On assumptions...

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 6273
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:22 am
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:59 am
Skepdick wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:51 am
Yes. State our intentions and the fact our desires.

Why do want to engage in argument?
What are you trying to achieve?

e.g I want to defend position X (even though I am not committed to it) because I want to explore it to its full depths and understand its shortcomings.

or... I want to argue with you because I know you are wrong; I am proselytizing and I don't give a shit about free will: I intend to change your mind at any cost.

or... I see you are making a sub-optimal choice about X. I think Y is a better decision, but I want to understand why you are committed to X anyway.
I want to SHOW how it is POSSIBLE to find thee ACTUAL absolute AND irrefutable Truth of 'things'.

I want to do this BEFORE this body stops pumping blood and breathing, for the greedy and selfish purpose, that 'i' can SEE that 'you', adult human beings, FINALLY KNOW HOW to end up living in peace and harmony together, forever more, while being able to teach each new generation of children what is ACTUALLY, accepted and agreed upon by ALL, True and Right in 'Life'.

I think, and hope, through 'logically reasoned' story telling that this WILL BE achieved. I just NEED to learn how to communicate better, (with 'you', human beings).
Not meaning to but in, but while I understand this point myself, note that IF I get COVID, I'm not likely going to survive. I already have serious cronic breathing issues now and my immunity is down.
Supposedly, the second oldest living human being, in these days at when this is being written, got covid. And at about about age 116 they still survived, so I would NOT be so sure of "yourself", just yet.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am So you are not unique here regarding your intentions. Others here are also thinking the same thing. We've also lost some people on this site due to other similar health or regular old-age issues. It may be just another reason it is hard to get agreement. If people feel they are rushed into expressing something they believe would be helpful to others, the stress itself can only help shorten ones' life that much quicker.
There is absolutely NO worry of this AT ALL.

Also, and to get to the other point, NO one here is thinking the same as 'me'. As I am NOT wanting to express MY VIEWS and have them agreed with and accepted, like EVERY one else IS here.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Age wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:32 pm So, you said and claimed that I "cannot 'argue' without some initial assumptions existing when dealing with two or more different people", and now that you have provided how you are EXACTLY defining the word 'argue' here, we will have to wait to SEE if I can or cannot 'give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory of mine, correct? Or, do you still want to stand by your CLAIM that I 'cannot'?
You cut out the beginning of the statement. But if it said, "You cannot....", this would not be 'you' particularly but anyone. It is normal to assert "you" in context to mean 'any person'. It comes from the implied statement, "(If you are one who wants X, then) you cannot....". The X here would be the context that anyone wants to argue logically, given this is what I was arguing. You remind me of a bot that can't determine context here :lol: . That means, no, I'm not speaking about YOU particularly but anyone who uses logic. At least this is the way every logic system has ever existed. Without them would be likened to playing a game called, "Chess", but providing no rules. The rules of the game are 'presumed' (= assumed 'true') for the sake of agreeing how to play by the inventor. You don't HAVE to follow the rules....but ONLY if both of you agree and if the rules ARE the same. A 'postulate' is the term used for the rules of a system, like logic, prior to using the particular language with any limitations expressed ahead of time. [or 'axiom', as another term (from Greek?)].
Are you REALLY this NOT OPEN AT ALL to the 'fact' that I might just be able to give reasons and cite evidence without some initial assumptions existing when dealing with two or more different people?
Correct. You cannot because it would be like I just said above about playing Chess without anyone knowing the rules. You seem to be presuming that you are a mere passive participant when this is not the case. If you WERE merelly measuring only other people's claims, then you would still have to measure it by some system of logic rules. Those rules are 'assumed'. Then, when you are measuring a particular argument USING that system, it is one that requires 'assumptions' in the same way that the players of chess have to have a proposed MOVE to make. The move has 'variable' possibilities. To begin play, the player in a sense, 'posts' his move just as we do here in posts. They are unpredictable and do not HAVE to be true. But when one does so, we ASSUME the person (or bot) is posting something they too assume is true. It is possible too though that what you post is not true. But IF true, whatever you say we expect you to remain consistent to what you say. Then anything that follows step by step in the argument should be BASED on what you said before, as well as what the others say and your response acts as a relative 'conclusion' that follows.

