Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
We are always making general claims then, for we cannot observe every single apple falling down from every single tree.
|
Yes, but those general claims are not observational claims. They can only be inferred on the basis of what is directly observed. |
That's fair enough. Then he made a general claim, similar to the general claim that apples always fall down, not up, from trees due to gravity.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Maybe there were actual observations behind his claims about conscience. But if so then we simply do not know what they were, because he didn't share them. They claims he actually shared were not observational claims.
|
He shared his observations Spacemonkey. I don't get you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
His arguments require the truth of the presuppositions I listed for you. It is of course possible that they were not presuppositions for him. He might have made actual observations which he did not share and which would have supported these presuppositions. But because he never shared these observations, the requirements I listed remain presuppositions with respect to what he presented in his book - simply because his arguments require them to be true, yet he gave no reasons for thinking that they are true.
|
You don't know what you're talking about. He made astute observations and presented them in the book. His premises were correct (because his proof was correct), therefore the rest of his extension follows perfectly.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
So you can continue whining about how he never personally presupposed anything all you like. It makes no difference. They still remain presuppositions with respect to the material that he actually shared with us. That means no-one has any reason to agree with his claims until you can find some way to support those things which are presupposed by what he actually wrote.
|
I can see that you didn't respond to my refutation that blameworthiness is not necessary to feel guilt. I'm really not interested in your argumentation since you will only get more entrenched in your faulty reasoning and then claim victory. Finally, there are no presuppositions that need supporting, so that leaves us with nothing more to say.