This is a roundup of the discussion with PuritanReformed and his bulldog.
The PuritanReformed guy had just written a post to distort and lie about the discussion we had. If you want the exact words used in this debate, read the original comments at my blog. I had saved every word he wrote on his blog.
PuritanReformed claims,
"If p refers to the ability of language to communicate perfectly, and q refers to the actual empirical fact of language being largely able to communicate truth perfectly, then the propositions "If p, then q" is most definitely true."
Considering one who claims to know basic logic, it is embarrassing to even expose such a self-deluded fellow such as he.
“If P, then Q” is sound only if the premises are true. Know the difference between “valid” and “sound?” An argument may be valid, BUT UNSOUND.
Let’s examine the premises.
PR claims, “If p refers to the ability of language to communicate perfectly,” then it follows that q = “the actual empirical fact of language being largely able to communicate truth perfectly.”
Q is a bare assertion; and if P then Q is a non-sequitur.
Since when do we observe that language is “largely able to communicate truth perfectly?” Where is that “empirical” or scientific proof or evidence? PR must be sitting in his room totally unaware of what is going on in linguistics, philosophy or even real life. P is overtly false.
Notice he used the term, “true” in his own words, "If p, then q" is most definitely true.” Syllogistic reasoning can only be valid/invalid and/or sound/unsound. He doesn’t even know this basic fact.
His claim that we commit the mistake of "If ~p, therefore ~q" or also known as denying the antecedent is therefore a straw man. His conditional, "If P then Q," is not even sound in the first place, and he doesn't even know that.
We insist therefore, "~q, therefore ~p," which is definitely valid.
But there's more!
His reasoning is actually fatally flawed, and he has no clue why. Let me explain.
Not only “if P then Q” is unsound, it is also circular when we consider the primary premises P and Q.
PuritanReformed claims, “If p refers to the ability of language to communicate perfectly,” then it follows that q = “the actual empirical fact of language being largely able to communicate truth perfectly.”
But Q (the consequent) already assumes as a matter of fact that language is “largely able to communicate truth perfectly,” which is exactly what we are investigating (i.e. the ability of language to communicate perfectly), thereby begging the question and making his conditional statement circular in reasoning. “Largely able to” refers to “ability to,” and this is rephrased as "ability of" and inserted into P as the antecedent.
How circular in his thinking can one gets?
Further Points of Note
1) PR asked the question, “Question: In your opinion, is there ONE meaning for any particular sentence made by anyone?”
He then concluded, “Antithesis totally misunderstand the question that I was asking, which was about a particular statement; a single statement, NOT two similar statements used in two different contexts.”
See how he twists the original question into another one – the fallacy of redefinition? (which only serves to emphasize the ambiguity of language)
He asked if there is only ONE meaning to a particular sentence.
I gave him one sentence – which is made up of only one word, “Great!” – and put that sentence in two different context.
Instead of honestly saying that the two sentences were the SAME – with EXACTLY the SAME word – he used the word “similar.” Now “same” and “similar” are used very differently in theology and philosophy.
You may have similar eyes to your dad’s, but they are not the same as your dad’s eyes.
Secondly, I didn’t misunderstand his silly reasoning. The example I gave is as follows:
My example must be understood in the context of PR’s previous statement. PuritanReformed said,
Since he made the fatuous statement that words have “official meaning[s],” I did a reductio ad absurdum on him:
I asked, “Ah, for the word “Church,” what is the “official” meaning? Most dictionaries would furnish more than 10 different meanings. So which is “official?’”
2) So in the context of our previous discussion on the “official” meaning of words – which PR had no reply thus far – I gave him the example of two sentences having exactly the same word used in two different contexts.
I had asked him the “official” meaning of the word “Church.”
PR said, “So? The meaning of a word as used in CONTEXT is only one, not the meaning of a word divorced from any context.”
I replied,
PR doesn’t seem to realize that, besides committing logical fallacies, he doesn’t even understand what these fallacies are all about. It is evident that he has no clue because he doesn’t address them AT ALL in his subsequent replies.
a) Firstly, PR claims that there is an official meaning for every word in language (see his words above), but is unable to give me THE OFFICIAL meaning for the word “Church.”
b) Secondly, he claims that context – which is likewise made up of words in the form of subject/predicate/complex predicate – decides what “official” meaning to use. But isn’t this infinite regress? So which “official” meaning of the context (which is made up of words) should we use to interpret the “official” meaning of the word “church?”
c) Thirdly, he begs the question when he wrote, “If individuals do not use the words with their official meaning(s), then that sentence made would be unable to express truth perfectly because that person misuses words.”