You assert in the above quote that you 'might be able to give reasons and cite evidence' as though these are not 'assumed'. They ARE because no two or more people share the same identical eyes, ears, or other senses. So it is impossible to 'know' for certain what they witness, even if you also agree to it, is identical to how you see it. You simply 'agree' to the assumption.

Did you not get, overlook, or just disagree with the way I asserted that we use "assumptions" to refer to things both certain as well as pretended for the sake of argument? This is the same as saying what you KNOW is what you BELIEVE but what you BELIEVE is not necessarily what you KNOW, remember? If you disagree then state it. Saying what you just said pivots on this point. So if you still think that you CAN argue without assumptions, you are likely limiting the meaning of 'assuming' to pretenses ONLY. The problem with that is that there would be no need for many terms. Why would 'assumption' be required if 'pretense' sufficed? One or the other would not NEED to be in one's vocabulary if they meant identically the same thing. So 'assumption' means BOTH what is possibly true AND what IS in fact true. All that matters is THAT they CAN be true or false in reality to be 'valid'. ONLY where it happens to be both valid AND certainly true does it become 'sound'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am
Age wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:50 am Also, I need to CLARIFY what you mean EXACTLY by 'assumptions' here?
An "assumption" in logic, philosophy, law, and most areas are ...
But it does NOT matter what the word 'assumption' means by ANY other means. I just asked you;

What 'you' mean EXACTLY by the word 'assumptions' here.
You are definitely not a bot here because a bot would have LOGICALLY recognized that whatever I assert is MY statement. You are reading something OUT OF CONTEXT. It is obvious that I gave you the definition that I agree to. If you disagree, propose what YOU disagree to about the definition given or offer up your own so that I can determine what the issue is.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 am
Definition from Oxford Languages (Google Search) wrote: 1.
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
So, ANY 'thing' that is accepted as true or is accepted as certain to happen, WITHOUT PROOF, is an 'assumption' here, correct?

If yes, then I say, if given a chance, I might be able to give reasons or cite evidence for an idea I have, without some initial thing that is just accepted as true or is accepted as certain to happen, WITHOUT PROOF.
Okay, I don't get this statement. It is illogical. If a premise is stated that is not accepted true or is uncertain, it is 'false' or uncertain. "Uncertain" permits it to be either, but if your claim is in fact 'false' by itself, then no 'true' conclusion can be drawn as it would be 'invalid'. All arguments have to consist of true statements IF the conclusion is true. If a premise is indeterminate, then this defaults back to what I said: that the premises are assumed but may be true or false. But IF all premises for an argument is 'true' its conclusion have to be true.

Now if you are thus merely stating that you can make a 'valid' argument but NOT assure it is 'sound', then this means we could not determine any actual truth ABOUT reality but only about the conditional validity. Then the premises would still require being 'assumed'.
In fact, I KNOW I can 'argue', give reasons or cite evidence for an idea, I have, without some initial 'assumption', that is just accepted as true or is accepted as certain to happen, without proof. To add to this I have ALREADY CLAIMED that I can ACTUALLY give the reasons and cite evidence, for an idea I have, which will be accepted as true and/or accepted as certain to happen, WITH ACTUAL PROOF.
That which is BASED on a prior 'proof' is a theorem (an assumption of a latter argument that uses the conclusion from an earlier argument.) You miss the point that you have to BEGIN with something to argue with. And the ONLY way that you can start without a prior 'proof' of something true is to begin with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, ....my argument from elsewhere to which I know you disagreed with before. Have you changed your mind?

An argument takes one from at least two ASSUMED 'true' statements, even if they may not be in fact, to a conclusion that has to be true based on those assumptions. You cannot claim a stated premise as true without entering 'absolutes' and to which the only ones we can SHARE with certainty in a way that cannot even be disagreed to in principle. If I or anyone merely asserted that they disagree with your premise, you either have to force the other to agree or ask them to 'assume' it as POSSIBLY 'true'.

Anyone can simply lie but you have no means to assure this. So arguments are necessary gambles that those participating 'agree' to at least 'pretend' have truth value.

