The "That's not an argument!" fallacy

Someone presents an argument. The argument is complex, and not explicitly presented in its entirety. I'm not interested in finding out the rest of the argument - the part which isn't immediately clear to me. Therefore, it's not an argument. (Therefore, it's not my problem!).

But for the other half we’re right back where we started: if humans disappear, the information remains but is untranslatable by an intelligence that may not know how English attains to its meanings. In other words, we can translate ancient Egyptian into English, French, Swahili....whatever, because both are developed by humans, but both English and Egyptian meanings would be inaccessible to some rationality that doesn’t use a perception/conception correspondence system for its meanings. It follows logically that that of which the meaning is unknowable is therefore meaningless, which is the same as having no meaning.

Am I properly addressing your concern? — Mww

Sort of, but I see a problem with this part, and I disagree with it. I think that what you're saying could be simplified. You bring up a hypothetical scenario of an alien unlike humans in that this alien couldn't possibly understand the meaning. Okay, fine. But then you illogically jump to the conclusion that there is no meaning, when there is, and you've even acknowledged it. That there is meaning is not the same as that there is no meaning, except in an irrelevant practical sense of, "It can't be understood, so there may as well be no meaning!", but that's a different sense, not the sense that I'm talking about.

There is a rock, but no one is there to perceive it, because we all died an hour previously. Is there a rock? Yes or no? — S

The question is meaningless, because "Exist" and "Real" aren't metaphysically defined.

We tend to believe in our metaphysicses too devoutly.

Michael Ossipoff

8 Tu (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)

...Tuesday of the 8th week of the calendar-year that started with the Monday that started closest to the South-Solstice.

Ok, then I would answer the second question as the first: the meaning, in the sense I assume you are talking about, would be retained, because there is nothing given sufficient to remove it, but that meaning must remain unknowable.

Going beyond this, we must inevitably be presented with the paradox of retaining meaning that has no meaning, which is inescapable whenever humans disappear but human meaning is sometime thereafter presented as being in question. To ask if a thing retains its meaning presupposes an event where the question is examined but makes no allowance for who is asking.

Getting closer?

There is a rock, but no one is there to perceive it, because we all died an hour previously. — S

Rocks don't exist though. They're just a certain configuration of atoms. Which also don't exist, because they're a certain configuration of protons, neutrons and electrons. Which also don't exist...

So far as our current understanding goes, distinct objects are an illusion. If everything is merely collapsed quantum waveforms, it seems a small step to idealism. Without the observer, whatever appears to us as collapsed waveforms vanishes, leaving no rocks behind. This doesn't seem all that absurd.

Does the word "rock" mean anything? Does it mean what it means in English? — S

If the word "rock" was all that remained from the English language, and any related languages, how would it mean anything? Where would it's meaning reside?

You seem to be assuming something along the lines that time is how time is measured. I do not agree with that. And I think that it's true to say that hours would pass, even if no one measured the passing of time, and even if no one existed to measure the passing of time. Time is objective in that sense. — S

It's not a question of whether time would pass, it's a question of who would determine that an hour had past. So in your example, all people would die, and time would continue to pass. Who would say "now it's been an hour since the last person died, is there a rock"? You are assuming that there would be such a point in time, and that it makes sense to ask if there'd be a rock at that point in time. But there would be no such point in time, because a point in time is what human beings determine, so the question makes no sense.

The question is meaningless, because "Exist" and "Real" aren't metaphysically defined.

We tend to believe in our metaphysicses too devoutly. — Michael Ossipoff

Firstly, I didn't even use those words. Secondly, I don't believe that you didn't understand what I meant. And thirdly, even if you didn't understand what I meant, it doesn't follow that what I said was meaningless.

Easy refutation. Next!

Ok, then I would answer the second question as the first: the meaning, in the sense I assume you are talking about, would be retained, because there is nothing given sufficient to remove it, but that meaning must remain unknowable. — Mww

Okay, fine by me.

Going beyond this, we must inevitably be presented with the paradox of retaining meaning that has no meaning, which is inescapable whenever humans disappear but human meaning is sometime thereafter presented as being in question. To ask if a thing retains its meaning presupposes an event where the question is examined but makes no allowance for who is asking. — Mww

I'm not that bothered about this supposed paradox, if you can even call it that. It's easily resolved, because there are two different senses of "meaning" going on there. It has meaning in the first sense, which is my sense, but not in the second sense. I think that it would be much clearer to use a different word for the second sense, such as understanding. It has meaning, but it is not understood. Don't you agree?

I don't agree that to ask if a thing retains its meaning presupposes an event where the question is examined, let alone moving on to who is asking what it means. A thing retains its meaning by default. Something would have to change for that to cease being the case, like if the language changes, which is to say that the language rules change.

