A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Scwartz was wrong.

Wrong about what? He wrote about what constitutes a modal fallacy...how can that be wrong when it is just an explanation and description?

Do you still think that stating things are wrong and leaving it at that isn't an assertion? You hate being told you are making assertions but you keep doing it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All LadyShea does is copy and paste.

I laid out my own argument several times and, just as here, you acted like a child "IS NOT!!!" as if that is any kind of explanation. This time I posted davidm's original argument. And once again all you can do is respond with assertions.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So is Lessans' description well laid out. The only difference is that Lessans' description is right. You accept the argument as right, no doubt about it LadyShea. I hate talking to you; it's gotten that out of control due to your false assumptions, your siding with people who are already well-known, and your lack of capacity to even understand why he is so on key when he says that "this discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks no opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the
possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long
tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he
qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity." You have no idea how important these words are, and I'm not invested in getting you to understand. The only thing I'm upset about is how you are influencing so many people to ridicule Lessans when it is YOU who is completely in the dark. This is why I will not go on any further in this thread as soon as I get my proof. It's a total sham.

When you can prove the element of necessity then you can validly refute the charge of modal fallacy. Until then you're just making unsupported assertions.

[LadyShea]

Here are previous discussions with my own explanations and examples...and more of your assertions and denials without any support.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, you never demonstrated or showed that you even understand the difference between actual truths and necessary truths, so you certainly never showed that Lessans did not commit the modal fallacy

[Vivisectus]

Just like Lessans could simply observe conscience directly without having to do any tedious measuring or weighing evidence, so can Peacegirl look at something and just know it is right. It does not matter that there is no support, and that there is no other reason to believe it is right except for Peacegirls feeling that it is right. There is right and there is wrong, and Peacegirl can just tell which one is which.

Using this method, she knows that that quack merchant is sincere: just by reading a few of his articles and seeing if it makes her feel as if he is sincere. It also supplies her with he certainty dogs cannot recognize faces, and the certainty that one day some amazing discovery is going to surface which will explain why we shoot spacecraft at celestial bodies where we do not see them, and still end up hitting them exactly right.

The rest of us will just have to believe it. This is called "the benefit of the doubt" when anything Lessans said is concerned: it means that you assume he is 100% correct, and believe that some sort of evidence will one day emerge to back this up. Until that day, you should simply treat everything he said as if this evidence has already emerged. To do anything less is to not give him a chance. It probably means you are biased, or that you have some sort of complex.

That is why a description in the book is just as good as proof. If it is Peacegirls father saying it, it does not need any more support: it is spot on. Peacegirl can just sense the rightness of it, so it does not need any more explanation, evidence or support.

This, in Lssanese, is Science. It is also Mathematical and Undeniable.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Wrong about what? He wrote about what constitutes a modal fallacy...how can that be wrong when it is just an explanation and description?

Do you still think that stating things are wrong and leaving it at that isn't an assertion? You hate being told you are making assertions but you keep doing it.

I laid out my own argument several times and, just as here, you acted like a child "IS NOT!!!" as if that is any kind of explanation. This time I posted davidm's original argument. And once again all you can do is respond with assertions.

David's argument fails. The observation of greater satisfaction is not an assertion LadyShea, no more an assertion than any mathematical truth. Your response to me is to quote Schwartz. He doesn't hold the absolute truth in hand at all. But you think he does and you use his reasoning as if it's fact. You're a hypocrite.

[LadyShea]

The observation of greater satisfaction is not an assertion LadyShea, no more an assertion than any mathematical truth.

How did he observe a compulsion?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Here are previous discussions with my own explanations and examples...and more of your assertions and denials without any support.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, you never demonstrated or showed that you even understand the difference between actual truths and necessary truths, so you certainly never showed that Lessans did not commit the modal fallacy

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Does Lessans argument state that decisions are made necessarily (which is implied by the word compelled), meaning there is only one option that can possibly be chosen? If so, then he committed the modal fallacy because as you've since stated and even argued for, other choices could have possibly been made.

If there are multiple possible outcomes, then the final outcome is only actual, not necessary

I could have chosen to wear a red shirt, a blue shirt, or a green shirt
I chose to wear a red shirt

If it was actual, it was necessary. You could have chosen to wear any color shirt, but after contemplating the pros and cons you chose to wear the red shirt which becomes an actual, necessary choice. After comparing all the shirts you liked the red shirt better because it blended better with your outfit, which compelled you to prefer the red shirt over all the others. This would have made any other choice an impossibility at that moment because they were less satisfying in comparison. You may decide, at the very last minute, to wear the blue shirt because it matches what the other people are wearing and you don't want to stand out, therefore you change your choice to blue as the preferable alternative. No one can predict what choice you will make with complete accuracy because we don't have the foreknowledge to know what will give you greater satisfaction, not even you yourself up until the choice is made. It only becomes an actual and necessary choice after the fact, which is based upon the considerations you are taking into account.

