Help needed on how to distinguish part of a question, as a claim.

[memester]

it's not a treacher, it is an attacker trying to disrupt my conversation by first demanding definition of the word "area". I say "zone".

the he begins claiming my definition is not specific enough.
then he offers the question I'm asking about here.

I replied telling him to back up his claim that I cannot be specific, and he replies asking if I can prove that his quetion is a claim.

I then ask if he can prove that his clam is not a quetion, and he replies "no".

I then reply that he should answer with proof for his claim that I cannot be more specific.

He shuts up, but I feel that I need to be able to show where a claim is a claim.
Twice this week this has happened; attackers saying that they did not make a claim.

One attacker including some nasty insults in questions..this question here was not a nasty insult, it was just flack being thrown in an attempt to halt my questions .

However, I feel that I should be able to answer in a better way; PROVING that there is a claim in the question

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by memester

it's not a treacher, it is an attacker trying to disrupt my conversation by first demanding definition of one thing, then claiming my definition is not specific enough.
I replied telling him to back up his claim that I cannot be specifric, and he rpllies asking if I can prove that his quetion is a clima. I then ask if he can prove that his clam is not a quetion, he replies "no".

I then reply that he should answer with proof for his claim that I cannot be more specific.

He shuts up, but I feel that I need to be able to show where a claim aia a claim.
twice this week this has happened, attackers saying that they did not make a claim.

The question, "Why do you think that snakes have no feet?" implies, "You think that snakes have no feet", and that I consider proof that the question contains a claim. Why does he not (if he doesn't)?
Including some nasty insults in questions..this one was not a nasty insult, it was juct flack beingh thrown in order to halt my questions .

However, I feel that I should be able to answer in a better way; PROVING that there is a claim in the question

Ask him what he would accept as a proof, and why he does not think that what I wrote is a proof. Why dance to his tune? He just keeps shifting the goal posts.

[memester]

I would not dance to his tune. any question I asked, he would demand more definitions and proofs.


However, the idiot aside, I WOULD like to be able to prove where a claim exists ! ( I already know it internally when a claim is being made..formal proof is what I'm looking for)

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by memester

I would not dance to his tune. any question I asked, he would demand more definitions and proofs.


However, the idiot aside, I WOULD like to be able to prove where a claim exists ! ( I already know it internally when a claim is being made..formal proof is what I'm looking for)

Doesn't a claim exist in the question, "Why do you think that snakes have no feet?"? And haven't I proved it by arguing that the question implies the claim, that snakes have no feet?

When he asks for another definition and proof ask him for a definition of the terms, "definition" and, "proof". Obviously he is not arguing seriously, and nothing you say would satisfy him, so why would you engage in such an argument?

[memester]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Doesn't a claim exist in the question, "Why do you think that snakes have no feet?"? And haven't I proved it by arguing that the question implies the claim, that snakes have no feet?

When he asks for another definition and proof ask him for a definition of the terms, "definition" and, "proof". Obviously he is not arguing seriously, and nothing you say would satisfy him, so why would you engage in such an argument?

A claim does exist in the question "Why do you think that snakes have no feet ?"

Your argument did not prove it though, to my way of thinking. I already argued that, but I am dissatisfied with my argument. I did not use the word "implied", I just stated that the claim exists within the question.

I can ignore such interruptions, but on Dawkins website, I get penalized for not answering.

check out what one has to deal with there. I want to give only solid proofs

I had 8 pages of denial of evolution by the group. I need to be able to show when claim is made, using formal proofs.

RichardDawkins.net Forum • View topic - how environment - and thus behaviour - changes genetics

[ACB]

I do not think that the question:

"If you are not confused, then why can't you be more specific?"

contains a claim. The question has several possible answers, including:

1. You are confused, so you can't be more specific.
2. You are not confused, but you can't be more specific as you have insufficient linguistic skill.
3. You are not confused, and you can be more specific but do not wish to be.

So the question allows that:
(a) you may or may not be confused, and
(b) you may or may not be able to be more specific.

Hence it is not claiming (i) that you are confused, nor (ii) that you are not confused, nor (iii) that you can be more specific, nor (iv) that you cannot be more specific. There is nothing else that it could possibly be claiming; therefore, in my view, it is not claiming anything at all.

[memester]

isn't the premise of the question based on a claim ?

---------- Post added 11-29-2009 at 02:23 PM ----------

Originally Posted by ACB

I do not think that the question:

"If you are not confused, then why can't you be more specific?"

contains a claim. The question has several possible answers, including:

1. You are confused, so you can't be more specific.

Supposing I am confused. Does that mean that it is fact, that I cannot be more specific ?

2. You are not confused, but you can't be more specific as you have insufficient linguistic skill.

Or perhaps I am sick of that turd and am not playing his game any longer ?

3. You are not confused, and you can be more specific but do not wish to be.

yes. correct answer. If I was not specific in the first place. that is another claim with in the question.

So the question allows that:
(a) you may or may not be confused, and
(b) you may or may not be able to be more specific.

Hence it is not claiming (i) that you are confused, nor (ii) that you are not confused, nor (iii) that you can be more specific, nor (iv) that you cannot be more specific. There is nothing else that it could possibly be claiming; therefore, in my view, it is not claiming anything at all.

I do not believe that proof lies within possible answers. I believe this is evidenced by the uselessness of the answers, in showing fact or truth.

You had to assume that I was not specific, for your possible answers

[ACB]

Originally Posted by memester

isn't the premise of the question based on a claim ?

I would say no, for the reasons I gave in my post. Can you please say what specific claim you think it is based on?

[memester]

Originally Posted by ACB

I would say no, for the reasons I gave in my post. Can you please say what specific claim you think it is based on?

As shown, in order to give your possible answers, you had to accept as true, the claim
1/ that I had not been specific in the first place.
and then proceed to claim
2/ that I could not be specific.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by memester

You did give an example, and I agree. But that is not proving that there is a claim there. I need to prove that "You can't be more specific", is a claim contained in the question, whereas the questioner says it is a question, not a claim.

so I need to know how to prove that it is a claim.

Isn't the claim here that he is confused, rather than that he can't be more specific? He could indeed be more specific, had he not been confused, according to the question. The root is his confusion, with the result being a lack of specificity.

At least that's how I'd interpret it at first glance.