Rocks don't exist though. — Echarmion

:rofl:

Okay, you win first place for the most inventive disagreement. Philosophy people crack me up sometimes.

They're just a certain configuration of atoms. Which also don't exist, because they're a certain configuration of protons, neutrons and electrons. Which also don't exist...

So far as our current understanding goes, distinct objects are an illusion. If everything is merely collapsed quantum waveforms, it seems a small step to idealism. Without the observer, whatever appears to us as collapsed waveforms vanishes, leaving no rocks behind. This doesn't seem all that absurd. — Echarmion

Well, I agree with the science, but not the philosophical conclusions you draw from it.

If the word "rock" was all that remained from the English language, and any related languages, how would it mean anything? Where would it's meaning reside? — Echarmion

Reside? And I didn't say that it was all that remained. How could it have a meaning with no other words? Maybe it could. I'm not sure at present. Interesting thought, but I don't see the relevance to my argument.

If you mean to ask why there would be meaning, then I say because of the continued application of the language rule. Why would it cease to apply?

It's not a question of whether time would pass, it's a question of who would determine that an hour had past. — Metaphysician Undercover

No it's not though! No one would, obviously. No one exists in the scenario. But that doesn't matter, because the question is beside the point to begin with.

Who would say... — Metaphysician Undercover

I have a feeling that you're just not going to understand the problem of irrelevance here.

You are assuming that there would be such a point in time, and that it makes sense to ask if there'd be a rock at that point in time. But there would be no such point in time, because a point in time is what human beings determine, so the question makes no sense. — Metaphysician Undercover

In short, you believe that time is subjective. Good for you, but I don't. You can't just assume something I reject to argue against me. That won't work. You'll have to argue that time is subjective first.

”The question is meaningless, because "Exist" and "Real" aren't metaphysically defined.
.
We tend to believe in our metaphysicses too devoutly.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Firstly, I didn't even use those words.

.
You asked if there is a rock. “There is” can be translated as “There exists”. But, if necessary, I’ll amend what I said to: “Exist”, “There is…” and “Real” aren’t metaphysically-defined.
.

Secondly, I don't believe that you didn't understand what I meant.

.
Well, you’re right that, in a loose sense of the words, I knew what you meant.
.
However I don’t know what you mean by “There is…”
.
And, truth told, neither do you.
.
I like to quote Dunning (of Dunning & Kruger) when he admonished us that we should be a lot less free and loose with our claims, because there’s a tendency for what we say to overshoot what we can support..
.

And thirdly, even if you didn't understand what I meant, it doesn't follow that what I said was meaningless.

.
A metaphysical or ontological question or statement is meaningless if it uses one or more terms that aren’t metaphysically or ontologically defined.
.
Michael Ossipoff
.
8 Tu

However I don’t know what you mean by “There is…” — Michael Ossipoff

Yes you do, and it's selfexplanatory.

A metaphysical or ontological question or statement is meaningless if it uses one or more terms that aren’t metaphysically or ontologically defined. — Michael Ossipoff

Poppycock. You know the meaning of "there" and you know the meaning of "is" and you know the meaning of "there is", as in "there is a rock". Are you seriously going to pretend otherwise? Obviously, if you know the meaning, then there is a meaning there, otherwise you couldn't know it.

What you're doing amounts to a performative contradiction and is therefore self-defeating. We start from the fact that you understand what I'm saying, and then the rest of your argument collapses, since it leads to absurdity.

Ok, I get it. Shoot an object into space, it goes on and on and on, ad infinitum, never interrupted, never examined. The meaning of it and all it’s parts conforms to the conceptions of its creators.

What’s the point? The end game?

Ok, I get it. Shoot an object into space, it goes on and on and on, ad infinitum, never interrupted, never examined. The meaning of it and all it’s parts conforms to the conceptions of its creators.

What’s the point? The end game? — Mww

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. There was a point, in a practical sense, when we were alive. But there isn't in the scenario, because we're all dead.

Again, I'm not concerned here with what's practical. Just with what's the case, or what would be the case if such-and-such.

Then I revert to epistemic ignorance, with respect to what would be the case for objective reality or continuance of meaning if all humans were to disappear.

Then I revert to epistemic ignorance, with respect to what would be the case for objective reality or continuance of meaning if all humans were to disappear. — Mww

Okay, but why?

No it's not though! No one would, obviously. No one exists in the scenario. But that doesn't matter, because the question is beside the point to begin with. — S

That's not true, because your premise state distinctly "we all died an hour previously". So you imply that someone has measured an hour after everyone has died, and you posit this point in time. Clearly, there is no such point in time unless someone measures it and designates "this is the point in time one hour after everyone died". But everyone is dead and there is no one to measure that time, so there is no such point in time, and your question is nonsensical.