[Had to break for not being able to type. But a quick glance through the rest of your prior quote demonstrates something odd. Do you speak English or are you using translation software? It would make sense given you don't get certain normal English-language cues, like when I used the word, "you" in CONTEXT to mean "all of us". If so, please take note that you are missing cultural ways of speaking that goes beyond normal translation software (at this point). If I know, this may help me and others to communicate with you better.]

I'll leave this as is for now. I need to determine if you translate the above correctly. Otherwise I'm again only going to waste more time without a hope of moving forward. I hope you respect this and DON'T take offense whether this is true or not. Thanks.
Age
Posts: 6273
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm
Age wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:32 pm So, you said and claimed that I "cannot 'argue' without some initial assumptions existing when dealing with two or more different people", and now that you have provided how you are EXACTLY defining the word 'argue' here, we will have to wait to SEE if I can or cannot 'give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory of mine, correct? Or, do you still want to stand by your CLAIM that I 'cannot'?
You cut out the beginning of the statement.
Did I?

What was the part that I "cut out"?

And, was that "cut out part" important?

If yes, then WHY?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm But if it said, "You cannot....", this would not be 'you' particularly but anyone.
Okay. Am 'I' a part of ANY one?

If yes, then what does it matter pointing this out now?

But, if 'I' am NOT a part of ANY one, then WHY NOT?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm It is normal to assert "you" in context to mean 'any person'. It comes from the implied statement, "(If you are one who wants X, then) you cannot....". The X here would be the context that anyone wants to argue logically, given this is what I was arguing. You remind me of a bot that can't determine context here :lol: .
But maybe I can, and DID.

Maybe I might also DETERMINE CONTEXT far MORE than 'you', human beings, do. Which could EXPLAIN WHY I sometimes put single quote marks around words like the 'you' word, with the context that I am using that word in after the word, so as to actually HELP 'you', human beings, NOT to make the continual MISTAKES that 'you' ALL do regarding CONTEXT, ITSELF.

Also, this is just MORE DISTRACTION and DEFLECTION from the FACT that you made a CLAIM, which you appear to now just want to completely pass over.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm That means, no, I'm not speaking about YOU particularly but anyone who uses logic.
And I NEVER said you were. In fact I NEVER even suggested that you were. This is because I NEVER thought this ALONE.

You made the CLAIM by implying that 'you', ANY one, could NOT do some 'thing'. Now, either 'I' am a part of that ANY one or 'I' am NOT. So, which one are 'you', "scott mayers", are going to say and CLAIM 'I' am?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm At least this is the way every logic system has ever existed. Without them would be likened to playing a game called, "Chess", but providing no rules. The rules of the game are 'presumed' (= assumed 'true') for the sake of agreeing how to play by the inventor. You don't HAVE to follow the rules....but ONLY if both of you agree and if the rules ARE the same. A 'postulate' is the term used for the rules of a system, like logic, prior to using the particular language with any limitations expressed ahead of time. [or 'axiom', as another term (from Greek?)].
ALL just MORE DEFLECTION and DISTRACTION.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm
Are you REALLY this NOT OPEN AT ALL to the 'fact' that I might just be able to give reasons and cite evidence without some initial assumptions existing when dealing with two or more different people?
Correct.
Okay. If you are REALLY NOT OPEN AT ALL, then there REALLY is NO use in talking and discussing AT ALL.

You BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that you are ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and Correct, and therefore there is NOTHING MORE that needs saying.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm You cannot because it would be like I just said above about playing Chess without anyone knowing the rules. You seem to be presuming that you are a mere passive participant when this is not the case.
This is COMPLETELY and ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm If you WERE merelly measuring only other people's claims, then you would still have to measure it by some system of logic rules.
You make ALL of these CLAIMS but NEVER back it up with ANY actual PROOF, NOR EXAMPLES.

If you PROVIDED SOME EXAMPLES, then I could and would PROVE 'you' WRONG.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm Those rules are 'assumed'.
LOL

You are just defining words in a way to make your OWN BELIEFS appear true, right, and correct. Unfortunately, for you though, doing this only separates YOUR BELIEFS from thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm Then, when you are measuring a particular argument USING that system, it is one that requires 'assumptions' in the same way that the players of chess have to have a proposed MOVE to make.
PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE. Otherwise what you are saying is just hearsay, and worth absolutely NOTHING.