He claims that there is an official meaning for every word used.
But which “official meaning” of the word “official” should we use when we define his terminology of “official meaning of a word?” Obviously, he takes “the official meaning” to be numerous meanings, depending upon the context in which the word appears. So, is the "official meaning" of a word ALL the dictionary/lexical definitions for a particular word? And yet PR insists that language communicates truths perfectly and is unambiguous.
This just reinforced my point that language is ambiguous at times, which PR vehemently denied. I am not denying that language does communicate truths; it just doesn't do so perfectly at times. That is why we have so many different interpretations of Scripture.
3) PR claimed, “This failure to distinguish between sentences/phrases and propositions is a very fundamental error in logical argumentation — one which is covered in basic logic class within the first few weeks, and therefore it should not be made by those who have studied logic in any degree whatsoever.”
Going back to my example of the two sentences with exactly the SAME word.
PR just proved my point. Two SAME sentence with EXACTLY the SAME words, but conveying two different PROPOSITIONS.
PR seems to understand this when he wrote:
SAME word in two SAME sentences, two different propositions expressed by the SAME word. What more do we need?
He has just (fatuously) proved my point that language cannot convey meaning perfectly, and is sometimes open to misinterpretation and ambiguity. But he STILL denies that language is ambiguous.
4) PR also claimed (to save his dignity?) that I had missed his reductio ad absurdum. But he didn’t seem to get that I was using a reductio on his reductio, a play on rhetoric.
5) We talked about textual criticism where I showed him that he didn’t have the words of the original autographs. He put on an air of knowledge concerning “critical texts,” but to our amazement, he doesn’t even KNOW what is a “critical text!”
6) Lastly, in my previous post, I asked him numerous questions which he cannot answer. He thinks that simple ad hominem and ignoratio elenchi can redirect the argument somewhere. I said:
Puritanreformed, at least practice basic integrity and try to REMEMBER what you had written? Fortunately, I saved all your comments, so there is no way you can run from what you had written.
1) PR asked the question, “Question: In your opinion, is there ONE meaning for any particular sentence made by anyone?”
He then concluded, “Antithesis totally misunderstand the question that I was asking, which was about a particular statement; a single statement, NOT two similar statements used in two different contexts.”
See how he twists the original question into another one – the fallacy of redefinition? (which only serves to emphasize the ambiguity of language)
He asked if there is only ONE meaning to a particular sentence.
I gave him one sentence – which is made up of only one word, “Great!” – and put that sentence in two different context.
Instead of honestly saying that the two sentences were the SAME – with EXACTLY the SAME word – he used the word “similar.” Now “same” and “similar” are used very differently in theology and philosophy.
You may have similar eyes to your dad’s, but they are not the same as your dad’s eyes.
Secondly, I didn’t misunderstand his silly reasoning. The example I gave is as follows:
Let’s consider the sentence, “Great!” in different contexts.
A boy got his exam results, and it is an A. He said, “Great!”
A boy got his trousers torn by his school bullies. He said, “Great!”
Do those two sentences - “Great!” - mean the same thing? But according to you, they both mean the same thing. One meaning, right?
My example must be understood in the context of PR’s previous statement. PuritanReformed said,
“Language is used by individuals. If individuals do not use the words with their official meaning(s), then that sentence made would be unable to express truth perfectly because that person misuses words. That is all I mean by that.”
Since he made the fatuous statement that words have “official meaning[s],” I did a reductio ad absurdum on him:
I asked, “Ah, for the word “Church,” what is the “official” meaning? Most dictionaries would furnish more than 10 different meanings. So which is “official?’”
2) So in the context of our previous discussion on the “official” meaning of words – which PR had no reply thus far – I gave him the example of two sentences having exactly the same word used in two different contexts.
I had asked him the “official” meaning of the word “Church.”
PR said, “So? The meaning of a word as used in CONTEXT is only one, not the meaning of a word divorced from any context.”
