Final words on this thread @north
Spoiler for Hidden:
trees:
1) you used the word 'because' which makes all statements after a because (used twice) premises (true fact)
False. I was describing a mechanism not providing an argument. The word premise is meaningless in that context. The clause "I tripped" is not a premise in the sentence "I fell because I tripped".
2) therefore, since nothing else was added, your first line is the conclusion. (true fact)
False. Since this was an explanation the first line was the observation being explained.
3) the final 2-4 lines were only just explanations of clearing up what you said, so they are not included (you have taken a logic class right?)
Strangely these four lines resulted in you claiming I made a circular argument. Yet here you recognize that the final four lines went the opposite direction as lines 2-5.
You are defending yourself with explanations such as 'this word changes everything' and the like. What you presented is an argument by the way. You may say this is an explanation, but if someone doesn't agree, they can argue you are wrong=simples.
Someone needs to understand the position before they can disagree. You do not understand the position therefore neither of us know if you disagree. If we knew you disagreed and we knew what you disagreed about then I would need to provide an argument.
1) wouldn't matter as your argument is still fallicious.
2) Re read buddy, I did not re word what you said here.
3) As I said before, don't post explanations that are not assumed facts=arguments.
1) This is addressed above since it isn't an argument.
2) Yes you did. I was talking about how people were resistant to change. You reworded it as being about people not changing.
3) I had initially posted an argument. You misrepresented it in such a twisted manner that I needed to post an explanation of my conclusion. You then took a twisted version of that explanation as an argument and started twisting things even further. Your misrepresentations resulted in it being impossible for me to try to clarify more than that final conclusion of my argument.
Oh, and by the way, it is circular logic.
You start with A, end with A. Simples (that is by definition what circular logic is)
A if B. B thus A. If you consider these 2 sentences to be circular logic then you need to review your logical identities.
You have succeeded at providing enough Bayesian evidence to force me to conclude that you are intentionally misrepresenting what I say. Since nothing will come of continuing this discussion under those conditions, I think I will ignore your posts in this thread. You will have the opportunity to provided evidence against this conclusion in the next thread we cross paths in.
Sorry, found this thread and just got done reading the posts.
Trees, I think North just wants you to label your terms to see the issue.
Like this:
People extremely resistant to change=A
No reason to change to at the time=B
Rarely a reason to change=C
Then, I think North said it like this:
C, therefore, B, therefore A. (which is = to saying A, because B, because C).
And I am unsure about North's middle term added (trees--->look up the work enthymeme), but @trees, I think you should add some more terms so your explanation as you put it makes more sense.
I apologize for how messy my position has gotten as a result of posting explanations to correct misrepresentations. The last several posts were me trying to make sure my conclusion of my argument was explained clearly. (Not a very good place to try to pick my argument from) I will provide a clear version of my position here.
P1) Once people have a belief they tend to stick with it until they consider another belief to be better.
P2) There is rarely reason to move from one non harmful non useful but self consistent belief to another non harmful non useful but self consistent belief.
3=1+2) People rarely change from one non harmful non useful but self consistent belief to another non harmful non useful but self consistent belief.
C=3 Reworded) Most of the time people with a non harmful non useful but self consistent belief will be resistant to change to another non harmful non useful but self consistent belief.
Thanks for teaching me a new word (enthymeme). It is true that my conclusion is worded in such a way that if confused for an argument in itself it might* be an enthymeme. (*I am still not 100% sure I understand the term)