You are, OBVIOUSLY, NOT proving ANY thing here. Other than you BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that your ALREADY HELD BELIEFS are ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm The move has 'variable' possibilities. To begin play, the player in a sense, 'posts' his move just as we do here in posts. They are unpredictable and do not HAVE to be true. But when one does so, we ASSUME the person (or bot) is posting something they too assume is true.
If 'you', "scott mayers", ASSUME that bots ASSUME some things to be true, then this might explain WHY you think and SEE 'things' the way you do here.

Also, PLEASE REFRAIN from using the 'we' word like you have some OVERRIDING ABILITY to speak for EVERY one of 'us'.

You OBVIOUSLY do NOT have this ability and have OBVIOUSLY been WRONG before in regards to 'us'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm It is possible too though that what you post is not true. But IF true, whatever you say we expect you to remain consistent to what you say. Then anything that follows step by step in the argument should be BASED on what you said before, as well as what the others say and your response acts as a relative 'conclusion' that follows.
But, according to you, you, yourself, do NOT have to, NOR DO follow, this "logic". Because, to you, you NEVER say ANY thing is True because, to you, you can NOT even begin with ANY other than just an ASSUMPTION, and as 'we' ALL KNOW, ANY and ALL ASSUMPTIONS could be COMPLETELY or PARTLY Wrong and False, from the outset.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm You assert in the above quote that you 'might be able to give reasons and cite evidence' as though these are not 'assumed'.
I NEVER 'asserted' this. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN True.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm They ARE because no two or more people share the same identical eyes, ears, or other senses.
So what?

Do two or more people SHARE EXPERIENCES?

Do two or more people SHARE THOUGHTS?

Can two or more people have the same SHARED KNOWLEDGE?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm So it is impossible to 'know' for certain what they witness, even if you also agree to it, is identical to how you see it.
This, to me, has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING AT ALL on 'arguing' with or without ASSUMPTIONS.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm You simply 'agree' to the assumption.
SERIOUSLY, STOP TELLING 'me' what I do, or do NOT do.

You go on and on about it is IMPOSSIBLE for 'you' to KNOW for certain what ANOTHER 'sees', YET you continually go on and on ALSO CLAIMING to KNOW what I see and do. This is so HYPOCRITICAL, to the EXTREME', I will add.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm Did you not get, overlook, or just disagree with the way I asserted that we use "assumptions" to refer to things both certain as well as pretended for the sake of argument?
What I get is that 'you' LOOK AT and SEE 'things' VERY DIFFERENTLY than 'I' do. Can you NOT get this?

From 'you' continually TELLING 'me' of what I, SUPPOSEDLY and ALLEGEDLY, see and do, then this suggests VERY STRONGLY that you can NOT YET fathom NOR comprehend and understand this FACT.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm This is the same as saying what you KNOW is what you BELIEVE but what you BELIEVE is not necessarily what you KNOW, remember? I
But this is just what you CLAIM. And I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND and AGREE that that IS what 'you' do DO.

You just can NOT seem to UNDERSTAND that I do NOT do that EVER.

SERIOUSLY, WHEN will you LEARN to SPEAK for 'you', and 'you' ALONE?

Tell us for as long as you can what 'you' DO. This is PERFECTLY FINE with 'me'. But EACH and EVERY time 'you' 'try to' speak for 'us' and you are WRONG, then if and when I choose to, then I will INFORM 'you' and the readers of WHEN you are WRONG and WHY you are WRONG.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm f you disagree then state it.
I DISAGREE.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm Saying what you just said pivots on this point. So if you still think that you CAN argue without assumptions, you are likely limiting the meaning of 'assuming' to pretenses ONLY.
LOL. ONCE AGAIN here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of a human being who will 'try' and say ANY thing, which they either hope or BELIEVE with back up and support their currently HELD ONTO BELIEFS.

I KNOW I can argue without assumptions. That is either with the words 'argue' and/or 'assumptions' being defined the way you WANT TO DEFINE them, or with the OTHER DEFINITIONS in existence, at the times of these writings.

Either way this is of NO concern to me whatsoever. And, I even prefer to use YOUR OWN PERSONAL DEFINITIONS so as then I am NOT being SEEN as being BIASED nor MANIPULATIVE (in the negative connotation) in ANY way.