The letters A and
B, representing small or large differences are compared. The
comparison is absolutely necessary to know which is preferable.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That I wore the red shirt does not mean I couldn't possibly have worn the blue or the green shirt.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That I wore a red shirt is an actual truth. There is no element of necessity, however, so it is not a necessary truth.

Of course there is an element of necessity when there are meaningful differences between A and B. The example you gave is misleading because, to the person choosing, it might not make a difference what color shirt is worn, which would be like choosing between a red apple and a red apple. But try comparing the choice of killing someone (choice A), and not killing this person (B), when you have no reason to. Show me where there is no element of necessity to choose A.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Here are some excellent posts made by Kael on this topic, peacegirl

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

There are factors that could have come into play, but they did not come into play, therefore your choice based on the factors that were present could not have been otherwise. If the outcome of your choice had unexpected consequences, you may gather more facts to try to make a more informed choice the next time a similar situation presents itself, but this has no bearing on the fact that, given the circumstances and knowledge you had at that time, it was the best possible option at that moment in time rendering any other choice at that moment an impossibility.

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once a choice is made, it could not have been otherwise since, at that moment, it gave greater satisfaction.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is an assertion. You cannot back that up with science or logic, you don't even know what Lessans actually observed to come up with that conclusion, so what is it based on? Without a basis, it is baseless.

This is an extremely important observation which has nothing to do with any assertion. You are incapable of following his observations and therefore you want to reduce it to a mere assertion so you can reject his foundational premises, which then free you from having to give him any credit.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that doesn't mean that we must make a particular choice, before we've actually made it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If there are one or more possible choices that could be made, then the choice that is ultimately made can only be actual, it cannot be said to have been necessary.

You are very confused here. Multiple choices do not mean that the ultimate choice that is made is free.

Originally Posted by Kael

Because Lessans' "discovery" hinges on whether actual truths are also necessary truths. He states that we must do what we did, because we did it.

An actual truth is a necessary truth. You can't separate them.

But why is the question? Yes, it's true that we had to do it once it was done, but that doesn't mean we had to do it before it was done. Do you see the difference?

All things being equal, it does mean we had to do it before it was done if it was the preferred option to do under the circumstances.

Originally Posted by Kael

This is either ultimately incorrect, hence we keep returning to modal fallacies and tautologies which demonstrate why it is incorrect, or is very sloppy use of language and reason.

It is neither a modal fallacy, nor a tautology.

[ceptimus]

We should purchase one of these astutoscopes each.



Then we'll all be able to make our own astute observations - just like Lessans!

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why do you keep saying goodbye to people who aren't leaving?

Nobody Home - YouTube

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How did he observe a compulsion?

Apparently he couldn't stop himself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How did he observe a compulsion?

You can't observe a compulsion LadyShea, but you can observe human behavior and make an accurate inference. There is conclusive evidence that he is correct based on his observations.

in·fer·ence/ˈinf(ə)rəns/

Noun

1.A conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
2.The process of reaching such a conclusion.Eg: "order, health, and by inference cleanliness".

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You couldn't be more wrong than the man in the moon.

Exactly how wrong is the man in the moon and what exactly is it that he is wrong about? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Vivisectus]

There is conclusive evidence that he is correct based on his observations

That is a direct lie. If it is not, produce the evidence.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Exactly how wrong is the man in the moon and what exactly is it that he is wrong about? Inquiring minds want to know.

I want to know 'what is his name'?, and 'what are his hobbies'? Does it have anything to do with 'Moonshine'?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't observe a compulsion LadyShea, but you can observe human behavior and make an accurate inference. There is conclusive evidence that he is correct based on his observations.

in·fer·ence/ˈinf(ə)rəns/

Noun

1.A conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
2.The process of reaching such a conclusion.Eg: "order, health, and by inference cleanliness".

You cannot validly infer necessity from observing an actuality. You cannot validly infer compulsion from observing an action or behavior. To do so is to commit a modal fallacy.

If it was actual, it was necessary. You could have chosen to wear any color shirt, but after contemplating the pros and cons you chose to wear the red shirt which becomes an actual, necessary choice.

No, not necessary. You are pulling necessary out of thin air.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

We should purchase one of these astutoscopes each.



Then we'll all be able to make our own astute observations - just like Lessans!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are very confused here. Multiple choices do not mean that the ultimate choice that is made is free.

Who said anything about free?

You were born on a specific date. It is an actual truth. It is not a necessary truth because it wasn't necessary that you be born on that date, nor necessary that you be born at all.

