Cognitive Dissonant Oxymoron: "Dictators

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Ann, May 15, 2005.

  1. Ann

    Ann Guest

    Is that you Jeremy,
    that passionate defender of our Mr Tom? I already wondered who that
    skilful programmer might be, who loves so much to evaluates expressions,
    true - false, true - false :). I'll snip your angry remarks, for I
    honestly do not see how I or Cloud deserved them, after all I didn't write
    a word about you or your "egoless" ego. {With one exception in the very
    beginning when I informed Tom that here at a.d.c. we have another science
    apologetic called Jeremy. Which ought to be safe for me to say, after all
    I thought I was "killfiled".} Now this Tom... we both know, of course, you
    couldn't be one and the same person, yet something (see below) in the
    style suggests you might be relatives, say from the Donovan's clan. Only
    joking, of course.
    > On Fri, 6 May 2005, Carmen Miranda wrote:
    >>> Ann wrote:
    >>> Tom's Second Theorem:
    >>> 1. (Assumption) If all words are lies,
    >>> then
    >>> 2. (Conclusion) Whenever Cloud is speaking, he is lying.

    "The cunning (yet honest:) 'solution' was again to let Cloud speak the
    truth in the assumption, i.e." (Ann, May 6)
    >>> Cloud (in the Colosseum, shouting): "all words are lies,"
    >>> Cloud is speaking.. the assumed 'truth', thus he is not lying.

    > He may not be lying, but ... if all words are lies, then it is not
    > possible to speak the truth and he is merely deranged enough to
    > contradict himself every time he shouts.

    Not at all, you simply formulated a new theorem (see below). And it is
    actually you (or the one who claims both theorems) who is the first one
    "deranged enough to contradict himself". Cloud was consistent within the
    theorem for by definition of an If/Then statement (I thought you were the
    programmer:) [the assumption is true] takes precedence over what's in the
    assumption, hence your conclusion is false. Still not satisfied, need more
    Well, as I tried to explain in another post today to Cloud and Slider, the
    situation is very much like that: whoever first claims loses the game. Of
    course, I can understand your scholastic urge to evaluate that nasty
    expression "all words are lies" as false, yet the means you've chosen are
    not the ones of logic. And can hardly be. {It eventually boils down to the
    millennium-old problem of the existence of 'Truth', you think it's
    resolved? Throughout the centuries the Truth had simply been imposed more
    or less by force, first by religions then by science; e.g. by making
    ancient skepticism a bad word.} Similar to the Axiom of Choice or any
    basic axiom we may accept or reject it (depending on our preferences for
    the words), but we can hardly in/validate it by means of reason. You don't
    believe me? Then just look at Tom's desperate attempts so far to establish
    its falsity.
    And by the way, you've just fallen into the same logical fallacy as he
    did. In fact the mistakes are so identical that if you didn't carry
    different names I could say... Never mind, just kidding.
    Jeremy's Theorem
    "If all words are lies, then it is not possible to speak the truth."
    That is,
    1. If [all words are lies] is true,
    2. Then [it is not possible to speak the truth] is true.
    Check: The 'solution' again is to speak the truth in the assumption:
    In the Colosseum
    Speaker: "all words are lies",
    The assumed truth (see 1.) was spoken, hence we found an instance when it
    is "possible" (at least in the context of the theorem), therefore the
    conclusion and the whole claim are fallacious. QED.
    >>> That is, your conclusion does not necessarily follow from the
    >>> premises, therefore the theorem is a logical fallacy. And a deliberate
    >>> lie too, provided that you have read my latest postings to this and
    >>> "..Trauma" threads. To which you have already replied :)

    > It's all just bullshit anyway, because all words are not lies. :)

    Now that's something else :), one may call it 'logic' but of a different
    (fuzzier:) kind. Notice that you're not proving the "bullshit" (in
    contrast to your failed yet rigorous attempt above), you're just asserting
    it as an axiom, an article of faith. And you have the right to do that, we
    all have, to honestly state our personal preferences for the words. It is
    only when you try to impose it on others that problems might arise, e.g. I
    may disagree for I may have different preferences :). That's all, I guess
    we are both for 'biodiversity' of ideas, so I am like a conservationist
    preserving that variety.
    > Similarly, if you see anyone making an argument such as "all words are
    > lies", rest assured that you are conversing with a veritable master of
    > self-deception who has a real problem accepting the truth about
    > anything. -J.

    I am not asserting anything, not even that "all words are lies". As
    mentioned earlier (that 18K post from May 4 in this thread) I found a
    better strategy: to just doubt/question everything or believe ("accept":)
    nothing until the arrival of the overwhelming evidence. Otherwise, that
    last conclusion about "the truth" I like it :). Only those who believe in
    "the truth" can assert the absolute truth of expressions, statements,
    claims, theorems. Like you (or Tom), for example, who tried to assert
    that: all words are lies is false. And you know well with whom the burden
    of proof lies, though the theorems you offered so far, even when they
    sounded plausible, contained logical inconsistencies.

Share This Page