[quote]pat wrote:
It’s a logical contradiction. There is no way around that, period. It may be true statement, but it is not logical.
[/quote]
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
To drive the point home, consider this:
Is it true, or is it false, that the man who was does not own a car does not own a Lexus? The proposition has a subject, a predicate, and a truth value. What is that truth value? Is it true, or is it false?
I am asking you this question and I expect a response. I responded to your question, now respond to this. And yes, it is ludicrously intellectually dishonest of you to refuse to answer this very simple question. I hope you see that if you stamp your feet and plug your ears, you lose this whole endeavor completely and spectacularly.
So, what is the answer?[/quote]
I finally found the fallacy that this is. It’s called Internal Contradiction Fallacy. I knew the damn thing had a name. You are countering with a fallacious contradictory statement. You cannot assess it’s truth or falsehood since it is fallacious to start with. Hence, you counter claim is false.
[/quote]
Internal contradiction is when 2 parts of a premise cannot both be true at the same time. What are those 2 parts in this case?
If A
If B
Then… you can never get here since A and B can’t both be true.[/quote]
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#contradiction
From the link:
"Internal Contradiction:
saying two contradictory things in the same argument. For example, claiming that Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur with hoaxed feathers, and also saying in the same book that it is a “true bird”. Or another author who said on page 59, “Sir Arthur Conan Doyle writes in his autobiography that he never saw a ghost.” But on page 200 we find “Sir Arthur’s first encounter with a ghost came when he was 25, surgeon of a whaling ship in the Arctic…”
This is much like saying “I never borrowed his car, and it already had that dent when I got it.”
This is related to Inconsistency."
[/quote]
You need a basic lesson in logic since your skills seem to be deteriorating as this thread goes on. As you can see using truth tables your example is not equivalent so its not a internal contradiction.
P = I never borrowed car
Q = car had dent when I got it
P & Q = False
P & ~Q = False
~P & Q = False
~P & ~Q = False
P = does not own a car
Q = does not own a Lexus
P & Q = True
P & ~Q = False
~P & Q = False
~P & ~Q = False
[/quote]
So where, exactly are you lost? Fallacious statements can be true and fallacious all the same time. Someone who doesn’t own a car doesn’t have a kind of car is true, but it’s logical garbage.
The proposition not being logically valid has no bearing on its ‘truth’. it may be true, but it has no meaning. Logically valid proposition can be false and be logically valid.
There are two requirements:
-The statement must be true
-The statement must be logically valid.
Both must be present, not one or the other. A logically invalid true statement is worthless. Like I said, this kind of tripe was debunked by Aristotle. So it was dealt with 2 millenia ago. Here we are 2000 years later and people don’t get it still.
[EDIT] I here by retract and say that the statement is false and cannot be true. While it is true statements can be logically valid and false and logically invalid and true, that is not the case in this example. To determine the kind of car a man does not own is false. Because he does not own one, you cannot determine the kind. Therefore the statement is false.
P = does not own a car
Q = does not own a Lexus
P & Q = False
P & ~Q = True
~P & Q = True (if he owns a different kind of car)
~P & ~Q = False ( he cannot both own and not own a lexus.
[quote]pat wrote:
Fallacious statements can be true and fallacious all the same time. [/quote]
Internally contradictive propositions cannot be true. Stop arguing what isn’t so.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#contradiction
"saying two contradictory things in the same argument. For example, claiming that Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur with hoaxed feathers, and also saying in the same book that it is a “true bird”. Or another author who said on page 59, “Sir Arthur Conan Doyle writes in his autobiography that he never saw a ghost.” But on page 200 we find “Sir Arthur’s first encounter with a ghost came when he was 25, surgeon of a whaling ship in the Arctic…”
This is much like saying “I never borrowed his car, and it already had that dent when I got it.”
This is related to Inconsistency. "
Pat, I’m not sure if you interpreted the Internal Contradiction fallacy correctly.
It would have to read “the man does not own a car, he owns a Lexus” would be a contradiction. [/quote]
It’s a contradiction either way. He doesn’t own a car, you cannot logically discern which kind of car he does not own. Trying to specify which kind of car a person who does not own a car does not have is a contradiction.
