The American heartland

[CA_Scouter]

Who wants pie?

 

[Stosh]

Ok, for clarity sake. ;^)

 

"The problem with Merlyn's logic is that if A and B can't agree on the interpretation of X then there's something wrong/unclear with X. However, if there's nothing wrong with X then either A and/or B are wrong. The faulty logic lies in the fact that there's an assumption that there is a problem with X. I contend that there's a problem with either A or B. Therefore it's always possible that either Merlyn and/or Ed is wrong. Let the reader decide for themselves.

 

The problem with Merlyn's logic is that if A and B can't agree on the interptation i.e. clear understanding of the statement X then there's something about X that makes itself unclear. However, if there's nothing unclear with X then either A and/or B may not be capable of understanding it's clarity. Someone can put an algebraic formula in front of my and no matter how much I try I'll never figure it out, yet a mathematician can take a glance at it and he/she fully understands what the formula means. There's nothing wrong with the formula nor is there anything wrong with the mathematicians understanding of it. However, I haven't a clue what it means because I'm not a mathematician. The "problem" does not lie with the formula X or person A, but person B is totally clueless. I do not know what the letters of the formula mean (meaning of words in a statment) nor how those letter and numbers in that particular sequence gives meaning to the formula(grammar, intent and meaning of the statement).

 

The logic falls apart when person A (mathematician) looks at the formula X and says ok, no problem makes sense to me. And Person B says, formula X is unclear, not because it is, but because they don't have the capabilities to understand it.

 

To call the comment a straw man argument leads me to believe that one doesn't understand that I was not attacking the person, I was questioning the logic applied to the situation. One must always allow for the possibility of false assumptions in the argument. To assume that person B doesn't understand the statment means the statement is unclear that might be true but it doesn't mean that the statement is unclear to person A.

 

This is Math 101 logic.

 

Stosh

[FScouter]

That puts us back at the beginning: one of the parties is incapable of understanding?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

jblake47 writes:

To call the comment a straw man argument leads me to believe that one doesn't understand that I was not attacking the person, I was questioning the logic applied to the situation.

 

That isn't what a straw man argument is; sounds like you're referring to an ad hominem argument.

 

A straw man argument is when you don't respond to the argument as stated, but a different, similar argument.

 

For example, I never referred to statement X as wrong (or right), yet you added that. And in your mathematical example, that would seem to violate my condition that both A and B are equally fluent in the language X is written in.

 

Of course, person A or B (or both) could be deficient in understanding statement X in some way, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that X actually is unclear.

 

Your statement: if there's nothing wrong with X then either A and/or B are wrong has two problems -- first, my example doesn't say X is wrong or right (or even has a logical truth value), it just says X is unclear.

 

Second, even if there's "nothing wrong" with statement X doesn't mean that the fault must lie with A and/or B. In my Prime Minister example, statement X could be wrong or could be right, depending on which PM is being referred to. But X is unclear, because there's no way to tell from what's been given.

 

The online Roget's Thesaurus on unclear says "Liable to more than one interpretation", and since there are Christian sects with differing interpretations, that meets the definition.

[evmori]

Of course, person A or B (or both) could be deficient in understanding statement X in some way, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that X actually is unclear.

 

And that doesn't mean without a doubt that X is unclear, as you have stated Merlyn.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

In an abstract argument, sure, if you want to ignore my requirement about A and B being equally fluent.

 

You can try to argue that the bible is clear on homosexuality, and every single disagreement between Christian sects in their differing interpretations is due entirely to their followers somehow unable to read supposedly "clear" statements about homosexuality in a way that agrees with all other interpretations, but I'll just go with the straightforward dictionary definition that multiple interpretations meets the definition of "unclear".

[packsaddle]

Ed, you just used a triple negative. Could you clarify that?

[evmori]

I ain't gonna and I ain't gotta!

[FScouter]

That explains it perfectly! Any more questions?

[BadenP]

AHHH, Ed and Merlyn doing battle once again, everything seems to be back to normal on this forum. Now it will be interesting to see how many pages this goes before F-Scouter shuts it down, lol.

[Stosh]

If American A and American B, both who cannot speak Spanish, are looking at a sign in Mexico City confused as to what it says, does not make the sign unclear.

 

If American A speaks Spanish and B doesn't, only A will find it clear, B will still be confused.

 

If both speak Spanish and neither can figure it out, then there just might be a problem with the sign, OR maybe it's written in Spanish slang and A and B only took high school Spanish.

 

Sorry Merlyn it would seem that no matter how hard I try there doesn't seem to be much clarification on your part and so Adios, Amigo!

 

Stosh

[evmori]

And again Stosh wins the cookies!

 

Make mine pumpkin, please!

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

If American A and American B, both who cannot speak Spanish, are looking at a sign in Mexico City confused as to what it says, does not make the sign unclear.

 

I'd say it's unclear TO THEM.

 

And that's related to the bible & homosexuality, because rare words like 'arsenokoitai' and 'malakoi' are involved; people don't agree on what they mean.

 

If all people who spoke Spanish dropped dead, and all dictionaries vanished, then A and B are in more of a position analgous to what the bible says about homosexuality. I'm sure the person(s) who wrote it knew what they meant, but that isn't much help to A and B now.

[Herms]

FScouter,

 

I'll take pie. Apple?

[evmori]

I'd say it's unclear TO THEM.

 

But that doesn't make the sign unclear as you have persisted incorrectly, Merlyn.