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

[memester]

Originally Posted by Zetherin

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.

I interpret that part, as the part which is a possible question being asked; my being "confused" or "not confused" is possibly a question, posed using "if".

It's a question "aired" through the question in general.

IOW, he could have phrased it like this; Are you so confused that you cannot even be specific ?

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by memester

I interpret that part, as the part which is a possible question being asked; my being "confused" or "not confused" is possibly a question, posed using "if".

My first interpretation is that is a sort of loaded question. He is implying that you are confused and that your confusion has led you to a lack of specificity in your rhetoric. "If you are not confused, then why can't you be more specific?", is not just sincerely asking, "Are you confused?". It is carrying the implication that your confusion has led you to ineffective communication. Again, that's how I take it at first glance...

But I think that this question could be asked without a claim necessarily being made. That is, someone could be sincerely asking "Are you confused?" (the question within the question). I find it more likely that there is an implication, though, especially if it were a heated discussion.

It's hard to prove someone is claiming something if they say they are not, with a sentence like this. There are various interpretations as ACB has walked through. I would recommend seeking other contextual clues - this could lend proof; the proof could be found within the rest of his writing. Analyzing the rest of his text with which this question was placed could provide evidence regarding what he meant by asking this.

Remember, you'll never be able to prove beyond all doubt, but you can surely prove beyond reasonable doubt.

[ACB]

Originally Posted by memester

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

The question implies that it is possible to be more specific, yes. You can call that a 'claim' if you like, but isn't it common ground between the two of you? You admit that you can be more specific, but are unwilling to because you do not want to play his game any longer.

[memester]

Originally Posted by ACB

The question implies that it is possible to be more specific, yes. You can call that a 'claim' if you like, but isn't it common ground between the two of you? You admit that you can be more specific, but are unwilling to because you do not want to play his game any longer.

I CAN be more specific, but not in the area he is demanding more specificity in. He demanded a definition of "area". I replied, "zone". Then he demanded more specificity.

I also do not want to send him in the proper direction, to ask for more specificity, as I see his only goal to be that of interruption of legitimate questioning of his pet theory.

My perception of his intent is reinforced by the fact that the person I was questioning had already given his answer to my question, with no hint of claim that I had not been specific: as he had already admitted somewhere else , exactly what I was attempting to draw out of him ( which he was at that point, denying).
So this is not in a sharing discussion. This is in antagonistic argument.

[kennethamy]

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.
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.

The fact that it is not clear just what claim he is making does not imply he was making no claim. We may have to ask him further what claim he was making. And when he replies, we'll know what the claim was. In any case, yours is but one example. What about my example, "Why do you think that snakes have no feet?" which contains the claim that snakes have no feet.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by memester

I CAN be more specific, but not in the area he is demanding more specificity in. He demanded a definition of "area". I replied, "zone". Then he demanded more specificity.

I also do not want to send him in the proper direction, to ask for more specificity, as I see his only goal to be that of interruption of legitimate questioning of his pet theory.

My perception of his intent is reinforced by the fact that the person I was questioning had already given his answer to my question, with no hint of claim that I had not been specific: as he had already admitted somewhere else , exactly what I was attempting to draw out of him ( which he was at that point, denying).
So this is not in a sharing discussion. This is in antagonistic argument.

Memester, if it is indeed an antagonistic argument, I don't see the point of wasting time trying to prove the question he asked implied a claim. If he denies it, without considering reason, what else are you to do? Any evidence that I feel a reasonable person would consider, would involve analyzing the contextual clues of the conversation, and if he won't do that, you're just talking to a wall.

This is not to say you should give up - you must find a different approach. It's sometimes wiser to go around a wall than through it.

Perhaps if we had the details of the dialogue we could better assist you.

[memester]

Originally Posted by Zetherin

Memester, if it is indeed an antagonistic argument, I don't see the point of wasting time trying to prove the question he asked implied a claim. If he denies it, without considering reason, what else are you to do? Any evidence that I feel a reasonable person would consider, would involve analyzing the contextual clues of the conversation, and if he won't do that, you're just talking to a wall.

This is not to say you should give up - you must find a different approach. It's sometimes wiser to go around a wall than through it.

Perhaps if we had the details of the dialogue we could better assist you.

In the situation regarding dawkinsites as antagonists; often, if I go around the wall, I will be penalized.

I have to provide proof that he made a claim, or else the question is valid and I must continue to define and define at the pleasure of moderators, or be penalized.
So I want a tidy proof for various situations one encounters when handling a hostile crowd.

I'll quote the argument

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by memester

I have to provide proof that he made a claim, or else the question is valid and I must continue to define and define at the pleasure of moderators, or be penalized.

In regards to the question, there is only so much specificity a person can offer before one approaches infinite regress. Someone could consistently ask, "Why?", after everything, ignoring answers, but this is just silly. Any reasonable person understands this.

If you cannot be specific enough, perhaps it is a valid question; perhaps you don't have clarity of mind, and that is the reason you cannot be specific enough. But this need not be the case. It could be the case that you do completely understand whatever it is you are speaking about and have simplified and articulated your position as best as one should be expected to do. If this is the case, I would recommend you explain this to them.

I'm waiting on the posting of the dialogue though to really say anything for sure...

[memester]

Debunking creationist myths Free Dating, Singles and Personals
I'm "Rug Doctor".

I think that rather than wading through the morass, it's just as helpful to examine the question about snake's legs. I need to understand a formal proof that a claim is contained in the question.

[ACB]

Originally Posted by memester

Debunking creationist myths Free Dating, Singles and Personals
I'm "Rug Doctor".

I note the following:

1. When you defined 'area' as 'zone', the other person replied (in post 445 of that thread): "Couldn't you be more specific, less nebulous?"

2. He later asked (in post 465): "By 'area' do you mean in the limited context of all the posts in this thread? All matters pertaining to the subject of Creationism? Within the specific boundaries of your discussion with Krebby?"

I think it is fair to say that 'zone' is not more specific than 'area' - it is just a synonym. And the use of the word 'zone' does not answer the questions in (2) above. So I think it is clear how you could be more specific (I make no comment on whether you should be).