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s called Internal Contradiction Fallacy
[/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
[u]Someone who doesn’t own a car doesn’t have a kind of car is true[/u] [/quote]
Case closed. This is you, defeating yourself. Well done.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Fallacious statements can be true and fallacious all the same time. [/quote]
Internally contradictive propositions cannot be true. Stop arguing from ignorance.[/quote]
Yes, they can. They are invalid. You cannot discuss the brand of car someone does not own who does not own a car. That’s a contradiction. He doesn’t own a car, so it’s invalid to discuss what kind of car they don’t own. That’s a contradiction because the latter presupposes someone owns a car while the subject clearly states he does not.
Now if you want to say that your statement is therefore not true, I am fine with that.
It’s you who doesn’t understand logical propositions. Fallacious statements can be true, but logically invalid. Logically valid statements can be false and logically valid. This is philosophy 101 stuff.
If you presented that shit in class, you would get an F.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s called Internal Contradiction Fallacy
[/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
[u]Someone who doesn’t own a car doesn’t have a kind of car is true[/u] [/quote]
Case closed. This is you, defeating yourself. Well done.[/quote]
You have to take my words out of context? That’s sad.
You beat yourself long ago. You rode that fallacy to the bitter end. That’s impressive.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Fallacious statements can be true and fallacious all the same time. [/quote]
Internally contradictive propositions cannot be true. Stop arguing from ignorance.[/quote]
Yes, they can. They are invalid. You cannot discuss the brand of car someone does not own who does not own a car. That’s a contradiction. He doesn’t own a car, so it’s invalid to discuss what kind of car they don’t own. That’s a contradiction because the latter presupposes someone owns a car while the subject clearly states he does not.
Now if you want to say that your statement is therefore not true, I am fine with that.
It’s you who doesn’t understand logical propositions. Fallacious statements can be true, but logically invalid. Logically valid statements can be false and logically valid. This is philosophy 101 stuff.
If you presented that shit in class, you would get an F.
[/quote]
I cited my claim. I’ve got a hundred thousand more citations if you want. You’re saying they’re wrong? You’re saying that an internally contradictive statement can be true? This is a yes or no question. Is that what you’re saying?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s called Internal Contradiction Fallacy
[/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
[u]Someone who doesn’t own a car doesn’t have a kind of car is true[/u] [/quote]
Case closed. This is you, defeating yourself. Well done.[/quote]
You beat yourself long ago. You rode that fallacy to the bitter end. That’s impressive.[/quote]
So I link to a resource of authority which proves you wrong, and you counter with literally nothing? Not that I’ve come to expect more over the course of this debate. But come on. Surely you see your loss? Surely you trust that all of us aren’t wrong?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Fallacious statements can be true and fallacious all the same time. [/quote]
Internally contradictive propositions cannot be true. Stop arguing from ignorance.[/quote]
Yes, they can. They are invalid. You cannot discuss the brand of car someone does not own who does not own a car. That’s a contradiction. He doesn’t own a car, so it’s invalid to discuss what kind of car they don’t own. That’s a contradiction because the latter presupposes someone owns a car while the subject clearly states he does not.
Now if you want to say that your statement is therefore not true, I am fine with that.
It’s you who doesn’t understand logical propositions. Fallacious statements can be true, but logically invalid. Logically valid statements can be false and logically valid. This is philosophy 101 stuff.
If you presented that shit in class, you would get an F.
[/quote]
I cited my claim. I’ve got a hundred thousand more citations if you want. You’re saying they’re wrong? You’re saying that an internally contradictive statement can be true? This is a yes or no question. Is that what you’re saying?[/quote]
I am saying it’s an invalid statement. So I guess by default, they are false, which makes your statement false. It’s not true that the man who does not own a car does not own a lexus. He does not own any car, therefore you cannot even ascertain the type.
