Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="da chicken" data-source="post: 505225" data-attributes="member: 5634">That was the method Xylix was using to try and prove his case.&nbsp; I felt it most appropriate to use the same method to prove him wrong.&nbsp; Logical arguments tend to come off as invulnerable until you use logic to reveal the weaknesses.&nbsp; Note that this is exactly what you did to my argument.&nbsp; [So there! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ]And fair enough about flat priors.&nbsp; The point is that I knew those statements to be incorrect.&nbsp; My argument was simply that his new premise (the PH has errors) could also be used to prove his other premises incorrect.&nbsp; If &quot;errors exist&quot; means that phantasmal killer is wrong, it might also mean his other arguments are wrong.And while that last statement isn't deductively valid, it isn't necessarily incorrect.&nbsp; Or, as you said, &quot;formal logic is not the be-all and end-all of a discussion.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="da chicken, post: 505225, member: 5634"] That was the method Xylix was using to try and prove his case. I felt it most appropriate to use the same method to prove him wrong. Logical arguments tend to come off as invulnerable until you use logic to reveal the weaknesses. Note that this is exactly what you did to [i]my[/i] argument. [So there! :p;) ] And fair enough about flat priors. The point is that I knew those statements to be incorrect. My argument was simply that his new premise (the PH has errors) could also be used to prove his other premises incorrect. If "errors exist" means that [i]phantasmal killer[/i] is wrong, it might also mean his other arguments are wrong. And while that last statement isn't [i]deductively[/i] valid, it isn't necessarily incorrect. Or, as you said, "formal logic is not the be-all and end-all of a discussion." [/QUOTE]

Verification