Jinpun wrote:But you are missing things between [Conclusion-r and r'].[/b] The argument is not saying that only because Rei has come home to where she belongs, that she holds Lilith's soul. It [Conclusion r] just helps support r'.].
Ok ... Jinpun's on track with me here. This is good
.
Jinpun: I'm not missing the things between [Conclusion-r] and [r'].
I'm pointing to the fact that there
are or at least
have to be some premises between [C-r] and [C-r'] in order to make it valid.
Because these premises are inserted from elsewhere (
and not present in the [1s], [2s] and [C-s]), using [1s], [2s] and [C-s] as evidence that Rei has Lilith's soul is not a valid jump.
Jinpun wrote:There is much other evidence which has been supported to demonstrate the connection between [Conclusion-r] and [Conclusion-r'].
Precisely — my point was in revealing the flaw in comparing "Shinji<-->Misato" conversation to the "Rei<-->Lilith" conversation as evidence that Rei has Lilith's soul.
In and of itself, it is not a valid argument. It requires some [3r] point/premise/conclusion in order to make the leap from [C-r] to [C-r'].
It's only evidence in so far as if one of two things is true
(A) [3r] states returning to where one belongs means that he has the soul of the owner of that space {Shinji holds Misato's soul, Rei holds Lilith's soul}
[And we know (A) not to be the case]
(B) [3r] is a conclusion that Rei holds Lilith's soul (based on evidence not essential to the comparison at hand)
[And if (B) is the case, then making the comparison between "Shinji's return" and "Rei's return" offers no real support to the argument, other than to demonstrate [3r] which is already a conclusion]
Therefore, if you hold by this "Return Home" argument by itself as evidence (which Wayne said in and of itself was good enough for him), you're holding to a fallacy.
This is why I addressed it.
Because it was being used as evidence of their connection, when in reality, if you hold [3r] (
currently undefined premise) to be true, then this "Return Home" argument only serves as a demonstration, and not as a defense.
And clearly, you agree that in and of itself, it is not a valid defense — unless other premises are taken in conjuncture with it.
You, yourself said I'm "missing things" between the [C-r] and [C-r'].
The fact is, I'm not missing them —
I'm pointing to their absence (and no, I'm not saying [3r] doesn't exist — I am saying [3r] is the issue to be discussed and not this "Return Home" "defense").
Jinpun wrote:Please review the thread for the evidence relating [Conclusion-r] and [Conclusion-r'].
And again ... I agree with you.
This is the point I was making.
The evidence relating to the jump from [C-r] to [C-r'] is some other premise (or premises contained within) [3r].
So using Shinji's dialogue with Misato as evidence in and of itself as evidence for Rei containing Lilith's soul is fallacy, plain and simple.
Reichu wrote:I'll also agree that a lot of what you are saying, Knives, is eerily reminiscent of Fuzzy Chickens, who JUST BARELY managed not to get banned back in his prime. I would tread a little more lightly; we've got a great bunch of people here, and it's no fun when things get unpleasant.
Are you suggesting that by putting forth a logical and systematic refutation of a commonly mis-used defense for a popular theory is grounds for banning, Reichu
?
I don't know how this Fuzzy Chickens scenario played out — but you're telling me to tread lightly.
A defense was thrown at me. I refuted it, clearly enough that at least one person (Jinpun namely — although we still disagree on the main issue) seems to understand it (so I know it makes sense therefore not only to me).
Furthermore, I have not been unpleasant (or at least, I have not perceived myself to be unpleasant).
If, again, arguing logically against an argument popularly held is "unpleasant" then wouldn't you be suggesting that people shouldn't question anything or discuss these matters?
And further still ... why am I the one being threatened with banning when others are the ones allowing their "testosterone" (to use your words) get out of hand?
All I can say is I'm thoroughly confused as to why you place the blame for this "unpleasantness" on me, merely for the fact that I disagree with a particular view.
I have not claimed anyone to be stupid for holding their opinion, or blind to the facts (as others have done to some people when it comes to holding the view which I hold).
I have attempted (and been for the most part [and when and if I haven't have proceeded to apologize when I was in the wrong]) to be pleasant and civil.
Please explain this to me — because I do not understand.
>EDIT I would just like to emphasize that I intend no ill will, nor hold any.
>End EDITOriginally posted on: 17-Nov-2004, 02:07 GMT