[W:381:2733***]Darwinism Descending

gfm7175 · Oct 22, 2018

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

RAMOSS said:
No, it's a logical fallacy. Period. It doesn't mean it is wrong, but that does not mean the argument isn't a fallacy.

Look, RAMOSS... Do you or do you not validate your reasoning skills with your reasoning skills? Maybe you should stop reasoning in a "fallacious" way (according to you)??

RAMOSS said:
Show the source that says circular reasoning is not a logical fallacy ever. Do something more that 'Because I said so'.

Answer my before-mentioned unanswered question and that will provide an answer to your request...

Tim the plumber · Oct 22, 2018

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

gfm7175 said:
Look, RAMOSS... Do you or do you not validate your reasoning skills with your reasoning skills? Maybe you should stop reasoning in a "fallacious" way (according to you)??

Answer my before-mentioned unanswered question and that will provide an answer to your request...

He validates his reasoning skills by showing how others are talking gibberish and by presenting arguments that others can't find flaws in.

Thus when you consistently cliam that circular reasoning can be a valid method of debate it shows you spout gibberish. When he points this out he shows that you spout gibberish. When he makes a clear argument which is clearly supported he shows he understands how to debate.

gfm7175 · Oct 22, 2018

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Tim the plumber said:
He validates his reasoning skills by showing how others are talking gibberish and by presenting arguments that others can't find flaws in.

The bolded is another (more wordy) way of saying "by using his reasoning skills". RAMOSS is validating his reasoning skills with his reasoning skills. He is making use of circular reasoning, which according to him, is fallacious. He is arguing that circular reasoning is always fallacious, yet he validates his reasoning skills with his reasoning skills. He needs to clear his paradox...

Tim the plumber said:
Thus when you consistently cliam that circular reasoning can be a valid method of debate it shows you spout gibberish.

It is logically valid reasoning in and of itself. It is only a logical fallacy if someone tries to prove the circular argument. That is known both as the circular argument fallacy and as fundamentalism.

Tim the plumber said:
When he points this out he shows that you spout gibberish. When he makes a clear argument which is clearly supported he shows he understands how to debate.

He shows that he validates his reasoning skills with his reasoning skills even though circular reasoning (according to him) is always fallacious. According to him, he is arguing fallaciously, yet he also claims that he isn't arguing fallaciously. He needs to clear his paradox...

Tim the plumber · Oct 22, 2018

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

gfm7175 said:
The bolded is another (more wordy) way of saying "by using his reasoning skills". RAMOSS is validating his reasoning skills with his reasoning skills. He is making use of circular reasoning, which according to him, is fallacious. He is arguing that circular reasoning is always fallacious, yet he validates his reasoning skills with his reasoning skills. He needs to clear his paradox...

It is logically valid reasoning in and of itself. It is only a logical fallacy if someone tries to prove the circular argument. That is known both as the circular argument fallacy and as fundamentalism.

He shows that he validates his reasoning skills with his reasoning skills even though circular reasoning (according to him) is always fallacious. According to him, he is arguing fallaciously, yet he also claims that he isn't arguing fallaciously. He needs to clear his paradox...

You are being beliberatly ignorant.

It is clear that all you are doing is word chasing and not answering anything coherently or honestly.

gfm7175 · Oct 22, 2018

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Tim the plumber said:
You are being beliberatly ignorant.

It is clear that all you are doing is word chasing and not answering anything coherently or honestly.

Argument of the Stone.

And I'm simply being precise in thought. I'm not going to let RAMOSS get away with such a monumental paradox.

If circular reasoning is always fallacious, then the very method by which he validates his reasoning skills (through use of his reasoning skills) is also fallacious, according to him. He needs to address this...

RAMOSS · Oct 22, 2018

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

gfm7175 said:
Look, RAMOSS... Do you or do you not validate your reasoning skills with your reasoning skills? Maybe you should stop reasoning in a "fallacious" way (according to you)??

Answer my before-mentioned unanswered question and that will provide an answer to your request...

