P implies P

[Sherlock Holmes]

Ad hom: "There’s no doubt that some ad hominem attacks can be clever. But one must learn to counter and debunk arguments, not simply deride or smear people.

2. It Destroys Civil Discourse
“Avoiding ad hominem attacks is, in fact, a foundational element of civil discourse,” writes Geher, professor of psychology at the State University of New York at New Paltz. “[As] hard as it may seem, most people, regardless of where they stand politically, share the same goals of making this world a better place. In a climate beleaguered with disagreement, let’s remember that all discourse should be respectful and civil. Avoiding the ad hominem attack is a basic aspect of best practices in political discourse.”

4. It Ends Fruitful Discussion of Ideas
One of the best ways to sharpen the mind and get closer to truth is to challenge one’s own ideas. This often involves dialogue with other people. Because people rarely see eye to eye on all matters, it’s not unusual for debates and disagreements to occur. This is entirely proper. The fruitfulness of discussion depends largely on how well people are able to listen to one another and respectfully exchange ideas. Once a discussion grows heated, it makes a fruitful exchange of ideas more difficult. When the ad hominem appears, it’s generally a sign that a healthy exchange of ideas is no longer possible."

5 Reasons to Avoid Ad Hominem Arguments - Foundation for Economic Education

Each time you resort to your arrogance like this, I'm done responding to your in whatever thread it is, just report my post if it bothers you and stop taking it upon yourself to play moderator.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I disagree, P is evidence of P
It may be a redundant statement but it is true
But once again P cannot be evidence of Y unless you establish that Y actually exists first

I'm not establishing that P is evidence of Y, I'm saying that syntactically "P is evidence of Y" is valid English but "P is evidence of P" is not, it is meaningless, tells us nothing whatsoever.

One who says "P is evidence of P" is therefore abusing language and in fact attempting to pass of a vacuity as if it has substance.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Of course 'X' can be evidence of 'Y', but until the link is established and or demonstrated with a degree of competence, or even if 'Y' exists (which is questionable in this example), it won't be regarded as an acceptable hypothesis. The universe is obviously evidence for the existence of gods to some individuals, but as credible evidence for the conclusion it is of a poor standard, as the link cannot be demonstrated with a degree of competence, and when one factors in the primitive nature of the conclusion and the original basis for said conclusion (the classical philosophical arguments), the universe remains nothing more than evidence of the existence of the universe itself. As Pingy rightly pointed out, the conclusion requires more information, as it is nothing more than an assertion founded upon a presumption, well two actually, that is, that gods exist, and that some naturally occurring force could not have existed prior to the beginning of the universe (if 'beginning' even applies), thus rendering the existence of gods as the only possibility (an argument from ignorance and/or incredulity). The argument against the existence of some unknown natural force as presented in this sub forum have been rather weak and founded upon assertion and incredulity, therefore lacking a sound basis.

This thread is about the syntactic validity or invalidity of "P is evidence of P" nothing more, stick to the subject rather than waffling on about a strawman argument.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

So if I wanted to show evidence that I have a cat, producing the cat itself would not be evidence that it exists? I think that that would be the best evidence that it exists.

In which case you'd actually be saying the totally valid "Seeing a cat is evidence that a cat exists" or "Hearing a cat is evidence that a cat exists" but not "A cat is evidence of a cat".

It is the seeing, the hearing that constitutes the evidence for a cat not the cat itself, for that reason I have no dispute because this is what I said it should be "X is evidence of Y".

 

[watsup]

This thread is about the syntactic validity or invalidity of "P is evidence of P" nothing more, stick to the subject rather than waffling on about a strawman argument.

The thread is about what respondents want it to be about. If expansion is apparently needed, then that is what will happen, as with Spook’s post. Please quit whining so much and just respond.

 

[watsup]

Each time you resort to your arrogance like this, I'm done responding to your in whatever thread it is, just report my post if it bothers you and stop taking it upon yourself to play moderator.

I’m not a tattletale. I’m merely trying to help you. You lose respect when you resort to demeaning others instead of staying on topic. I don’t know why you don’t realize that.

 

[watsup]

In which case you'd actually be saying the totally valid "Seeing a cat is evidence that a cat exists" or "Hearing a cat is evidence that a cat exists" but not "A cat is evidence of a cat".

It is the seeing, the hearing that constitutes the evidence for a cat not the cat itself, for that reason I have no dispute because this is what I said it should be "X is evidence of Y".

And again a difference without a distinction.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No misuse of the word at all. The universe is only evidence of the universe and not some belief that a god created it.

The statement only become ridiculous if we apply the absurd inference you gave it.

This thread is about the syntactic validity or invalidity of "P is evidence of P" nothing more, stick to the subject rather than waffling on about a strawman argument.

 

[soylentgreen]

This thread is about the syntactic validity or invalidity of "P is evidence of P" nothing more, stick to the subject rather than waffling on about a strawman argument.

That you have already been given an answer to. An epic failure for you on both fronts.

 

[grip]

I'd like to hear what others think of statements like "The universe is simply evidence of the universe" (with the intent of conveying that is cannot be, is not evidence of something else).

