response 151 of 411:

Apr 13 17:20 UTC 2002

Let's substitute "A, thus A" for "A because A."  This says the same 
thing, only putting the cause before the effect instead of after.  Now 
compare:

        1.      A, thus A.
        2.      If A then A.

#150 suggests that (1) and (2) describe the exact same reality, while I 
posit that though the reality of (1) is dependent on the reality of (2), 
the reality of (1) is not equivalent to the reality of (2).  In each 
case, the reality is implied in the statement, and since each statement 
implies a different (though related) reality, how can the two statements 
be logically identical?

response 153 of 411:

Apr 13 20:51 UTC 2002

Hmm, let's see.  

Brighn, I think we're on the verge of agreement.  Almost.  We agree that 
circular reasoning cannot constitute a complete proof.  But then you say:
"any sections of a proof that are circular are only there for rhetorical 
convenience. They're not logically invalid, they're merely vacuous."  I 
would go so far as to say that any sections of a proof that are circular 
are incorrect and *should be removed from the proof*.  In fact, when I 
graded proofs for math classes in college, I would have removed points
(though not many) from an otherwise correct proof if it contained a 
section that was circular.  It is incorrect reasoning, not merely vacuous. 
  If we were just talking about an abstract concept here, I'd not be so 
vehement about it.  The fact is, however, that when circular reasoning 
is used in the Real World, it's almost always used in one of two ways.  
Either it's used deliberately as a deceptive way to persuade people
without taking the trouble of coming up with a well-reasoned argument, 
or, what's IMO worse, used inadvertently by people who honestly think 
that they *are* presenting a well-reasoned argument.  The difference
between a valid, reliable line of reasoning and one that is subtly 
incorrect is, well, subtle, but people make important decisions all the
time without being aware of that crucial difference.  

Other, the reason that statements 1 and 2 of various responses cannot be
considered semantically interchangeable is that, as intelligent, educated
people, we ought to know and be alert for the difference between methods
of argument that are correct and can be relied on and methods, like
circular reasoning, that are dangerously incorrect.  

And last, but not least, jp2.  Heh.  Just for a moment, I'm going to pretend 
that what few feeble, muffled sounds manage to make it out of your notional
mouth from around pthomas' unwashed genitalia are actually worth responding
to.  In #140, you claim that your statements 1 and 2 are logically 
interchangeable.  What do you think this means?  Did they manage to introduce
the concept of truth tables into that one philosophy class you audited?  If 
they had, and if you had managed to hear the professor over the crunching
sounds of your latest bag of stale shitdicks, you might realize that the
logical equivalence (or lack thereof) of two statements has nothing to do with
whether  they are written in "lowest terms", but on whether or not their truth
tables  are equal.  Since you lack the rudimentary intelligence necessary to 
make the rather trivial intellectual leap from my previous responses to 
filling in truth tables, I'll do it for you:


     A  | 1)  A, because A  |  2) If A, then A
   -------------------------------------------
     T  |      T            |      T
     F  |      F            |      T

This makes painfully explicit what I'm pretty sure everyone else (except, 
maybe, your fellow m-netters) has figured out long ago, namely, that 
when A is a false statement, then "A, because A" is also false, but 
"if A, then A" IS STILL TRUE.  Perhaps if you beat yourself around the 
head and shoulders with logic textbooks for long enough, you'll begin to 
understand that this fact means that statements 1 and 2 are fundamentally, 
irreconcilably, logically different, and none of your barely-literate braying
will change this.

response 155 of 411:

Apr 13 22:55 UTC 2002

Bzzzzzt!  Wrong.  Statement number two is an implication; a statement 
of the form "X implies Y", more usually written "if X, then Y".  An implication
is only a false statement when there exists a situation in which X is 
true but Y is not.  In other words, an implication is true if its truth
table looks like this:

  X  |  Y  |  X ==> Y
----------------------
  T  |  T  |    T
  F  |  ?  |    T

Note that it doesn't matter what the value of Y is when X is false; the 
implication is still true.  This is, like, the very first day of any 
course on logic.  

response 159 of 411:

Apr 14 03:16 UTC 2002

Hello  Elaine.  Welcome,

response 161 of 411:

Apr 14 05:12 UTC 2002

Really.  Unless you suppose to piss us off, gentlemen, take the 
tautology thread to a separate item.

response 163 of 411:

Apr 14 05:32 UTC 2002

157: Jamie, you are wrong. Here is the truth table for A->B:

A   B   A->B

T   T    T
T   F    F
F   T    T
F   F    T

If A is false, B can either be true or false. By convention, though, A->B
defaults to true when A is false. 

response 165 of 411:

Apr 14 13:48 UTC 2002

        If you keep this dicussion is the number one item, I will 
go numb.
        Sorry, I'm skipping responses when I find the topic has 
continued here.

response 167 of 411:

Apr 14 14:15 UTC 2002

Complex?

response 169 of 411:

Apr 14 18:19 UTC 2002

if you keep this discussion in number one, it will continue to be in number
one.

response 171 of 411:

Apr 15 00:43 UTC 2002

I am forced to agree with jp2.  After having taking philosophy classes 
it makes my ears bleed (my eyes in cyberspace) when people use "begging 
the question" incorrectly.

Philosophically it is tautology because "begging the question" = 
Conclusion because Conclusion

response 173 of 411:

Apr 15 12:35 UTC 2002

I'm Oscar. Never done this before. Spring started early this year in Ireland.