Help needed on how to distinguish part of a question, as a claim.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;106900 wrote:

Isn't the claim here that he is confused, rather than that he can't be more specific? He could indeed be more specific, had he not been confused, according to the question. The root is his confusion, with the result being a lack of specificity.

At least that's how I'd interpret it at first glance.

I interpret that part, as the part which is a possible question being asked; my being "confused" or "not confused" is possibly a question, posed using "if".

It's a question "aired" through the question in general.

IOW, he could have phrased it like this; Are you so confused that you cannot even be specific ?

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;106902 wrote:

I interpret that part, as the part which is a possible question being asked; my being "confused" or "not confused" is possibly a question, posed using "if".

My first interpretation is that is a sort of loaded question. He is implying that you are confused and that your confusion has led you to a lack of specificity in your rhetoric. "If you are not confused, then why can't you be more specific?", is not just sincerely asking, "Are you confused?". It is carrying the implication that your confusion has led you to ineffective communication. Again, that's how I take it at first glance...

But I think that this question could be asked without a claim necessarily being made. That is, someone could be sincerely asking "Are you confused?" (the question within the question). I find it more likely that there is an implication, though, especially if it were a heated discussion.

It's hard to prove someone is claiming something if they say they are not, with a sentence like this. There are various interpretations as ACB has walked through. I would recommend seeking other contextual clues - this could lend proof; the proof could be found within the rest of his writing. Analyzing the rest of his text with which this question was placed could provide evidence regarding what he meant by asking this.

Remember, you'll never be able to prove beyond all doubt, but you can surely prove beyond reasonable doubt.

0 Replies

@memester,

memester;106896 wrote:

You had to assume that I was not specific, for your possible answers

The question implies that it is possible to be more specific, yes. You can call that a 'claim' if you like, but isn't it common ground between the two of you? You admit that you can be more specific, but are unwilling to because you do not want to play his game any longer.

1 Reply

@ACB,

ACB;106908 wrote:

The question implies that it is possible to be more specific, yes. You can call that a 'claim' if you like, but isn't it common ground between the two of you? You admit that you can be more specific, but are unwilling to because you do not want to play his game any longer.

I CAN be more specific, but not in the area he is demanding more specificity in. He demanded a definition of "area". I replied, "zone". Then he demanded more specificity.

I also do not want to send him in the proper direction, to ask for more specificity, as I see his only goal to be that of interruption of legitimate questioning of his pet theory.

My perception of his intent is reinforced by the fact that the person I was questioning had already given his answer to my question, with no hint of claim that I had not been specific: as he had already admitted somewhere else , exactly what I was attempting to draw out of him ( which he was at that point, denying).
So this is not in a sharing discussion. This is in antagonistic argument.

1 Reply

@ACB,

ACB;106895 wrote:

I do not think that the question:

"If you are not confused, then why can't you be more specific?"

contains a claim. The question has several possible answers, including:

1. You are confused, so you can't be more specific.
2. You are not confused, but you can't be more specific as you have insufficient linguistic skill.
3. You are not confused, and you can be more specific but do not wish to be.

So the question allows that:
(a) you may or may not be confused, and
(b) you may or may not be able to be more specific.

Hence it is not claiming (i) that you are confused, nor (ii) that you are not confused, nor (iii) that you can be more specific, nor (iv) that you cannot be more specific. There is nothing else that it could possibly be claiming; therefore, in my view, it is not claiming anything at all.

The fact that it is not clear just what claim he is making does not imply he was making no claim. We may have to ask him further what claim he was making. And when he replies, we'll know what the claim was. In any case, yours is but one example. What about my example, "Why do you think that snakes have no feet?" which contains the claim that snakes have no feet.

0 Replies

@memester,

memester;106909 wrote:

I CAN be more specific, but not in the area he is demanding more specificity in. He demanded a definition of "area". I replied, "zone". Then he demanded more specificity.

I also do not want to send him in the proper direction, to ask for more specificity, as I see his only goal to be that of interruption of legitimate questioning of his pet theory.

My perception of his intent is reinforced by the fact that the person I was questioning had already given his answer to my question, with no hint of claim that I had not been specific: as he had already admitted somewhere else , exactly what I was attempting to draw out of him ( which he was at that point, denying).
So this is not in a sharing discussion. This is in antagonistic argument.

Memester, if it is indeed an antagonistic argument, I don't see the point of wasting time trying to prove the question he asked implied a claim. If he denies it, without considering reason, what else are you to do? Any evidence that I feel a reasonable person would consider, would involve analyzing the contextual clues of the conversation, and if he won't do that, you're just talking to a wall.

