"I am wet, therefore I swim." doesn't make sense — Corvus

Read the first line of his post again, and see the strawman you created.

I swim, therefore I am wet. — Fire Ologist

No need to invent your own quotes

I will not try argue with you. Whatever I say, I know you will come back with some irrational oppositions with no content. No logical arguments and rational explanations work, so what is the point? :)

I'm not asking you to argue with me, I'm asking you not to straw man what Fire said. Instead of finding yet a new way to cop out, you might say something like "you're right, the quote in my post is not what he said, my mistake". If there's anything resembling intellectual integrity in there, I believe you can do it

If you don't agree with something, come with your reasonings why it is not true, rather than simply saying, the other folks don't agree with you, and such and such institutions say otherwise.

I have. I've explained everything. Happy to explain it again without reference to institutions.

I have given out the explanations based on the reasonings. But you just say, well the other folks don't agree with you, and University California says otherwise.

References to institutions are there to make it clear that the things I'm saying aren't just invented in my own head. If you had a reference to an institution for denying the Antecedent, for example, that would signal to me that you didn't invent it in your own head, but that a slew of respectable thinkers share your view.

He could doubt physical reality, he could doubt the existence of other minds, he could doubt the existence of gods or dogs or whatever, but if he doubted thought, the wall he hits is that that doubt is a thought... — flannel jesus

:ok:

I do not think the Cogito convincing, on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Monday, and Wednesday, I'm quite convinced. Friday and Saturday, I take an agnostic position. Sundays, I rest.

Now, you think the Cogito is grounds for being 100% certain of your existence, on the basis of an intuition... is that right? — Banno

Funny how you are the one who is playing the skeptic now :snicker: the tables turn

language is an institution. You said he's going against the standard use of the word - referencing sources that use the words in the way he described is EXACTLY the sort of thing that's pertinent to settle the issue

I could invent my own sentence with "therefore" but without reference to an institution, you're just as likely to say "you just made that sentence up and it's stupid". If I reference an institution, that counter doesn't hold.

References to institutions are there to make it clear that the things I'm saying aren't just invented in my own head. If you had a reference to an institution for denying the Antecedent, for example, that would signal to me that you didn't invent it in your own head, but that a slew of respectable thinkers share your view. — flannel jesus

What is your reasoning that my point is not correct? Please tell us. Don't lean on the others' shoulders or hide behind their shadows.

which point specifically? The point about the chronology of therefore?

Were you opposing the point without knowing what you were opposing against?

I have opposed many points of yours, I just want to make sure I understand which one you mean right now.

I am asking you your reasons for your opposition.

Right, so like I said, I've opposed many points, which of my oppositions are you interested in at the moment?

Is it about the word 'therefore'? Is it about denying the antecedent?

Yes, I am not sure on your point of your claim that my post was wrong. I think you said, the other folks don't agree, and UOC says differently.

double post

Disagreemnts about how words are defined and used CAN'T be settled withohut reference to outside sources. Words are socially constructed - if everyone tomorrow decided that they're going to use the word "watermelon" to refer to headphones, then... that's what it refers to, from that point on.

When you say "If you deny that standard meaning, then you are denying the general principle of linguistic semantics", that cant be settled by you and I without reference to outside sources. YOU don't define the word "therefore" for everyone else, YOU don't define the "standard" for everyone else, and neither do I.

The "standard meaning" of a term can only be confirmed or denied by references to outside sources. That's what "standard" kinda means - it's a popularity contest, essentially. How am I supposed to prove something's popular without being able to point you to any evidence of its popularity?

YOU said he's using it in the non-standard way, so perhaps you can show me by example - how can you prove that his use is non-standard, without referencing outside sources?

Disagreemnts about how words are defined and used CAN'T be settled withohut reference to outside sources. Words are socially constructed - if everyone tomorrow decided that they're going to use the word "watermelon" to refer to headphones, then... that's what it refers to, from that point on. — flannel jesus

Words are lost at your groundless babbles. Do you realise my post were written after carefully checking the official sources for the definition?

So... you're referencing an outside "official" source? So it IS okay to do that for this conversation then? Please clarify that for me - are outside sources relevant?

What makes you think my definitions were my own invention?

I don't know why you're asking that question.

So... you're referencing an outside "official" source? So it IS okay to do that for this conversation then? Please clarify that for me - are outside sources relevant? — flannel jesus

For checking out definitions, sure it is a must. But for saying "the other folks don't agree with you." Or UOC said otherwise, and basing that for your judgement for right or wrong, I would say, is not really making sense.

I don't understand. You're saying that you're allowed to use outside sources to confirm how a word is defined and used, but I'm not allowed to reference outside sources to explain to you why I think it's defined and used in a different way?

This feels very assymetrical.

I don't know why you're asking that question. — flannel jesus

Do you not recall you suddenly out of blue, clashing into my post with your saying "the other folks don't agree with you. so you are wrong"?

I was then, asking you for your ground for the claims, and your own reasonings and explanations, why my points were wrong.

That's how language works. Language is a social construct. If everyone uses the word 'apple' to refer to one thing, and you use it to refer to another -- and then you say to me "your use of apple is nonstandard" -- yes, how other folks use the word apple can be a fundamental part of demonstrating that you're wrong.

Other folks disagreeing with you, and agreeing with other things, is how standards about word usage are set.

If there's anything resembling intellectual integrity in there... — flannel jesus

Still hopeful are you?

You have your peeping wonder pal popped up there with usual smarmy comments.

Sorry I am not sure what you are even talking about. Now you are talking about some apples suddenly. I thought we were talking about your reasons and explanations for your claims.

I don't control what he posts.

We're having a meta conversation about why outside sources are relevant when there's a disagreement about how words are defined as a standard.

I am saying to you that my definition of "Therefore" is from the dictionaries, not invention of mine.