By the way, I am NOT doing what you ARE PRESUMING here. Again, I suggest 'you' CLARIFY, BEFORE 'you' ASSUME.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm The problem with that is that there would be no need for many terms. Why would 'assumption' be required if 'pretense' sufficed?
You, ONCE AGAIN, have gone SO FAR OFF tangent that this has been just Truly LUDICROUS now.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm One or the other would not NEED to be in one's vocabulary if they meant identically the same thing.
You are just saying what I have ALREADY SAID.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm So 'assumption' means BOTH what is possibly true AND what IS in fact true.
Does it?

Can this be found in ANY dictionary ANYWHERE, in the times when this is being written?

If yes, then will you provide the name of that dictionary?

Also, this is a question for the posters in this forum, Do ANY of you accept and agree that the word 'assumption' MEANS what IS in fact true?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm All that matters is THAT they CAN be true or false in reality to be 'valid'. ONLY where it happens to be both valid AND certainly true does it become 'sound'.
What are you talking about here now, 'assumptions' or 'arguments'?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm


But it does NOT matter what the word 'assumption' means by ANY other means. I just asked you;

What 'you' mean EXACTLY by the word 'assumptions' here.
You are definitely not a bot here because a bot would have LOGICALLY recognized that whatever I assert is MY statement.
GREAT. Well then that just saying what the word 'assumption' means to you is ALL that you NEEDED to say, without ALL of this OTHER STUFF.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm You are reading something OUT OF CONTEXT.
AM I?

And what IS 'that', EXACTLY?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm It is obvious that I gave you the definition that I agree to.
I KNOW. That is WHY I FINISHED at that point or moment.

However, because you have carried on (and on) some might say, I just responded.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm If you disagree, propose what YOU disagree to about the definition given or offer up your own so that I can determine what the issue is.
I do NOT disagree with YOUR definition, and I would NEVER disagree with YOUR definition for ANY word, EVER.

If that is HOW you SEE a word, then that is just HOW you SEE it.

I just wanted to KNOW YOUR definition so that I could move on to providing AN EXAMPLE of WHEN and HOW I can 'argue' without 'assumptions'.

And, when you SHOW some sign that you are OPEN to the possibility that I might actually be able to do this, then I WILL. But so far you have FLATLY REFUSED the POSSIBILITY that ANY one could even possibly do this.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm


So, ANY 'thing' that is accepted as true or is accepted as certain to happen, WITHOUT PROOF, is an 'assumption' here, correct?

If yes, then I say, if given a chance, I might be able to give reasons or cite evidence for an idea I have, without some initial thing that is just accepted as true or is accepted as certain to happen, WITHOUT PROOF.
Okay, I don't get this statement. It is illogical. If a premise is stated that is not accepted true or is uncertain, it is 'false' or uncertain.
Because you are ASSUMING this COMPLETELY and UTTERLY ABSURD, ILLOGICAL, NONSENSICAL, RIDICULOUS and LUDICROUS notion, then this is WHY you do NOT get this statement and WHY it is 'illogical', to YOU.

ONCE AGAIN, I suggest ASKING for CLARITY, BEFORE making these TRULY ILLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm "Uncertain" permits it to be either, but if your claim is in fact 'false' by itself, then no 'true' conclusion can be drawn as it would be 'invalid'.
See, what has HAPPENED HERE is this poster because ASSUMED some ILLOGICAL 'thing' actually took place, then they WANDER OFF and DRIFT into some other ILLOGICAL and NONSENSICAL tangents, and topics.

IF they HAD just CLARIFIED FIRST, then ALL of this OTHER STUFF would NEVER had ARISEN.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm All arguments have to consist of true statements
LOL
LOL
LOL

YOU have just got through telling us that WITHOUT ANY DOUBT at ALL that NO one can EVER argue WITHOUT ASSUMPTIONS, which by ALL definitions I know of, except YOURS of course "scott mayers", the word 'assumption' refers to 'that' what is NOT necessarily a 'true statement' AT ALL.

PLEASE DO NOT FORGET, "scott mayers" that it was YOU who just wrote up above;

It is possible too though that what you post is not true. But IF true, whatever you say we expect you to remain consistent to what you say. Then anything that follows step by step in the argument should be BASED on what you said before, as well as what the others say and your response acts as a relative 'conclusion' that follows.