Uh. No, I don't validate my reasoning skills with my reasoning skill. I validate my reasoning skills with the results that my reasoning skills produce. If I have a problem,I can use my reasoning skills to attempt to debug the problem. I validate my reasoning skills by fixing the problem. If the problem does not get fixed, my reasoning skills are not adequate. Without the outside validation 'The problem gets fixed' or 'The cause of the problem gets properly identified', then what I reason is not tested. The test to see how accurate my reasoning skills are is getting the problem fixed. In science, it would be 'do I accurately predict the result of this test.

Without outside verification, it can not be shown how good the reasoning skills are.

gfm7175 · Oct 22, 2018

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

RAMOSS said:
Uh. No, I don't validate my reasoning skills with my reasoning skill.

Alrighty then... You don't validate your reasoning skills with your reasoning skills. I will note this.

RAMOSS said:
I validate my reasoning skills with the results that my reasoning skills produce.

...which is another way of saying that you use your reasoning skills to validate your reasoning skills... Between this comment and your above comment, you are arguing a paradox. You must clear your paradox to argue rationally...

RAMOSS said:
If I have a problem,I can use my reasoning skills to attempt to debug the problem.

Continued irrational argumentation on your part (until above paradox is cleared)...

RAMOSS said:
I validate my reasoning skills by fixing the problem.

I thought you validated your reasoning skills with the results that your reasoning skills produced?? You are making use of your reasoning skills to accomplish the things that you mention... You are validating your reasoning skills with your reasoning skills even though you simultaneously assert that you don't do so... Continued irrational argumentation on your part...

RAMOSS said:
If the problem does not get fixed, my reasoning skills are not adequate. Without the outside validation 'The problem gets fixed' or 'The cause of the problem gets properly identified', then what I reason is not tested. The test to see how accurate my reasoning skills are is getting the problem fixed.

Those aren't 'outside validations'; you are still assuming the adequacy of your reasoning skills in those efforts... You are still validating your reasoning skills with your reasoning skills. You are still arguing your paradox from the beginning of this response.

RAMOSS said:
In science, it would be 'do I accurately predict the result of this test.

Science does not predict things. It is incapable of doing so unless it turns to a closed functional system such as mathematics.

RAMOSS said:
Without outside verification, it can not be shown how good the reasoning skills are.

True.

Here, a similar question might help you understand...

How do you validate your memory?

I'm willing to bet that you use your memory to validate your memory... That would be making use of circular reasoning... That would be fallacious, according to you...

Do you now see why circular reasoning is not always fallacious?

RAMOSS · Oct 22, 2018

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

gfm7175 said:
Alrighty then... You don't validate your reasoning skills with your reasoning skills. I will note this.

...which is another way of saying that you use your reasoning skills to validate your reasoning skills... Between this comment and your above comment, you are arguing a paradox. You must clear your paradox to argue rationally...

Not, it is not. It is looking at results .. an external factor to be able to validate my reasoning. You are doing what is known as 'violating the principle of charity', by misrepresenting what is said. This shows a strong lack of reading comprehension. THat would explain a lot of things.

gfm7175 · Oct 22, 2018

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

RAMOSS said:
Not, it is not. It is looking at results .. an external factor to be able to validate my reasoning. You are doing what is known as 'violating the principle of charity', by misrepresenting what is said. ...deleted various mantras...

I am not violating anything... I am pointing out to you that you are still making use of your reasoning skills when you "look at results"... You are still using your reasoning skills to validate your reasoning skills, which is fallacious according to you (since circular reasoning is apparently always fallacious)...

How do you validate your memory?

I'm willing to bet that you use your memory to validate your memory... That would be making use of circular reasoning... That would be fallacious, according to you...

Do you now see why circular reasoning is not always fallacious?

RAMOSS · Oct 22, 2018

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

gfm7175 said:
I am not violating anything... I am pointing out to you that you are still making use of your reasoning skills when you "look at results"... You are still using your reasoning skills to validate your reasoning skills, which is fallacious according to you (since circular reasoning is apparently always fallacious)...

How do you validate your memory?

I'm willing to bet that you use your memory to validate your memory... That would be making use of circular reasoning... That would be fallacious, according to you...