This is not to say you should give up - you must find a different approach. It's sometimes wiser to go around a wall than through it.

Perhaps if we had the details of the dialogue we could better assist you.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;106913 wrote:

Memester, if it is indeed an antagonistic argument, I don't see the point of wasting time trying to prove the question he asked implied a claim. If he denies it, without considering reason, what else are you to do? Any evidence that I feel a reasonable person would consider, would involve analyzing the contextual clues of the conversation, and if he won't do that, you're just talking to a wall.

This is not to say you should give up - you must find a different approach. It's sometimes wiser to go around a wall than through it.

Perhaps if we had the details of the dialogue we could better assist you.

In the situation regarding dawkinsites as antagonists; often, if I go around the wall, I will be penalized.

I have to provide proof that he made a claim, or else the question is valid and I must continue to define and define at the pleasure of moderators, or be penalized.
So I want a tidy proof for various situations one encounters when handling a hostile crowd.

I'll quote the argument

0 Replies

@memester,

memester wrote:

I have to provide proof that he made a claim, or else the question is valid and I must continue to define and define at the pleasure of moderators, or be penalized.

In regards to the question, there is only so much specificity a person can offer before one approaches infinite regress. Someone could consistently ask, "Why?", after everything, ignoring answers, but this is just silly. Any reasonable person understands this.

If you cannot be specific enough, perhaps it is a valid question; perhaps you don't have clarity of mind, and that is the reason you cannot be specific enough. But this need not be the case. It could be the case that you do completely understand whatever it is you are speaking about and have simplified and articulated your position as best as one should be expected to do. If this is the case, I would recommend you explain this to them.

I'm waiting on the posting of the dialogue though to really say anything for sure...

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Debunking creationist myths Free Dating, Singles and Personals
I'm "Rug Doctor".

I think that rather than wading through the morass, it's just as helpful to examine the question about snake's legs. I need to understand a formal proof that a claim is contained in the question.

2 Replies

@memester,

memester;106961 wrote:

Debunking creationist myths Free Dating, Singles and Personals
I'm "Rug Doctor".

I note the following:

1. When you defined 'area' as 'zone', the other person replied (in post 445 of that thread): "Couldn't you be more specific, less nebulous?"

2. He later asked (in post 465): "By 'area' do you mean in the limited context of all the posts in this thread? All matters pertaining to the subject of Creationism? Within the specific boundaries of your discussion with Krebby?"

I think it is fair to say that 'zone' is not more specific than 'area' - it is just a synonym. And the use of the word 'zone' does not answer the questions in (2) above. So I think it is clear how you could be more specific (I make no comment on whether you should be).

2 Replies

@ACB,

ACB;106975 wrote:

I note the following:

1. When you defined 'area' as 'zone', the other person replied (in post 445 of that thread): "Couldn't you be more specific, less nebulous?"

yes, he does say that. I do not consider "zone to be more specific than "area". He asked for definition of "area", and I gave him one. So then he wanted more specificity. Needless, as Krebby had already indicated elsewhere that he had an agenda, and in fact he did reply to my question, admitting that he had an agenda, regardless of someone else's wishes to sidetrack my questioning.

Further, Krebby later admits trying to drive me into a corner for fun. Seemingly as part of his defence of his beliefs. I do not intend to take the questioner that needs definition of "Area", seriously. This is all about killing the other person's reputation. Krebby is repeatedly demanding that I defend Creationism. This is not serious debate, it's a scientist trying to make his side appear correct, and make Creationists appear to be duplicitous.

Quote:

2. He later asked (in post 465): "By 'area' do you mean in the limited context of all the posts in this thread? All matters pertaining to the subject of Creationism? Within the specific boundaries of your discussion with Krebby?"

I think it is fair to say that 'zone' is not more specific than 'area' - it is just a synonym. And the use of the word 'zone' does not answer the questions in (2) above. So I think it is clear how you could be more specific (I make no comment on whether you should be).

thanks, I don't really know that I could HELPFULLY be more specific than "area", as even if I used the word "boundary" in explanation, then that would need definition too.
That's my experience with people trying to support or represent current Scientific thought.
I won't spend much time clarifying such ordinarily accepted words.

Especially when they are trying to say that "Mutation" is another word for "Evolution".
As seen, neither opponent really is enquiring, as Krebby makes clear for us, after I enquire about the statement " 'Mutation' is another word for 'Evolution' "

Quote:

Is Verzen's statement true or false ?