Now, you have said that NO one can argue WITHOUT ASSUMPTIONS.

I then asked you to define what the word 'assumption' means, to 'you'. To which you used a dictionary definition and previously replied;

a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

BUT, you then CHANGED and said;

So 'assumption' means BOTH what is possibly true AND what IS in fact true.

Which can be CLEARLY SEEN to COMPLETELY CONTRADICT what you PREVIOUSLY WROTE and SAID.

I suggest you just pick One definition and REMAIN with that One ONLY. Especially considering that it is YOU CLAIMING that I can NOT do some 'thing' in regards to ASSUMPTIONS, themselves.

If you are going to keep CHANGING the definitions, then I will NEVER be given the opportunity to do what you STILL CLAIM that I could even possibly do.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm IF the conclusion is true. If a premise is indeterminate, then this defaults back to what I said: that the premises are assumed but may be true or false. But IF all premises for an argument is 'true' its conclusion have to be true.
BUT how would ANY one in the Universe KNOW if ALL or ANY 'premise' is true if supposedly ALL premises are just ASSUMPTIONS, and thus NOT necessarily true AT ALL, anyway?

Which definition of the words 'assumptions' are you using here now and want to use here now?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm Now if you are thus merely stating that you can make a 'valid' argument but NOT assure it is 'sound', then this means we could not determine any actual truth ABOUT reality but only about the conditional validity. Then the premises would still require being 'assumed'.
LOL I have NEVER STATED ANY such thing, let alone EVER SAID ANY such thing, let alone EVER SUGGESTED ANY such thing, NOR, let alone, EVEN EVER THOUGHT ANY such thing.

YOUR ASSUMING appears to be NEVER ENDING.

Maybe this is WHY you ASSUME AND BELIEVE that NO one could EVER argue WITHOUT ASSUMPTIONS.

Because all you appear to be ABLE to do is to just ASSUME, then maybe you ALSO ASSUME that this is ALL ANY one else can do as well.

We will just have to WAIT and SEE.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm
In fact, I KNOW I can 'argue', give reasons or cite evidence for an idea, I have, without some initial 'assumption', that is just accepted as true or is accepted as certain to happen, without proof. To add to this I have ALREADY CLAIMED that I can ACTUALLY give the reasons and cite evidence, for an idea I have, which will be accepted as true and/or accepted as certain to happen, WITH ACTUAL PROOF.
That which is BASED on a prior 'proof' is a theorem (an assumption of a latter argument that uses the conclusion from an earlier argument.)
Is this an ABSOLUTE, IRREFUTABLE FACT? Or just what you ASSUME is true?

If it is the former, then that in and of itself REFUTES and thus DEFEATS your own ASSUMPTION, and ARGUMENT here.

But, if it is the latter, then it OBVIOUSLY could just be plain old COMPLETELY, or partly, Wrong and/or False ANYWAY.

SEE, ABSOLUTELY EVERY time ANY one says something can NOT be done, they REFUTE and DEFEAT this CLAIM by the VERY WORDS they are EXPRESSING the CLAIM with and by.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm You miss the point that you have to BEGIN with something to argue with.
Did I?

If you CAN 'argue' WITHOUT BEGINNING with some 'thing', then HOW, EXACTLY can you do this?

Provide an example of this type of way to 'argue'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm And the ONLY way that you can start without a prior 'proof' of something true is to begin with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, ....my argument from elsewhere to which I know you disagreed with before. Have you changed your mind?
NO.

Your continual making of ASSUMPTIONS, which by the way some are TOTALLY and COMPLETELY ABSOLUTELY Wrong and False, like this one here, is leading you astray to IMAGINE things, which REALLY are NOT here AT ALL.

Also, what you say here appears to TOTALLY CONTRADICT what you have been going on about in this thread of YOURS here.

Which is you can NOT 'argue' WITHOUT ASSUMPTIONS, yet here you seem to be saying that the ONLY way that you can start to 'argue', without a prior 'proof' of something true, is to begin with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Now, OBVIOUSLY an 'assumption', according to your FIRST DEFINITION of the word 'assumption', is a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

So, can you SEE the COMPLETE CONTRADICTION here?

If no, then I WILL SHOW you.