Do you now see why circular reasoning is not always fallacious?

I don't think you understand what I said. Do you know what the principle of Charity is? I will give you a hint. It's not giving donations to the poor.

gfm7175 · Oct 22, 2018

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

RAMOSS said:
...deleted 'you don't understand' mantra...

How do you validate your memory?

I'm willing to bet that you use your memory to validate your memory... That would be making use of circular reasoning... That would be fallacious, according to you...

Do you now see why circular reasoning is not always fallacious?

RAMOSS · Oct 22, 2018

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

gfm7175 said:
How do you validate your memory?

I'm willing to bet that you use your memory to validate your memory... That would be making use of circular reasoning... That would be fallacious, according to you...

Do you now see why circular reasoning is not always fallacious?

Memory has a huge number of compenents. There is 'remembering what happened in the past'. There is 'remembering to go to an appointment', and there is 'remembering where I put my car keys'. The later two are validated by results. The first one is validated by people who share my experiences, and it is validated by experience. In modern time frame, photos and diaries help

When it comes to that, experience, and 'how well can I operate on a day to day basis' can validate quite a lot of that. That and how well it can be validated by people who shared my experiences, and by photos and books is enough to give me trust that most of what I remember has validity. It might not be 100%, but it certainly is enough to allow me to function in day to day environment. That is how my memory is validated.

gfm7175 · Oct 22, 2018

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

RAMOSS said:
Memory has a huge number of compenents. There is 'remembering what happened in the past'. There is 'remembering to go to an appointment', and there is 'remembering where I put my car keys'. The later two are validated by results.

Yup.

RAMOSS said:
The first one is validated by people who share my experiences, and it is validated by experience. In modern time frame, photos and diaries help

This is mainly what I was getting at... One validates this type of memory by using their memory. I'm not sure how other people can validate your experiences... Even if I give you that point (I don't), then those people are still using their memory for validation of their memory. It's still a case of memory validating memory (just a different person doing so). It's still circular. Photos and diaries are merely evidence, they are not proof.

RAMOSS said:
When it comes to that, experience, and 'how well can I operate on a day to day basis' can validate quite a lot of that. That and how well it can be validated by people who shared my experiences, and by photos and books is enough to give me trust that most of what I remember has validity. It might not be 100%, but it certainly is enough to allow me to function in day to day environment. That is how my memory is validated.

Yes, your memory is validated by your memory. These "people who shared your experiences" are merely doing the same thing; they are using their memory to validate their memory. You and those people sharing experiences and 'working off of each other to validate' is still simplified down to "memory validating memory". It is still circular. It is still fallacious, according to you, yet not fallacious, according to you. You are still in paradox. Do you wish to clear it by discarding your "circular reasoning is always fallacious" claim?

RAMOSS · Oct 22, 2018

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

gfm7175 said:
Y
Yes, your memory is validated by your memory. These "people who shared your experiences" are merely doing the same thing; they are using their memory to validate their memory. You and those people sharing experiences and 'working off of each other to validate' is still simplified down to "memory validating memory". It is still circular. It is still fallacious, according to you, yet not fallacious, according to you. You are still in paradox. Do you wish to clear it by discarding your "circular reasoning is always fallacious" claim?

YOu keep saying that,but I do think you know what that means.

Tim the plumber · Oct 23, 2018

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

gfm7175 said:
Argument of the Stone.

And I'm simply being precise in thought. I'm not going to let RAMOSS get away with such a monumental paradox.

If circular reasoning is always fallacious, then the very method by which he validates his reasoning skills (through use of his reasoning skills) is also fallacious, according to him. He needs to address this...

No it is not.

If his reasoning is supported by outside facts/evidence then it is not just his skills that support his ability to present an argument.

You do understand this you are being deliberately obtuse in claiming not to. That is dishonest.

RAMOSS · Oct 23, 2018

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

gfm7175 said:
Argument of the Stone.

And I'm simply being precise in thought. I'm not going to let RAMOSS get away with such a monumental paradox.