In short, you believe that time is subjective. — S

No I don't believe that time is subjective, I told you that already, time would continue to pass after all the people died. But the measurement of time is carried out by human beings, and therefore requires human existence. So it doesn't make any sense to talk about what may or may not exist an hour after all humans died, because "an hour" is a measurement, and there would be no such measurement without any human beings. Therefore there would be no such thing as "an hour" after all human beings died. An hour is a measurement. You seem to have difficulty comprehending this fact. But it's like talking about what temperature it will be when there are no human beings. That's nonsense, because "temperature" is a measurement, just like "an hour" is a measurement, and without human beings, there would be no measurements.

That's not true, because your premise state distinctly "we all died an hour previously". So you imply that someone has measured an hour after everyone has died, and you posit this point in time. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, that doesn't follow from my premises, it follows from yours. That's begging the question until you first argue in support of your premises. How many times? I'm not going to keep going around in circles. This is your last chance. Your illogical ramblings are not my problem. You can assert that there needs to be someone there to measure time, and that an hour is a measurement, and so on, a million-and-one times, but that doesn't do anything at all, logically. These are premises I never accepted, and still do not accept. Anything that follows from them is completely irrelevant. My argument stands unless you can present a proper challenge.

I made this clear from the very start, but you aren't giving me anything new. You aren't giving me what's required. You're just repeating the same problem.

You confuse my logical rejection of your argument for a lack of comprehension. It is you who lacks comprehension. Massively so. I am not being illogical. My argument is valid, and obviously I'm arguing that it is also sound. Your demonstrations that some part of my argument doesn't follow only show that some part of my argument doesn't follow from premises that I've made crystal clear that I don't accept, so your demonstrations can do nothing whatsoever at least until a further argument from you is provided. There's almost always some logical fallacy in your replies to virtually any comment on any topic in philosophy whatsoever on both this forum and the old one. In this case, it is begging the question, and it is the fallacy of drawing irrelevant conclusions.

I really hope that you grasp it this time and don't repeat the same mistake.

And you're being pedantic, too. When you assert things like, "An hour is a measurement!", and, "There needs to be someone there to measure the hours that pass!", I'm going to call that subjective time, for short, whether you like it or not, unless you give me another more suitable name for that position. You simply assume subjective time, point out a few logical consequences, then erroneously think that you've refuted my argument. You need to go back and study Logic 101. Why do some people here rely on others so much to teach them the very basics in philosophy? That's immoral. Teach yourself! I'm getting fed up of those here who keep trying to run before they can even walk. It's actually worse than that with you, because you seem largely unteachable. You just rationalise your errors and repeat them instead of learning and developing. It really is a real pity when you see someone making the same basic logical errors you recall them making in discussions many years ago.

If I understand you correctly, you do not accept my claim that "an hour" is a measurement, just like one degree Celsius is a measurement, and a metre is a measurement. OK, then that explains our difference on this issue.

Someone presents an argument. The argument is complex, and not explicitly presented in its entirety. I'm not interested in finding out the rest of the argument - the part which isn't immediately clear to me. Therefore, it's not an argument. (Therefore, it's not my problem!). — S

I still need to answer your earlier post by the way, but re this one, if no statement follows from any other, it's not an argument. We covered that already. Arguments have premises and conclusions that follow from the premises. So for something to be an argument, it's a requirement that at least some statement in the set of claims follows from at least one other statement in the set of claims.

I personally don't care if someone forwards an argument per se or not. But if you claim to, and if you're claiming something like a reductio, then I'll point out if you've not actually forwarded an argument. (I'll also often do that when someone points out that I'm not forwarding an argument--even though I never claimed to--as if I should be forwarding an argument, but they didn't forward an argument, either).

If I understand you correctly, you do not accept my claim that "an hour" is a measurement, just like one degree Celsius is a measurement, and a metre is a measurement. OK, then that explains our difference on this issue. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, of course they are not measurements. They are units of measurement. Something doesn't have to be measured to be such that it conforms within a specific range within a standard of measurement. The contrary is easily lead to absurdity, since, for example, if you and I went camping in the woods and collected a load of firewood, then under your bad logic, the sticks and branches and twigs and so on that we want to use for making the fire wouldn't be of various lengths in centimetres. That would be impossible, because they would need to be measured first. But it's not impossible. If a stick happens to be a metre in length, then it happens to be a metre in length, and that's that. We would only need to measure it to find out what it's length is. That's epistemology! We're not doing epistemology!

Do you understand the difference between epistemology and metaphysics? I'm not sure you do. Either that, or you just draw an irrational link between the one and the other.

Your suggestion is clearly ludicrous, as any logically minded person can see. You're making the fundamental error of idealism, which is to confuse what's necessary to acquire information about the way things are, with what's necessary for things to be the way that they are.