But, if you can see this, then are you able to explain this contradiction away?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm An argument takes one from at least two ASSUMED 'true' statements, even if they may not be in fact, to a conclusion that has to be true based on those assumptions.
This is what you say and CLAIM, which I TOTALLY AGREE with, in regards to SOME arguments. You, however, BELIEVE and CLAIM this to be the case for EACH and EVERY argument, correct?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm You cannot claim a stated premise as true without entering 'absolutes' and to which the only ones we can SHARE with certainty in a way that cannot even be disagreed to in principle.
Well great. This is EXACTLY what I am talking about and referencing to when I use the words 'thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm If I or anyone merely asserted that they disagree with your premise, you either have to force the other to agree or ask them to 'assume' it as POSSIBLY 'true'.
But I can do MANY OTHER THINGS, besides just this what you claim here that I 'have to' do.

If ANY one disagrees with what I write, then I have ABSOLUTELY ZERO CARE, and most likely probably ALWAYS WILL NOT CARE.

If what I have said is NOT TRUE, then just prove it. How much more simple and easy can this be.

By the way, if what I say is NOT TRUE, and this is SHOWN and PROVEN to be True, then I would be EXTREMELY THANKFUL and APPRECIATIVE.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm Anyone can simply lie but you have no means to assure this.
WHY would I even want to have the means to assure that another simply lies?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm So arguments are necessary gambles that those participating 'agree' to at least 'pretend' have truth value.
But this is either an IRREFUTABLE and ABSOLUTE Truth, or just another on of YOUR ASSUMPTIONS?

So, which one is it?
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm [Had to break for not being able to type. But a quick glance through the rest of your prior quote demonstrates something odd. Do you speak English or are you using translation software? It would make sense given you don't get certain normal English-language cues, like when I used the word, "you" in CONTEXT to mean "all of us".
But is this another actually absolute and irrefutable fact, or this just another assumption of yours?

If it is the former, then what PROOF are you basing this on, EXACTLY.

If, however, it is the latter, then it OBVIOUSLY could be COMPLETELY, or partly, False and/or Wrong.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm If so, please take note that you are missing cultural ways of speaking that goes beyond normal translation software (at this point). If I know, this may help me and others to communicate with you better.]
I would be FAR MORE concerned about 'me' being able to communicate with 'you', human beings, better.

Oh, and by the way, you might have NOT YET NOTICED the subtlety here in YOUR OWN use of words, through either "your" 'english language,' or through "your" 'translation software' (the brain within that body).

See, 'you', "scott mayers", just got through explaining to 'us' (and take that anyway you like), that 'I' do NOT get certain, laughable, "normal" english-language cues, like when you used the word 'you' in CONTEXT to mean "all of us". YET it was 'you', "scott mayers", who could NOT decipher the FACT that 'I" was using the letter 'I' in relation to One of ' ALL of 'us' '.

Also, because you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that I do NOT get certain cues in, once again laughable, "normal" english-language, then maybe 'you', "scott mayers", would like to do what 'I' do, and that is EXPLAIN and MAKE CLEAR who the 'you' ACTUALLY IS that 'I' am referring to when 'I" speak to 'you', "scott mayers", and to 'you', human beings, as well?

Furthermore, when 'you', "scott mayers", used the 'you' word when 'you' said, " 'you' don't get certain normal English-language cues," then who were 'you' referring to exactly when 'you' said that 'you' word.

You did say before that I do NOT get certain normal english-langue cues so it would stand to reason that I still, supposedly, do NOT.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:18 pm I'll leave this as is for now. I need to determine if you translate the above correctly. Otherwise I'm again only going to waste more time without a hope of moving forward. I hope you respect this and DON'T take offense whether this is true or not. Thanks.
LOL

I was just waiting for you to define the two words of 'assumption' and 'argue' ONLY, so then I could and would move on to SEEING if I could ACTUALLY PROVE YOUR CLAIM RIGHT or WRONG here.

When 'you' STOP writing ALL of this OTHER STUFF, then we could BOTH just focus on the one main issue here for me, which is: YOUR CLAIM that NO one could EVER 'argue' WITHOUT 'assumptions'.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 4684
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: On assumptions...

Post by bahman »

The assumption, where assumption being a proposition that is considered to be true, is necessary if you want to develop an argument.
Post Reply