Comments on: Irrefutable Logic http://www.whatsbestnext.com/2009/12/irrefutable-logic/ Leadership, theology, and culture for the supremacy of God in all things Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:42:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: JC http://www.whatsbestnext.com/2009/12/irrefutable-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-3567 JC Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:57:00 +0000 http://www.whatsbestnext.com/?p=2931#comment-3567 Josh wins! Josh wins!

]]> By: Josh McPherson http://www.whatsbestnext.com/2009/12/irrefutable-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-3562 Josh McPherson Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:28:22 +0000 http://www.whatsbestnext.com/?p=2931#comment-3562 Tuesday was his horse's name. Tuesday was his horse’s name.

]]> By: JC http://www.whatsbestnext.com/2009/12/irrefutable-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-3542 JC Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:31:19 +0000 http://www.whatsbestnext.com/?p=2931#comment-3542 Here's a mind-bender for you all: A cowboy rode into town on Tuesday. Two days later, he left the town. He left town on Tuesday, too. Explain. Here’s a mind-bender for you all:

A cowboy rode into town on Tuesday. Two days later, he left the town. He left town on Tuesday, too. Explain.

]]> By: Matt http://www.whatsbestnext.com/2009/12/irrefutable-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-3514 Matt Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:03:05 +0000 http://www.whatsbestnext.com/?p=2931#comment-3514 10 points to everyone -- you've passed with flying colors. Except for Gordon, of course -- negative 10 to you, Gordon, for saying something good about spam! 10 points to everyone — you’ve passed with flying colors.

Except for Gordon, of course — negative 10 to you, Gordon, for saying something good about spam!

]]> By: Gordon Cheng http://www.whatsbestnext.com/2009/12/irrefutable-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-3512 Gordon Cheng Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:28:59 +0000 http://www.whatsbestnext.com/?p=2931#comment-3512 What's wrong with Spam????? -Aggrieved of East Longbottom. What’s wrong with Spam?????

-Aggrieved of East Longbottom.

]]> By: Buddy Williams http://www.whatsbestnext.com/2009/12/irrefutable-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-3510 Buddy Williams Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:33:11 +0000 http://www.whatsbestnext.com/?p=2931#comment-3510 Sorry -- that should read: “nothing is better” is not a valid proposition. Sorry — that should read:
“nothing is better” is not a valid proposition.

]]> By: Buddy Williams http://www.whatsbestnext.com/2009/12/irrefutable-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-3509 Buddy Williams Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:32:18 +0000 http://www.whatsbestnext.com/?p=2931#comment-3509 Going out on a limb to say: "nothing is better" is not a invalid/false proposition. nothing != better You are actually affirming the opposite: - "nothing" = "everything" - "is" = "is not" "everything is not better" is a valid proposition. Which leaves us with: 1. Everything is not better than juicy steak. 2. Spam is not better than everything. 3. Spam is not better than juicy steak. Feedback? Going out on a limb to say:

“nothing is better” is not a invalid/false proposition.
nothing != better

You are actually affirming the opposite:
- “nothing” = “everything”
- “is” = “is not”

“everything is not better” is a valid proposition.

Which leaves us with:
1. Everything is not better than juicy steak.
2. Spam is not better than everything.
3. Spam is not better than juicy steak.

Feedback?

]]> By: Pete http://www.whatsbestnext.com/2009/12/irrefutable-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-3508 Pete Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:54:43 +0000 http://www.whatsbestnext.com/?p=2931#comment-3508 I agree, equivocation of the term "nothing." Also, it's interesting that this post links to related post, "10 Productivity Tips for Building Relationships." I don't see the connection between it and spam. I agree, equivocation of the term “nothing.”

Also, it’s interesting that this post links to related post, “10 Productivity Tips for Building Relationships.” I don’t see the connection between it and spam.

]]> By: Ben http://www.whatsbestnext.com/2009/12/irrefutable-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-3506 Ben Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:04:59 +0000 http://www.whatsbestnext.com/?p=2931#comment-3506 The word "nothing" can have 2 senses. The first is how you mean to use it in the first two statements: "there isn't anything." To rephrase, 1. There isn't anything better than a big juicy steak. 2. Spam isn't better than anything. In order to compose these statements into your third statement, you misread the word "nothing" to mean "having nothing". 1. Having nothing is better than having a big juicy steak. 2. Having spam is better than having nothing. You could then compose those to say, "Having spam is better than having nothing, which is better than having a big juicy steak." Which could then reduce to what you actually said. The word “nothing” can have 2 senses. The first is how you mean to use it in the first two statements: “there isn’t anything.” To rephrase,

1. There isn’t anything better than a big juicy steak.
2. Spam isn’t better than anything.

In order to compose these statements into your third statement, you misread the word “nothing” to mean “having nothing”.

1. Having nothing is better than having a big juicy steak.
2. Having spam is better than having nothing.

You could then compose those to say, “Having spam is better than having nothing, which is better than having a big juicy steak.” Which could then reduce to what you actually said.

]]> By: Mike Anderson http://www.whatsbestnext.com/2009/12/irrefutable-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-3504 Mike Anderson Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:09:20 +0000 http://www.whatsbestnext.com/?p=2931#comment-3504 Agreed— Equivocation of "nothing" is one problem. Also you make two assumptions, and the one about Spam being better than nothing is false. Agreed— Equivocation of “nothing” is one problem. Also you make two assumptions, and the one about Spam being better than nothing is false.

]]> By: John http://www.whatsbestnext.com/2009/12/irrefutable-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-3503 John Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:31:00 +0000 http://www.whatsbestnext.com/?p=2931#comment-3503 Agreed - you're equivocating on "nothing" in your two premises. Agreed – you’re equivocating on “nothing” in your two premises.

]]> By: rob http://www.whatsbestnext.com/2009/12/irrefutable-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-3502 rob Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:00:40 +0000 http://www.whatsbestnext.com/?p=2931#comment-3502 equivocation: nothing ? equivocation: nothing ?

]]> By: Eric http://www.whatsbestnext.com/2009/12/irrefutable-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-3501 Eric Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:30:34 +0000 http://www.whatsbestnext.com/?p=2931#comment-3501 There's more than one fallacy here, but I guess the one you're looking for is that spam is better than nothing. Given what you've said I doubt you believe that's true! There’s more than one fallacy here, but I guess the one you’re looking for is that spam is better than nothing. Given what you’ve said I doubt you believe that’s true!

]]>