If circular reasoning is always fallacious, then the very method by which he validates his reasoning skills (through use of his reasoning skills) is also fallacious, according to him. He needs to address this...

The problem as I see it is that you are not explaining why you claim it is a paradox.. and you are not supporting your arguments. You are also making leaps of logic, where your conclusion is not based on reasoning, but rather your preconceptions.

Funnny thing, that is the exact 'Argument of the Stone' that you accuse others of.

gfm7175 · Oct 23, 2018

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Tim the plumber said:
No it is not.

Then you admit that circular reasoning is not always fallacious? It seems like you are now irrationally joining in with RAMOSS's paradox.

Tim the plumber said:
If his reasoning is supported by outside facts/evidence then it is not just his skills that support his ability to present an argument.

First off, you are misusing the words facts and evidence. Facts nor evidence are universal truths, nor are they proofs. Facts are shorthand predicate accepted by all parties. Something doesn't even have to be true in order to be a fact. Facts are used to speed up conversation. Evidence is the result of interpreting data, and data is the result of making observations.

Secondly, you're shifting off of the topic of discussion. We're not talking about whether arguments are true or not, we're talking about how we validate our reasoning skills. There is no way to validate reasoning skills without making use of reasoning in our attempts to validate those skills. -- When you incorrectly use the words facts and evidence to assert that we support our reasoning skills with those things, you are making use of reasoning skills to get to that point. You are still using reasoning skills to support reasoning skills. It is still circular reasoning. It is still both fallacious and not fallacious according to you and RAMOSS. You both need to clear this paradox in order to argue rationally again...

Tim the plumber said:
You do understand this you are being deliberately obtuse in claiming not to. That is dishonest.

No, I'm not... I'm just asserting basic philosophy and logic.

RAMOSS · Oct 23, 2018

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

gfm7175 said:
Then you admit that circular reasoning is not always fallacious? It seems like you are now irrationally joining in with RAMOSS's paradox.

First off, you are misusing the words facts and evidence. Facts nor evidence are universal truths, nor are they proofs. Facts are shorthand predicate accepted by all parties. Something doesn't even have to be true in order to be a fact. Facts are used to speed up conversation. Evidence is the result of interpreting data, and data is the result of making observations.

Secondly, you're shifting off of the topic of discussion. We're not talking about whether arguments are true or not, we're talking about how we validate our reasoning skills. There is no way to validate reasoning skills without making use of reasoning in our attempts to validate those skills. -- When you incorrectly use the words facts and evidence to assert that we support our reasoning skills with those things, you are making use of reasoning skills to get to that point. You are still using reasoning skills to support reasoning skills. It is still circular reasoning. It is still both fallacious and not fallacious according to you and RAMOSS. You both need to clear this paradox in order to argue rationally again...

No, I'm not... I'm just asserting basic philosophy and logic.

You do love building straw men, and making false claims, and misrepresenting what people say. That is dishonest. You are also are not supporting the claim you are asserting basic philosophy and logic. That is yet another unsupported claim.

gfm7175 · Oct 23, 2018

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

RAMOSS said:
The problem as I see it is that you are not explaining why you claim it is a paradox.. and you are not supporting your arguments.

I've explained your paradox very clearly and have supported why it is a paradox... I will gladly do so again. Your paradox is that you are simultaneously arguing the following contradiction:

1) Circular reasoning is ALWAYS fallacious.
2) Circular reasoning is NOT always fallacious.

You asserted #1 outright, and #2 you assert when you do not admit to reasoning fallaciously (according to #1) when you make use of your reasoning skills to validate your reasoning skills. --- You have tried to show me that you don't make use of reasoning skills to validate your reasoning skills, but in every attempt to do just that, you have made use of your reasoning skills. --- Using reasoning skills to validate reasoning skills is circular reasoning (concluding with the initial predicate). According to you, that is fallacious.

You need to clear your paradox, RAMOSS. You need to utterly reject #1 or #2... If you utterly reject #1, then you and I will agree with each other and you will be arguing rationally once again. If you utterly reject #2, then you need to find a way to NOT make use of your reasoning skills to validate your reasoning skills... good luck with that one

RAMOSS said:
You are also making leaps of logic, where your conclusion is not based on reasoning, but rather your preconceptions.

