Message from discussion Matheology S 116
Received: by 10.66.85.130 with SMTP id h2mr1208488paz.8.1350065583556;
Fri, 12 Oct 2012 11:13:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org>
Subject: Re: Matheology S 116
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 14:12:16 -0400
Organization: The Eternal (and Int'l) Order of Palsy-Walsies -- President
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b304d165c504a79687685113a8eb1c33";
logging-data="5012"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+R88LchK22cd+aVGTajnoZ"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) XEmacs/21.4.22 (linux)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
"LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> writes:
> "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote in message
>> "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> writes:
>>> "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote in message
>>>> "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> writes:
>>>>> "Michael Stemper" <mstem...@walkabout.empros.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> I'm willing to bet that if this book exhibited a contradiction rather
>>>>>> than simply asking "could there be one?", he would have been
>>>>>> it. In fact, if Zermelo had found a contradiction, it would have been
>>>>>> well-known decades back, and ZF theory would have either been fixed or
>>>>>> tossed into the dustbin of history.
>>>>> Just basic fallacies: all over the place.
>>>> Well, then, prove him wrong, son. Prove him wrong.
>>> Hey, uncle, there is nothing to prove there: and you are the one who
>>> teaches this stuff! Indeed, if you need help here, google up a list
>>> of fallacies and come back with your best bets: on whether you picked
>>> up the right one.
>> I don't see any particular fallacy.
> Look better.
>> You may be thinking that it's an argument from ignorance, but it isn't.
> No, that is just opposite of what I have just said.
> I won't snip the rest of your lies, to the benefit of young students.
Right. Very convincing. "Tell me how I am right, and if you can't,
then you're stupid."
Hey, I have a better idea. You tell me how you were right, you silly,
>> He gave explicit reasons for
>> believing why, in this case, the absence of evidence is indeed evidence
>> of absence: if Zermelo had discovered a contradiction, then either he
>> would have made it public or it is likely that others would also have
>> discovered the same contradiction in the intervening decades and it
>> would have been made public then.
>>>> Because what he wrote (which was merely expressed as a probability)
>>>> seems plausible to me.
>>> A fallacy is a logical falsity: nothing to do with contingencies.
>> "A logical falsity"? The term has no apparent meaning to me, aside from
>> "falsehood" or "contradiction", which you surely did not mean.
>>>> But, listen, he might be wrong. Maybe Zermelo
>>>> was aware that ZF was inconsistent. Surely, though, the onus here is on
>>>> showing this fact. So, have you any reason to believe that Zermelo
>>>> discovered a contradiction in ZF?
>>> The mistake has nothing to do with what Zermelo was or was not aware
>> That's odd, because all that Michael was commenting on was the
>> likelihood that Zermelo himself was aware of a contradiction.
>> You *did* read what Michael wrote before announcing that it was
>> fallacious, right?
"Am I am [sic] misanthrope? I would say no, for honestly I never heard
of this word until about 1994 or thereabouts on the Internet reading a
post from someone who called someone a misanthrope."
-- Archimedes Plutonium