Quote:

RugDoctor,

LOL, sarcasm is a rhetorical device, meant to sway argumentation away from the true argument. You can read my posts, and ascertain as to whether I strive for truth, or not. Your use of rhetorical devices will not change that.

For the record, I don't know Verzen or whether he's a scientist or not. I only meant to use my posts to get away from your, ah, rather persistent, focus on knowing whether a fart was smelly or not. That there won't carry the day. The deeper issue is debunking Creationist myth, or allow it to carry the day.

so although I won't spend much time trying to define "area", I would like to be able to throw down a formal proof showing that a claim was made, in the question; just a tactic, something to keep that other guy busy - something that he would have to wrestle with.

---------- Post added 11-29-2009 at 11:02 PM ----------

I have the feeling that the formal proof that claims are being made, is offered through analysis of grammar and sentence structure.

0 Replies

@ACB,

It seems to me that the following:

Quote:

By 'area' do you mean in the limited context of all the posts in this thread? All matters pertaining to the subject of Creationism? Within the specific boundaries of your discussion with Krebby?"

is not seeking a definition of the word 'area', but asking in what context you are using it. In other words, how wide an area/zone/boundary do you mean? Suppose someone said in our current discussion: "I have expertise in this area". You might ask: "By 'area' do you mean philosophy in general? Or just philosophy of language? Or specifically the definitions of words? Or evolution theory?" Simply giving more synonyms for 'area' would not answer the question.

Can you please clarify one point. Do you wish to establish that the other person is making a false or unproven claim? If so, what precisely do you regard as false or unproven? How would you respond if the other person argued as follows:

1. It would be more specific to state whether 'area' in this instance includes matters outside the current thread, since this is not deducible from the definition alone.
2. You have not stated whether 'area' includes such matters or not.
3. Therefore, you could be more specific.

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;106961 wrote:

Debunking creationist myths Free Dating, Singles and Personals
I'm "Rug Doctor".

I think that rather than wading through the morass, it's just as helpful to examine the question about snake's legs. I need to understand a formal proof that a claim is contained in the question.

1. The question, "why does not a snake have legs?" supposes the claim that snakes have no legs.
2. If a question supposes a claim, then it contains that claim.

Therefore (3) the question, "why does not a snake have legs?" contains the claim that a snake has no legs.

0 Replies

@ACB,

ACB;107038 wrote:

It seems to me that the following:

is not seeking a definition of the word 'area', but asking in what context you are using it. In other words, how wide an area/zone/boundary do you mean? Suppose someone said in our current discussion: "I have expertise in this area". You might ask: "By 'area' do you mean philosophy in general? Or just philosophy of language? Or specifically the definitions of words? Or evolution theory?" Simply giving more synonyms for 'area' would not answer the question.

Can you please clarify one point. Do you wish to establish that the other person is making a false or unproven claim? If so, what precisely do you regard as false or unproven? How would you respond if the other person argued as follows:

1. It would be more specific to state whether 'area' in this instance includes matters outside the current thread, since this is not deducible from the definition alone.
2. You have not stated whether 'area' includes such matters or not.
3. Therefore, you could be more specific.

Yes, I recognize the value of those enquiries, though in this situation, I would merely want the whole thing to not dirpt dialogue. If it can be shown to be important in some way, regarding that portion of discussion, then I would want to explore it further.
In this instance, not.

---------- Post added 11-30-2009 at 01:36 PM ----------

kennethamy;107043 wrote:

1. The question, "why does not a snake have legs?" supposes the claim that snakes have no legs.
2. If a question supposes a claim, then it contains that claim.

Therefore (3) the question, "why does not a snake have legs?" contains the claim that a snake has no legs.

Yeah, the logical simple explanation is best, I suppose - whether it be accepted or not. Smile

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;107091 wrote:

Yes, I recognize the value of those enquiries, though in this situation, I would merely want the whole thing to not dirpt dialogue. If it can be shown to be important in some way, regarding that portion of discussion, then I would want to explore it further.
In this instance, not.

---------- Post added 11-30-2009 at 01:36 PM ----------

Yeah, the logical simple explanation is best, I suppose - whether it be accepted or not.

The acceptance of an argument has nothing whatever to do with the merits of the argument.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;107094 wrote:

The acceptance of an argument has nothing whatever to do with the merits of the argument.

true. the acceptance or not has some bearing on other things, though, of course.

THX, BTW !

0 Replies

Help needed on how to distinguish part of a question, as a claim.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know