I suppose, but if we take your argument a step further all induction would be invalid because it does not explicitly deny all other possibilities....
Dana On 7/28/05, Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's a possibility because it's not explicitly excluded. > > We're given > a = mediocre > b = brilliant > c = stone thrower > d = stone target > > From the sentence we do know that: > a = c > b = d > > But nothing in the sentence says that: > b != c > a != d > c != d > > Therefore we're open to the possibilities of: > b = c > a = d > c = d > > -Kevin > > > On 7/28/05, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > mmmm how do you get the brilliant can throw stones from this quote? > > > > You can't diagram it. > > > > mediocre stone throwers (a) != brilliant stone dodgers (b) > > > > liberals (L) throw stones at Rush (R) > > > > ergo liberals are mediocre and Rush is brilliant. > > > > Of course, this is an argument by analogy and can be refuted by > > pointing out that there are four groups here, not two. You can say > > that liberals are not demonstrated to be mediocre, or to throw stones. > > You can deny that Rush is brilliant (and I do ) or deny that he dodges > > any more stones than anyone else. > > > > I am not sure however how you would get the brilliant throwing stones. > > > > That being said, of *course* Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot. But > > even the village idiot occasionally makes an acute observation, so > > let's give him his due. It still doesn't mean he can get there from > > here. > > > > Dana > > > > > > > > > > On 7/28/05, Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The problem with the quote is that the unstated implication doesn't > > > follow logically. > > > > > > It makes the implication that if stone's are thrown, then you are > > > brilliant. But it doesn't say that. It actually says that if you are > > > having stones thrown at you that you _may_ be brilliant and the people > > > throwing them _may_ be mediocre. > > > > > > To reach the implied conclusion "you are brilliant and they are > > > mediocre", the sentence would have to read "only the brilliant have > > > stones thrown at them and only the mediocre throw stones." With his > > > quote as stands, it's entirely possible that the brilliant throw > > > stones at the mediocre. > > > > > > This is actually my beef with Rush. He reaches conclusions by using > > > logically flawed arguments that the average person doesn't realize are > > > flawed. > > > > > > -Kevin > > > > > > > > > On 7/28/05, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > you're going to make me agree with Rush Limbaugh aren't you. I hate > > > > you sometimes. Of course, he had to throw uncalled-for stones along > > > > the way, but he has the right idea, actually... small minds mock what > > > > they do not understand. > > > > > > > > Dana > > > > > > > > On 7/28/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > "If libs pick a fight with you, remember, the mediocre always throws > > > > > stones at the brilliant. Be confident. Be cool." - Rush Limbaugh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Protect Your PC from viruses, hackers, spam and more. Buy PC-cillin with Easy Installation & Support http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=61 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:167119 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