No leap of logic has been made by me. You argued that circular reasoning is always fallacious. I precisely showed you multiple ways in which it is not fallacious. In trying to respond to that, you argued yourself into the above-mentioned paradox and have yet to clear it.

RAMOSS said:
Funnny thing, that is the exact 'Argument of the Stone' that you accuse others of.

Wrong. Argument of the Stone is dismissing an assertion (usually as 'absurd') without providing any counterargument. It has nothing to do with 'leaps of logic', nor does it have anything to do with 'preconceptions'...

gfm7175 · Oct 23, 2018

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

RAMOSS said:
You do love building straw men,

Incorrect assertion of a logical fallacy. A strawman is when one substitutes a person's actual position/argument with a misrepresented version of that position (because it is easier to address). --- I have not done so. I have taken your assertions head on and destroyed them. You seem to dislike that.

RAMOSS said:
and making false claims,

This I dismiss on sight as the 'you're lying' mantra...

RAMOSS said:
and misrepresenting what people say.

You said this already...

RAMOSS said:
That is dishonest.

Another instance of the 'you're lying' mantra...

RAMOSS said:
You are also are not supporting the claim you are asserting basic philosophy and logic. That is yet another unsupported claim.

This is another mantra of yours that you use once you have nothing substantive to add to the discussion. It seems to be a way of saying "I don't like what you're saying, but I can't come up with a viable counterargument..."

RAMOSS · Oct 23, 2018

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

gfm7175 said:
I've explained your paradox very clearly and have supported why it is a paradox... I will gladly do so again. Your paradox is that you are simultaneously arguing the following contradiction:

1) Circular reasoning is ALWAYS fallacious.
2) Circular reasoning is NOT always fallacious.

You asserted #1 outright, and #2 you assert when you do not admit to reasoning fallaciously (according to #1) when you make use of your reasoning skills to validate your reasoning skills. --- You have tried to show me that you don't make use of reasoning skills to validate your reasoning skills, but in every attempt to do just that, you have made use of your reasoning skills. --- Using reasoning skills to validate reasoning skills is circular reasoning (concluding with the initial predicate). According to you, that is fallacious.

You need to clear your paradox, RAMOSS. You need to utterly reject #1 or #2... If you utterly reject #1, then you and I will agree with each other and you will be arguing rationally once again. If you utterly reject #2, then you need to find a way to NOT make use of your reasoning skills to validate your reasoning skills... good luck with that one

No leap of logic has been made by me. You argued that circular reasoning is always fallacious. I precisely showed you multiple ways in which it is not fallacious. In trying to respond to that, you argued yourself into the above-mentioned paradox and have yet to clear it.

Wrong. Argument of the Stone is dismissing an assertion (usually as 'absurd') without providing any counterargument. It has nothing to do with 'leaps of logic', nor does it have anything to do with 'preconceptions'...

Yet, you have not shown my reasoning is circular. Your false mischaractization of 'reliance on memory' is based on a straw man, and a distraction. That is dishonest.

You are also misusing the concept of a logical fallacy, which inidcats to me you do not understand what it is. It sort of ruins the idea that you understand philosophy or logic.

gfm7175 · Oct 23, 2018

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

RAMOSS said:
Yet, you have not shown my reasoning is circular.

Yes, I have. You make use of reasoning skills in order to validate your reasoning skills. THAT is circular reasoning. --- One is concluding with their initial predicate when they do that. One is arguing (my reasoning skills are validated, therefore my reasoning skills are validated).

In other words, one has to assume that their reasoning skills are validated in order to use their reasoning skills to argue that their reasoning skills are validated. -- Is that not circular reasoning? If not, why not? If so, then your paradox still haunts you...

RAMOSS said:
Your false mischaractization of 'reliance on memory' is based on a straw man, and a distraction. That is dishonest.