[quote]pat wrote:
I am saying it’s an invalid statement. So I guess by default, they are false, which makes your statement false. It’s not true that the man who does not own a car does not own a lexus. He does not own any car, therefore you cannot even ascertain the type.[/quote]
You said it was true. Like, a minute ago. You are reversing yourself here? Is this what you’re going with?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s called Internal Contradiction Fallacy
[/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
[u]Someone who doesn’t own a car doesn’t have a kind of car is true[/u] [/quote]
Case closed. This is you, defeating yourself. Well done.[/quote]
You beat yourself long ago. You rode that fallacy to the bitter end. That’s impressive.[/quote]
So I link to a resource of authority which proves you wrong, and you counter with literally nothing? Not that I’ve come to expect more over the course of this debate. But come on. Surely you see your loss? Surely you trust that all of us aren’t wrong?
Edit: No context. You said it’s true. {Check.} You said it’s internally contradictive {check.} And that’s it.[/quote]
Well, I guess I made a mistake. The statement is in fact, false. My bad.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I am saying it’s an invalid statement. So I guess by default, they are false, which makes your statement false. It’s not true that the man who does not own a car does not own a lexus. He does not own any car, therefore you cannot even ascertain the type.[/quote]
You said it was true. Like, a minute ago. You are reversing yourself here? Is this what you’re going with?[/quote]
Yes, I am reversing myself. It is false. Upon further review, the statement is false. If the man does not own a car, you cannot determine which he does not own. It is false. I thusly reverse my previous statement that it could be true. It cannot be true because it’s a contradiction.
I was therefore wrong at even entertaining the possibility of it’s truth.
A) The man does not own a car
B) therefore, the man does not own a lexus.
Looks true to me.
Pat + SMH = Kant’s fourth antinomy.
Kant wins.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
A) The man does not own a car
B) therefore, the man does not own a lexus.
Looks true to me.[/quote]
Yes, but it’s not. You cannot comment on what kind of car a man who doesn’t own a car does not have. That’s the contradiction. You cannot comment on a kind of owned car positively or negatively if a man does not own a car.
If A, B is NULL.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Pat + SMH = Kant’s fourth antinomy.
Kant win. [/quote]
Kant always wins, the bastard.
Since you’re here:
A man does not own a car, therefore he does not own a Lexus.
Is this a contradiction or not?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Fallacious statements can be true and fallacious all the same time. [/quote]
Internally contradictive propositions cannot be true. Stop arguing from ignorance.[/quote]
Yes, they can. They are invalid. You cannot discuss the brand of car someone does not own who does not own a car. That’s a contradiction.
[/quote]
It is not a contradiction. You may decide to maintain it is irrelevant, but it is not a contradiction. Not anywhere close.
It is the same as saying “thing A does not have property T. Because T(f) is a sub-property of T, thing A does not have T(f) either”. This is hardly contradictory.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Pat + SMH = Kant’s fourth antinomy.
Kant win. [/quote]
Bwahahaha
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Fallacious statements can be true and fallacious all the same time. [/quote]
Internally contradictive propositions cannot be true. Stop arguing from ignorance.[/quote]
Yes, they can. They are invalid. You cannot discuss the brand of car someone does not own who does not own a car. That’s a contradiction. He doesn’t own a car, so it’s invalid to discuss what kind of car they don’t own. That’s a contradiction because the latter presupposes someone owns a car while the subject clearly states he does not.
Now if you want to say that your statement is therefore not true, I am fine with that.
It’s you who doesn’t understand logical propositions. Fallacious statements can be true, but logically invalid. Logically valid statements can be false and logically valid. This is philosophy 101 stuff.
If you presented that shit in class, you would get an F.
[/quote]
I cited my claim. I’ve got a hundred thousand more citations if you want. You’re saying they’re wrong? You’re saying that an internally contradictive statement can be true? This is a yes or no question. Is that what you’re saying?[/quote]
I am saying it’s an invalid statement. So I guess by default, they are false, which makes your statement false. It’s not true that the man who does not own a car does not own a lexus. He does not own any car, therefore you cannot even ascertain the type.[/quote]
???
Invalid statements may be true. Internally CONTRADICTING statements, which contain two directly contradictory premises, can never be true. Under any circumstances.