?
 
Dixie said:
So, an argument can be logically valid, yet not be sound.

So, by your own definition, the argument that we were created by an Intelligent Designer is indeed logically valid. Correct?
Click to expand...

I think the point is that you need to show us how it is logical.
You jumped too far ahead there....
 
Dixie said:
...And for the record, THIS "racist redneck" is 1/16th African-American and 1/16th Native American. I have marched with Civil Rights leaders, I have protested with the Choctaw tribe, and I am offended and incensed by your constant stereotypical prejudice towards me in this forum. So take your fake indignation and outrage, and shove it up your well-used asses!
Click to expand...

I'm 1/32 black.
 
So, by your own definition, the argument that we were created by an Intelligent Designer is indeed logically valid. Correct?

No, because the conclusion 'the natural world was designed' cannot be derived from the premises 'all complex human creations are designed' and 'the natural world are infinitely more complex than human creations'.

The ID argument uses premises that are sound, yet the conclusion it draws cannot be made from them.

Therefore it is logically invalid.
 
AnyOldIron said:
So, by your own definition, the argument that we were created by an Intelligent Designer is indeed logically valid. Correct?

No, because the conclusion 'the natural world was designed' cannot be derived from the premises 'all complex human creations are designed' and 'the natural world are infinitely more complex than human creations'.

The ID argument uses premises that are sound, yet the conclusion it draws cannot be made from them.

Therefore it is logically invalid.
Click to expand...
It would however be logical to say that evolution could easily be the tool by which the Creator wrought.

Or even that it can fit in the "past 6000 year" argument, because an all-powerful Being could easily create Billions of years of advancement in 6 days, making it seem to every scientist out there that Billions of years had passed when it really was on ly 6 days. Not only that, but to the insignificant like us, it would have seemed that way as well....

There are many different ways you can argue ID logically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top