|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 30, 2014 16:10:48 GMT -5
Badly chopped up post- see above. Unfortunately I can not copy it here.
No, it is not a false dichotomy. It is an actual dichotomy. There really are only the two possibilities. There is no middle ground on this question. If there is, you should be able to provide me with a third possibility. In terms of a decision though you have three possibilities, not two. I agree with (1). I agree with (2). I don't know or defer making a decision. It's not all that difficult, dmmichgood. The essential point is that you cannot prove that there is or is not an after-life, thus no absolute position is rationally possible. I've been reading more on falsifiability and critical rationalism in terms of this debate, and the other interesting point is that science has to be based and is limited to theories and statements based on empirical evidence. Not sure if that helps or not. And look what you just did! You stuck your own comment under my name as if I had said that!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 30, 2014 16:32:19 GMT -5
Badly chopped up post- see above. Unfortunately I can not copy it here. No, it is not a false dichotomy. It is an actual dichotomy. There really are only the two possibilities. There is no middle ground on this question. If there is, you should be able to provide me with a third possibility. In terms of a decision though you have three possibilities, not two. I agree with (1). I agree with (2). I don't know or defer making a decision. It's not all that difficult, dmmichgood. The essential point is that you cannot prove that there is or is not an after-life, thus no absolute position is rationally possible. I've been reading more on falsifiability and critical rationalism in terms of this debate, and the other interesting point is that science has to be based and is limited to theories and statements based on empirical evidence. Not sure if that helps or not. YOU are are the ONE that created only the two possibilities!
It is like you insist that there are only two possibilities:1. Hades is the under world 2 Hades is not the under world and I have no choices other than what you say.I agree with (1). I agree with (2). I don't know or defer making a decision. Why should I have to either know or defer making a decision about something that YOU stated?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 30, 2014 17:17:48 GMT -5
No, it is not a false dichotomy. It is an actual dichotomy. There really are only the two possibilities. There is no middle ground on this question. If there is, you should be able to provide me with a third possibility. In terms of a decision though you have three possibilities, not two. I agree with (1). I agree with (2). I don't know or defer making a decision. It's not all that difficult, dmmichgood. The essential point is that you cannot prove that there is or is not an after-life, thus no absolute position is rationally possible. I've been reading more on falsifiability and critical rationalism in terms of this debate, and the other interesting point is that science has to be based and is limited to theories and statements based on empirical evidence. Not sure if that helps or not. YOU are are the ONE that created only the two possibilities!
It is like you insist that there are only two possibilities:1. Hades is the under world 2 Hades is not the under world and I have no choices other than what you say.I agree with (1). I agree with (2). I don't know or defer making a decision. Why should I have to either know or defer making a decision about something that YOU stated?
A false dichotomy is created when two unrelated or only partly-related statements are set up in opposition. Not every dichotomy is a false one, however. I'd go so far to say that any issue on whether something exists or does not exist, like a question about whether something is True or False, contains only the two possibilities. As far as constructs using the relational operator 'is' one could conceive of other possibilities. Hades 'is' the underworld. Hades 'is not' the underworld. Hades 'is a bit like' the underworld. Hades 'is a lot like' the underworld. The concepts "Hades" and "the underworld" stand in many possible relations, not just "is" and "is not". So, there you have it, a third or fourth possibility are easily suggested. I'm still waiting on you to suggest a third possibility regarding the after-life and the question of its existence. It exists. It does not exist. Your suggestion?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 30, 2014 17:21:48 GMT -5
No, it is not a false dichotomy. It is an actual dichotomy. There really are only the two possibilities. There is no middle ground on this question. If there is, you should be able to provide me with a third possibility. In terms of a decision though you have three possibilities, not two. I agree with (1). I agree with (2). I don't know or defer making a decision. It's not all that difficult, dmmichgood. The essential point is that you cannot prove that there is or is not an after-life, thus no absolute position is rationally possible. I've been reading more on falsifiability and critical rationalism in terms of this debate, and the other interesting point is that science has to be based and is limited to theories and statements based on empirical evidence. Not sure if that helps or not. And look what you just did! You stuck your own comment under my name as if I had said that!
LOL. Clearly an editorial commment, which I've corrected, but what's so bad about that. I'm pretty sure that the quoting apparatus on proboards has some glitches. They can't deal with your posts.
|
|