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

[memester]

Originally Posted by ACB

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?"

yes, he does say that. I do not consider "zone to be more specific than "area". He asked for definition of "area", and I gave him one. So then he wanted more specificity. Needless, as Krebby had already indicated elsewhere that he had an agenda, and in fact he did reply to my question, admitting that he had an agenda, regardless of someone else's wishes to sidetrack my questioning.

Further, Krebby later admits trying to drive me into a corner for fun. Seemingly as part of his defence of his beliefs. I do not intend to take the questioner that needs definition of "Area", seriously. This is all about killing the other person's reputation. Krebby is repeatedly demanding that I defend Creationism. This is not serious debate, it's a scientist trying to make his side appear correct, and make Creationists appear to be duplicitous.

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).

thanks, I don't really know that I could HELPFULLY be more specific than "area", as even if I used the word "boundary" in explanation, then that would need definition too.
That's my experience with people trying to support or represent current Scientific thought.
I won't spend much time clarifying such ordinarily accepted words.

Especially when they are trying to say that "Mutation" is another word for "Evolution".
As seen, neither opponent really is enquiring, as Krebby makes clear for us, after I enquire about the statement " 'Mutation' is another word for 'Evolution' "

Is Verzen's statement true or false ?

RugDoctor,

LOL, sarcasm is a rhetorical device, meant to sway argumentation away from the true argument. You can read my posts, and ascertain as to whether I strive for truth, or not. Your use of rhetorical devices will not change that.

For the record, I don't know Verzen or whether he's a scientist or not. I only meant to use my posts to get away from your, ah, rather persistent, focus on knowing whether a fart was smelly or not. That there won't carry the day. The deeper issue is debunking Creationist myth, or allow it to carry the day.

so although I won't spend much time trying to define "area", I would like to be able to throw down a formal proof showing that a claim was made, in the question; just a tactic, something to keep that other guy busy - something that he would have to wrestle with.

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

I have the feeling that the formal proof that claims are being made, is offered through analysis of grammar and sentence structure.

[ACB]

It seems to me that the following:

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?"

is not seeking a definition of the word 'area', but asking in what context you are using it. In other words, how wide an area/zone/boundary do you mean? Suppose someone said in our current discussion: "I have expertise in this area". You might ask: "By 'area' do you mean philosophy in general? Or just philosophy of language? Or specifically the definitions of words? Or evolution theory?" Simply giving more synonyms for 'area' would not answer the question.

Can you please clarify one point. Do you wish to establish that the other person is making a false or unproven claim? If so, what precisely do you regard as false or unproven? How would you respond if the other person argued as follows:

1. It would be more specific to state whether 'area' in this instance includes matters outside the current thread, since this is not deducible from the definition alone.
2. You have not stated whether 'area' includes such matters or not.
3. Therefore, you could be more specific.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by 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.

1. The question, "why does not a snake have legs?" supposes the claim that snakes have no legs.
2. If a question supposes a claim, then it contains that claim.

Therefore (3) the question, "why does not a snake have legs?" contains the claim that a snake has no legs.

[memester]

Originally Posted by ACB

It seems to me that the following:



is not seeking a definition of the word 'area', but asking in what context you are using it. In other words, how wide an area/zone/boundary do you mean? Suppose someone said in our current discussion: "I have expertise in this area". You might ask: "By 'area' do you mean philosophy in general? Or just philosophy of language? Or specifically the definitions of words? Or evolution theory?" Simply giving more synonyms for 'area' would not answer the question.

Can you please clarify one point. Do you wish to establish that the other person is making a false or unproven claim? If so, what precisely do you regard as false or unproven? How would you respond if the other person argued as follows:

1. It would be more specific to state whether 'area' in this instance includes matters outside the current thread, since this is not deducible from the definition alone.
2. You have not stated whether 'area' includes such matters or not.
3. Therefore, you could be more specific.

Yes, I recognize the value of those enquiries, though in this situation, I would merely want the whole thing to not dirpt dialogue. If it can be shown to be important in some way, regarding that portion of discussion, then I would want to explore it further.
In this instance, not.

---------- Post added 11-30-2009 at 01:36 PM ----------

Originally Posted by kennethamy

1. The question, "why does not a snake have legs?" supposes the claim that snakes have no legs.
2. If a question supposes a claim, then it contains that claim.

Therefore (3) the question, "why does not a snake have legs?" contains the claim that a snake has no legs.

Yeah, the logical simple explanation is best, I suppose - whether it be accepted or not.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by memester

Yes, I recognize the value of those enquiries, though in this situation, I would merely want the whole thing to not dirpt dialogue. If it can be shown to be important in some way, regarding that portion of discussion, then I would want to explore it further.
In this instance, not.

---------- Post added 11-30-2009 at 01:36 PM ----------

Yeah, the logical simple explanation is best, I suppose - whether it be accepted or not.

The acceptance of an argument has nothing whatever to do with the merits of the argument.

[memester]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

The acceptance of an argument has nothing whatever to do with the merits of the argument.

true. the acceptance or not has some bearing on other things, though, of course.

THX, BTW !