He he, revisionist now ...
Karl you said here again (as I had said you'd said)
"I said that this was a circular argument."
I resply what's wrong with a circular argument ?
(Seriously, I'm asking.)
We can work back up the thread of questions one at a time.
Ian
On 3/2/07, Karl Rogers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Ian,
>
> Before you start opening a new thread with a revisionist account of a
> conversation in another thread --
>
> In respose to your claim that some people are wiser than others, I asked you
> how did you know who was wise. You responded
>
> "Who are the wise people ? The people who uphold the wise basis for fair and
> safe values .... as judged by .... freedom and democracy ...with an
> institutional and constitutional framework based on those wise bases for
> values."
>
> I said that this was a circular argument. It presumes its conclusion in its
> premises. Hence it says nothing more than the wise people are the people we
> say are the wise people. You have not said what constitutes "the wise
> basis", nor how we know what it is and without that explanation your
> statement says nothing at all. Hence we do not know whether the
> institutional and constitutional framework us based on wise bases.
>
> At most you have said that the wise people are the people we elect to uphold
> the principles of our institutions and constitution. This both assumes that
> the principles of our institutions and constitution are wise, and it assumes
> that we can identify those that will uphold them when we elect them. Hence,
> your "argument" begs the question.
>
> Far from being "the right argument" it is not an argument at all, but is a
> psuedo-argument that uses its conclusion to demonstrate the validity of the
> conclusion. It argues nothing more than the assertion of the truth of the
> conclusion.
> Karl.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo!
> Mail.
>
>
|