You are confused as to the logically valid and legitimate use of the word necessary.

As Kael pointed out long ago

Originally Posted by Kael

Whether a truth is necessary does not change before or after the event. If it was not a necessary truth before the event it cannot be a necessary truth after the event. Possible and actual truths are the only ones that change before and after an event.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When you can prove the element of necessity then you can validly refute the charge of modal fallacy. Until then you're just making unsupported assertions.

Lessans has. It is not a modal fallacy whatsoever. There is a definite element of necessity because all choices are not equal. That's what free choice means LadyShea. It means you can choose one thing just as easily as another. As long as there are meaningful differences to consider (which is the reason we contemplate), our choice [by necessity] has to go in the direction of greater satisfaction, not lesser satisfaction. This is the direction that all of life is compelled to take when moving from point A to point B. I don't want to defend his position anymore, so let's just stop, okay?

p. 49 The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences
otherwise there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and
A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very
misleading for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but
in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving
towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences
what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two
or more alternatives are presented for his consideration he is
compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers
worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more
satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved.

Choosing,
or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s nature,
but to reiterate this important point...he is compelled to prefer of
alternatives that which he considers better for himself and though he
chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never
given any choice at all. Although the definition of free will states that
man can choose good or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is
it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a
tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the most preferable
alternative each and every moment of time?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Unless you can prove that, with some kind of hard scientific evidence, it is fallacious reasoning because you are "illicitly assigning neccessity to a contingent outcome"


Please note that the explanation was davidm's, and I agree with his assessment after studying the fallacy. I quoted his original argument because it was well laid out. I do not claim the argument as my own.

There is no fallacy and there is no illicit assigning of anything. Your logic is all screwy. The outcome is 100% contingent on one's experiences, background, heredity and present factors. None of these things change the necessity of one's choice in the direction of greater satisfaction. It only confirms it. I'm asking you to please not post anymore in response. You will continue to say it's an assertion even when proof is staring you in the face. I am tired of trying to prove to you why he is absolutely correct in his observations.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Cynthia of Syracuse

What's the Harm?

Thanks for this link. I'll read it over. I am not endorsing quack therapies Cynthia, but allopathic medicine has it's own brand of half-baked information which is done to deceive. Neither side is completely victimless, but there's a greater danger from taking drugs that are known to be risky but have not yet been taken off the market due to the FDAs reluctance ($$$). There's no question that there is often a conflict of interest between the drug companies and the institutions which fund the research. This has become a serious problem in our society, and they are allowed to kill people with impunity.

added to post:

I went to the website you posted and they listed people who have hurt by alternative therapies. The doctors who were responsible for hurting their patients were just as much at fault as any allopathic doctor would be, but the number of people hurt are miniscule next to what the pharmaceutical industry has done. It's interesting how out of proportion a defense can become, all in the effort to support one's position.

Physician and hospital errors are major contributors to the problem, she said. An earlier report by the Institute of Medicine concluded that there were 100,000 deaths each year in the United States from drug side effects, and a "huge number of hospitalizations," Dr. Woodcock said.

Drug Safety System Is Broken, a Top F.D.A. Official Says - New York Times

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2005/...DA%20in%202005

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your logic is all screwy.

Well no-one can ever accuse Peacegirl or Lessans of having screwy logic, there isn't any logic in the book at all, just a bunch of mostly unrelated concepts strung together with the claim that they prove something. Most of the way through the book I was shaking my head, wondering how he got one idea from the previous idea, there was just no connedtion.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't want to defend his position anymore, so let's just stop, okay?
I am tired of trying to prove to you why he is absolutely correct in his observations.

LOL, you keep saying you want to talk about his first discovery and not eyesight, but then you don't want to defend the very first premise!

Why are you posting at all?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You cannot validly infer necessity from observing an actuality. You cannot validly infer compulsion from observing an action or behavior. To do so is to commit a modal fallacy.

He drew his conclusions based on thousands of accounts of human behavior. From these observations he concluded that choice is not only an actuality, but a necessity, because compulsion is what drives our choices in the direction of greater satisfaction. This is in keeping with the definition of determinism, and is 100% correct. He committed no modal fallacy.

If it was actual, it was necessary. You could have chosen to wear any color shirt, but after contemplating the pros and cons you chose to wear the red shirt which becomes an actual, necessary choice.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, not necessary. You are pulling necessary out of thin air.

You're not listening.

[peacegirl]

I'm not going to answer anymore posts regarding Lessans' discoveries, but I may post some links here from time to time if I think the topic may be of interest.

BRCA testing: Are the medical options sensible? | drcate.com

[But]

peacegirl, what was your dad's best shot? REALLY.