One uses their memory to validate their memory. I remember making a comment to one of my female classmates in 1st grade about her skinniness. I got in trouble with my 1st grade teacher for doing that. --- Now, how can I validate that? I have to rely on my memory; thus, memory validating memory. -- You would say, well, the female classmate and/or the 1st grade teacher could validate that... Sure, but remember that they are also using their memories to validate their memories. It all comes back down to memory validating memory. That is circular reasoning. That is concluding with the initial predicate. That is arguing (my memory is reliable, therefore my memory is reliable). I KNOW that the before-mentioned memory is true; I experienced it back in 1st grade. Yet, the only way that I can validate that memory is by using my memory.

RAMOSS said:
You are also misusing the concept of a logical fallacy, which inidcats to me you do not understand what it is. It sort of ruins the idea that you understand philosophy or logic.

Not at all. I understand quite well what a logical fallacy is. A logical fallacy is making an error of logic. It is making a logic error, similar to how one makes a mathematical error.

If that is "misusing the concept of a logical fallacy", then YOU tell ME what a logical fallacy is... I've just, once again, clearly defined the term for you. I understand full well what a logical fallacy is...

In all honesty, this seems to be an Inversion Fallacy on your part. It is YOU who doesn't understand what logical fallacies are...

Tim the plumber · Oct 23, 2018

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

gfm7175 said:
Then you admit that circular reasoning is not always fallacious? It seems like you are now irrationally joining in with RAMOSS's paradox.

Your ability to state the exact opposite of my point is utterly disengenous.

CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS DON'T WORK because they lack any outside support!

That his debating skills are decent, as opposed to yours, are shown by his ability to bring in supporting evidence.

RAMOSS · Oct 23, 2018

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

gfm7175 said:
Yes, I have. You make use of reasoning skills in order to validate your reasoning skills. THAT is circular reasoning. --- One is concluding with their initial predicate when they do that. One is arguing (my reasoning skills are validated, therefore my reasoning skills are validated).

In other words, one has to assume that their reasoning skills are validated in order to use their reasoning skills to argue that their reasoning skills are validated. -- Is that not circular reasoning? If not, why not? If so, then your paradox still haunts you...

One uses their memory to validate their memory. I remember making a comment to one of my female classmates in 1st grade about her skinniness. I got in trouble with my 1st grade teacher for doing that. --- Now, how can I validate that? I have to rely on my memory; thus, memory validating memory. -- You would say, well, the female classmate and/or the 1st grade teacher could validate that... Sure, but remember that they are also using their memories to validate their memories. It all comes back down to memory validating memory. That is circular reasoning. That is concluding with the initial predicate. That is arguing (my memory is reliable, therefore my memory is reliable). I KNOW that the before-mentioned memory is true; I experienced it back in 1st grade. Yet, the only way that I can validate that memory is by using my memory.

Not at all. I understand quite well what a logical fallacy is. A logical fallacy is making an error of logic. It is making a logic error, similar to how one makes a mathematical error.

If that is "misusing the concept of a logical fallacy", then YOU tell ME what a logical fallacy is... I've just, once again, clearly defined the term for you. I understand full well what a logical fallacy is...

In all honesty, this seems to be an Inversion Fallacy on your part. It is YOU who doesn't understand what logical fallacies are...

Well. you have just proven you do not know what a logical fallacy is. A logical fallacy is an invalid argument. now, since I was not using the validity of my memories as an argument, your attempting to bring it into the subject matter makes it a straw man. None of my arguments have anything to do with the validity of my memory. That resolves your claims for a 'paradox',.. but bring into the logical fallacy of 'red herring'.

All else flows from that fact you are misusing terms.

gfm7175 · Oct 23, 2018

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Tim the plumber said:
Your ability to state the exact opposite of my point is utterly disengenous.

CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS DON'T WORK because they lack any outside support!

That his debating skills are decent, as opposed to yours, are shown by his ability to bring in supporting evidence.

What do you mean by "don't work"? My argument is that circular reasoning is logically valid because the conclusion follows from the predicate(s). The axioms of logic are being followed. The actual truth of the claim is irrelevant here. Another word for circular reasoning is faith. Circular reasoning, in other words, is "having faith in something".