I replied,
“But you haven’t answered my question. You claim that there is an OFFICIAL meaning for every word. Which is it for the word “church?”
Furthermore, even if you claim that context helps to interpret the meaning of each word, CONTEXT NEEDS INTERPRETATION AS WELL. So how do you interpret the context IN WHICH A PARTICULAR WORD APPEARS? Remember that “context” in language is ALSO MADE UP OF WORDS.
So which is the “official” meaning of a particular context? Infinite regress here?”
PR doesn’t seem to realize that, besides committing logical fallacies, he doesn’t even understand what these fallacies are all about. It is evident that he has no clue because he doesn’t address them AT ALL in his subsequent replies.
a) Firstly, PR claims that there is an official meaning for every word in language (see his words above), but is unable to give me THE OFFICIAL meaning for the word “Church.”
b) Secondly, he claims that context – which is likewise made up of words in the form of subject/predicate/complex predicate – decides what “official” meaning to use. But isn’t this infinite regress? So which “official” meaning of the context (which is made up of words) should we use to interpret the “official” meaning of the word “church?”
c) Thirdly, he begs the question when he wrote, “If individuals do not use the words with their official meaning(s), then that sentence made would be unable to express truth perfectly because that person misuses words.”
He claims that there is an official meaning for every word used.
But which “official meaning” of the word “official” should we use when we define his terminology of “official meaning of a word?” Obviously, he takes “the official meaning” to be numerous meanings, depending upon the context in which the word appears. So, is the "official meaning" of a word ALL the dictionary/lexical definitions for a particular word? And yet PR insists that language communicates truths perfectly and is unambiguous.
This just reinforced my point that language is ambiguous at times, which PR vehemently denied. I am not denying that language does communicate truths; it just doesn't do so perfectly at times. That is why we have so many different interpretations of Scripture.
3) PR claimed, “This failure to distinguish between sentences/phrases and propositions is a very fundamental error in logical argumentation — one which is covered in basic logic class within the first few weeks, and therefore it should not be made by those who have studied logic in any degree whatsoever.”
Going back to my example of the two sentences with exactly the SAME word.
Let’s consider the sentence, “Great!” in two different contexts.
A boy got his exam results, and it is an A. He said, “Great!”
A boy got his trousers torn by his school bullies. He said, “Great!”
PR just proved my point. Two SAME sentence with EXACTLY the SAME words, but conveying two different PROPOSITIONS.
PR seems to understand this when he wrote:
1st boy: Great = I am happy to have accomplish this feat (of scoring an A)
2nd boy: Great = A terrible thing has happened to me (trousers torn by school bullies) (and I am being sarcastic about it)
SAME word in two SAME sentences, two different propositions expressed by the SAME word. What more do we need?
He has just (fatuously) proved my point that language cannot convey meaning perfectly, and is sometimes open to misinterpretation and ambiguity. But he STILL denies that language is ambiguous.
4) PR also claimed (to save his dignity?) that I had missed his reductio ad absurdum. But he didn’t seem to get that I was using a reductio on his reductio, a play on rhetoric.
5) We talked about textual criticism where I showed him that he didn’t have the words of the original autographs. He put on an air of knowledge concerning “critical texts,” but to our amazement, he doesn’t even KNOW what is a “critical text!”
6) Lastly, in my previous post, I asked him numerous questions which he cannot answer. He thinks that simple ad hominem and ignoratio elenchi can redirect the argument somewhere. I said:
You – PuritanReformed – claimed that language communicates the propositions of Scripture perfectly, but try and think a little. It's really not too difficult.
You don't even know which are the original words of "Scripture" as found in the autographs. So what you have is at best bits and pieces of the original Scripture.
What “perfect” propositions are you talking about? You don’t even have the original words of the “Bible.”
The language which you claim is able to communicate truths “perfectly” is indeed communicating whatever you claim is “perfect” from these eclectic texts which are not the original words of Scripture.
Geddit?
Finally, as I have asked you before and I’ll ask you again, why are there so many different interpretations of the same Scripture by regenerate men if language communicates truths so very perfectly?
Puritanreformed, at least practice basic integrity and try to REMEMBER what you had written? Fortunately, I saved all your comments, so there is no way you can run from what you had written.
No comments:
Post a Comment