Like language, systems of measurement are based on rules. The rule is that an hour has passed if a certain period of time has passed. If that certain period of time has passed, then an hour has passed. From that, it does not follow that anyone needs to be standing around measuring the time. It doesn't even follow that anyone needs to exist!

Again, the key point is that rules do not cease to apply just because no one is around, doing something or other.

I do wonder whether it's even possible for me to break through to you logically and get you to change your mind, or whether you are irretrievably stuck in your way of thinking.

Remember....I’m a reductionist. Your parameters are all humans have disappeared. I am human so I’ve disappeared. If I’ve disappeared, even if I exist someplace else, I really can’t say anything with certainty about where I disappeared from. It makes sense to think of things a certain way, that rocks still exist and meanings maintain, but consistency is not the same as certainty.

I still need to answer your earlier post by the way, but re this one, if no statement follows from any other, it's not an argument. We covered that already. Arguments have premises ]and conclusions that follow from the premises. So for something to be an argument, it's a requirement that at least some statement in the set of claims follows from at least one other statement in the set of claims. — Terrapin Station

I understand that already. But you don't seem to understand hidden premises. There are virtually always hidden premises in any argument. In light of these hidden premises, my argument is valid. But it would just mean more work for me to present the entire argument, hidden premises and all. I agreed to go through it step by step wherever you see a genuine problem and to make explicit logical links where necessary, but I'm not willing to present the entire argument in a formal manner without good enough reason to do so. I think that members of this forum such as yourself and Michael are more than capable of figuring this shit out already without my assistance, so give me a reason.

Validity is easy, at least for someone like me. Do you not think that I'm capable of moulding my argument here into a full, formal, valid argument? Soundness is the real issue. You should be thinking about that instead. That means you should be thinking about whether my premises are true or false.

Again, not all arguments are formal, and not all arguments are going to look how you expect them to look. There's this thing called subtlety, and this other thing called informality. Ironically, I feel like I'm talking to an Aspie. Are you trying to knock me off of my thrown? Is this a coop d'etat?

Not really. Just as the realist will say that our sense experiences are a response to stimulation by material things, and so evidence of external-world rocks, the idealist will say that our sense experiences are a response to stimulation by mental things, and so evidence of other minds. — Michael

Then I don't see how they are really saying anything different other than using two different terms to refer to what stimulates our senses - "material" and "mental". So it really comes down to what the distinction is between those two things. What makes "material" different from "mental" if they both behave the same way in stimulating our senses?

The idealist will say that using sense experiences as evidence of material things is as mistaken as using sense experiences as evidence of magic or supernatural things. I don't see any contradiction or inevitable solipsism in this. — Michael

You said that idealists use senses as well, so I still don't see a distinction. You're still using your sense experiences as evidence of "mental" things.

You might be reading that into it, but I can only keep repeating that I don't at all believe that there's anything "special" about it or anything to say about comparative uniqueness or anything like that. You don't have to believe me, but I'll keep telling you. ;-) — Terrapin Station

And what I'll keep telling you and you keep ignoring is that you are making a distinction that you don't make with all the other things in the universe.

What happened to this subthread, by the way:

"Employs it in any manner. However you want to think of it.

"Do you think that people do not use meaning in some manner?" — Terrapin Station

Right, so meaning is a tool, which is a non-mental thing, right?

What is the difference between "meaning" and "subjective" to you?

And what I'll keep telling you and you keep ignoring is that you are making a distinction that you don't make with all the other things in the universe. — Harry Hindu

I make locational distinctions all the time, for all sorts of things. For example, I might say, "we need to put this in the refrigerator," or "we don't need to put this in the refrigerator." Or I might say, "You can get that sound from a Roland Jazz-Chorus (amplifier)," so you need to use (plug into) that if you want that sound. Etc.

Right, so meaning is a tool, which is a non-mental thing, right? — Harry Hindu

Wait, so you don't think that people are aware of meanings?

I use lots of synonyms/synonymous phrases for things like logical entailment (implication, following, etc.) versus irrelevance (non sequitur, doesn't follow, arbitrary, etc.) ,because that's a common topic in philosophy, too. Things we talk about all the time tend to have a lot of synonyms or synonymous phrases. — Terrapin Station

And that is what I keep pointing out - that you have a synonym to refer to the mind/not-mind distinction, but no equivalent synonym to refer to the planet/non-planet, and all the other is/is-not distinctions.

Wait, so you don't think that people are aware of meanings? — Terrapin Station

Of course I do. People are aware of cause and effect, and therefore aware of meanings. I'm the one saying that meaning exists in AND outside of minds. You say meaning only exists in minds.

You skipped this question:
What is the difference between "meaning" and "subjective" to you?

So I don't know the word "icebox"?

Can you please elaborate and answer the questions I posed.