I regard this as a meaningless statement (in the sense that it's vacuous, conveys no information) or even a misuse of the term "evidence".

I regard the term as only meaningful when in statements like "X is evidence for Y" X and Y are different.

Discuss, is the phrase ever meaningful or is it in and of itself an invalid use of the term "evidence"?

I think life or the universe means what an individual 'thinks' it means. To some, it's 'evidence of nothing' and a meaningless blob of energy and particles bouncing around in space. To others, the universe is evidence of something more than the sum total of its parts as love, pleasure, joy, and the hope of continuation.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I’m not a tattletale. I’m merely trying to help you. You lose respect when you resort to demeaning others instead of staying on topic. I don’t know why you don’t realize that.

You are fully entitled to report posts that violate rules, indeed doing so performs a service to other participants and the reporting system is intended to serve that purpose.

It is then for the appointed impartial moderators to judge the claim and take any necessary action.

You are not a moderator but a fellow participant and therefore unlikely to be impartial, impartiality is essential when striving to maintain an orderly discussion between opposing participants.

I will respectfully comply with any suggestions made by a moderator but not by you.

 

[watsup]

This thread is about the syntactic validity or invalidity of "P is evidence of P" nothing more, stick to the subject rather than waffling on about a strawman argument.

This thread is about whatever the respondents want it to be about, If it needs expanding ding such as soylent did, then so be it. Please quit whining and stay on topic.

 

[watsup]

You are entitled to report posts that violate rules, indeed doing so performs a service to other participants and the reporting system is intended to serve that purpose.

It is then for the appointed impartial moderators to judge the claim and take any necessary action.

You are not a moderator but a fellow participant and therefore unlikely to be impartial, impartially is essential when striving to maintain an orderly discussion between opposing participants.

You are not a moderator so please don’t tell me what to do.

 

[watsup]

Each time you resort to your arrogance like this, I'm done responding to your in whatever thread it is, just report my post if it bothers you and stop taking it upon yourself to play moderator.

And you think that not responding to my posts is a punishment to me? Really?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think life or the universe means what an individual 'thinks' it means. To some, it's 'evidence of nothing' and a meaningless blob of energy and particles bouncing around in space. To others, the universe is evidence of something more than the sum total of its parts as love, pleasure, joy, and the hope of continuation.

Just to be clear I'm not in this thread discussing the universe and evidence for it or its origins, only the validity of claiming "X is evidence of X", I want to see why people regard this as a meaningful statement, when it is just vacuous, if it is vacuous then answers of that form can be rejected, disallowed.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You are not a moderator so please don’t tell me what to do.

I did not tell you to do anything.

 

[grip]

Just to be clear I'm not in this thread discussing the universe and evidence for it or its origins, only the validity of claiming "X is evidence of X", I want to see why people regard this as a meaningful statement, when it is just vacuous, if it is vacuous then answers of that form can be rejected, disallowed.

They're never going to admit to that no matter how much logic you throw at them. They're caught in a mental causality loop.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

They're never going to admit to that no matter how much logic you throw at them. They're caught in a mental causality loop.

I agree, they are kind of trapped and can only see things that fit the way they already see them, further enlightenment is impossible.

 

[watsup]

Just to be clear I'm not in this thread discussing the universe and evidence for it or its origins, only the validity of claiming "X is evidence of X", I want to see why people regard this as a meaningful statement, when it is just vacuous, if it is vacuous then answers of that form can be rejected, disallowed.

It is not a simplistic yes or no answer as you seem to think that it is, and that is why others are expanding in the way of explanation, but you seem unable to respond thoughtfully and so you demand a very narrow focus. Why are you afraid of more in-depth discussion?
Plus the example cannot be isolated to itself because it was originally offered as a riposte to your statement that X is evidence for Y which is, in and of itself, a meaningless statement, even moreso than the other. And that is why expansion is actually vital in this discussion topic.

 

[watsup]

They're never going to admit to that no matter how much logic you throw at them. They're caught in a mental causality loop.

You do realize that it’s actually the other way around, right?

 

[grip]

I agree, they are kind of trapped and can only see things that fit the way they already see them, further enlightenment is impossible.

It's why physicists haven't had near as many breakthroughs in the last 100 yrs, since Einstein, Bohr, Oppenheimer, etc. Today's scientists and fellow materialists don't allow for the imagination to participate.

 

[grip]

You do realize that it’s actually the other way around, right?

Do you realize that we attempt to explain things that you don't even contemplate? You're stuck in a box, while our analysis includes the known and all other possibilities.

 

[Quag]

I'm not establishing that P is evidence of Y, I'm saying that syntactically "P is evidence of Y" is valid English but "P is evidence of P" is not, it is meaningless, tells us nothing whatsoever.

One who says "P is evidence of P" is therefore abusing language and in fact attempting to pass of a vacuity as if it has substance.

Please reread the first part of my post that you quoted

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Please reread the first part of my post that you quoted

I already read it.

 

[watsup]

Do you realize that we attempt to explain things that you don't even contemplate? You're stuck in a box, while our analysis includes the known and all other possibilities.

“Anything is possible” is just a nonsense statement that leads nowhere. It’s like “belief”. Anybody can “believe” absolutely anything without an iota of real evidence.