I wasn't going to post this week...
Partly because my PC was playing up, partly because I've been busier and stressier than I thought possible, and partly because page after page of dribbling rants don't appeal to me. BUT - I've got a few minutes free now, so here's my penn'orth.

Radio 4 presenters and their politician interviewees, sit up. This is for you.

FIRST "Begging the question" (petitio principii) does NOT mean "raising the question". Rather, to beg the question is to commit the fallacy of presupposing in the premises of an argument that which is to be shown in the conclusion.
Allow me to demonstrate. "I think, therefore I am," says Descartes. The argument here would look like this:
P1: I am thinking
P2: Thinking things exist
C: Therefore I exist.
The problem here is that, if the existence of "I" is the conclusion of the argument, it really oughtn't to be in the major premise. The argument is, therefore, invalid; and the reason it is invalid is that it begs the question. "Begging the question", in other words, doesn't really have a great deal to do with asking anything.

(For the nonce, what Descartes should have said is:
P1: There is thinking going on
P2: Thinking things exist
C: Therefore I exist...
... except that he shouldn't. This argument is invalid because now the problem is that the "I" has come from nowhere. The point is that "I think, therefore I am" is a crock whichever way you look at it.)

SECOND "To refute" does not mean the same as "to reject" or "to rebut". To refute a statement is to demonstrate its falsity, such that no rational person could believe it; it does not simply mean to deny that claim or to make a counterclaim.

THIRD People do not have valid points of view or opinions. Validity is a property of arguments, and depends on obeying certain rules of inference or deduction. Opinions are neither valid nor invalid - although often they're silly (but that's a different matter).

I think that's it for now. I shall go away again until the new question tomorrow. Please, god, let it be humourous...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 7 May 2008, 15:32, 21 replies)

Eh!
*Furrows brow*
( girlinthehole, Wed 7 May 2008, 15:36, closed)

Yay
.
*claps*
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Wed 7 May 2008, 15:36, closed)

Hmmm...
*makes "wanker" sign*
( Cawl, Wed 7 May 2008, 15:37, closed)

But that begs the question..
What if I refute the validity of your opinions?


*just fucking runs*
( Thinker, Wed 7 May 2008, 15:38, closed)

jesus fuck
You get a better class of pedantry on here, don't you.
(frankspencer, Wed 7 May 2008, 15:38, closed)

@Enzyme
Oooo - I REALLY wouldn't want to get trapped in a lift with you, dude!
(Audax Victor, Wed 7 May 2008, 15:39, closed)

@Kaol
Ah, I've missed you this week...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 7 May 2008, 15:40, closed)

Yeah...
I missed him too.
( Cawl, Wed 7 May 2008, 15:43, closed)

Hee hee
And I thought I was bad (well, I think, I thought I was bad, therefore, I was?).

Top marks for pedandicness.
(Che Grimsdale Best before:, Wed 7 May 2008, 15:55, closed)

You lost me on the first point
but I did manage to catch up on points 2 and 3.
(TheWeeWitch hasn't been here much recently .., Wed 7 May 2008, 15:56, closed)

You Forgot
"I do not accept that statement/statistics/situation etc"

Translation: "I am a big fat Billy Liar who has been desperately trying to spin my way out of a blatant falsehood, have been exposed, and now am doing the NL version of 'LaLaLaImNotListening' otherwise known as 'I do not accept'"

And breathe.
(osok Rebel without a clue, Wed 7 May 2008, 16:18, closed)

I always think
that a more pleasant translation would be 'to think is to be', as the original was expressed in the infinitive.
(ThomsonsPier consumes, Wed 7 May 2008, 16:24, closed)

@TP
cogito ergo sum is not in the infinitive: it's the first person present. Moreover, "ergo" means "therefore"; Descartes is making a deduction, not claiming that there's an equivalence.

Within the context of Descartes' programme - hell, within any context - "To think is to be" is meaningless. It would appear that you are philosophically clueless.

EDIT - I do agree with your point in another post about the reflexive pronoun, though.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 7 May 2008, 16:26, closed)

Sorry to say this..
but your point is wrong, Enzyme.
Right now im at college doing philosophy, and one of the main things we do is Descartes.
Descartes infact said "I think, I exist".

This actually means that the only thing he knows, is that he himself exists. And as I know im thinking, the one thing I cannot doubt is I exist, but you can claim to think but I don't KNOW you're existing.

I really wish I didn't know that, I hate philosophy and its turned me into a pretentious wanker.
(River of Squid has a variety of lemons in his pocket, Wed 7 May 2008, 16:41, closed)

River...
So you study philosophy, eh? Bully for you. You're still wrong. (I don't want to get into philosophy poker - but I have several degrees in philosophy and a job as a philosopher at one of the UK's best universities, with a string of international publications on the subject. Your move.)

I know what you mean, but, although I don't have the reference to hand, but D's deduction comes at the end of his system of hyperbolic doubt; what he wants to show is that, whatever else he can doubt, the fact that he is doubting it is proff that he is there to doubt it, therefore (he claims) he must exist. The ergo is there. (Note: Wikipedia says that it's in the Principles, pt. 1, art. 7. If it wasn't, his position would have been even worse, for what it's worth - but the point about the meaning of "begging the question" would stand anyway.)

It took me a while to get why Descartes was wrong - he has intuition on his side. But the principle of the cogito is nothing more than an accident of grammar.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 7 May 2008, 16:46, closed)

Well sir
You clearly know more about it than me, I was just tought that point I made, my humble apologies.

Personally though, my gripe with Descartes is he claims the only thing he knows is he exists, and that we use that as a foundation, but takes God's existence as a given, as if that can't be doubted.
(River of Squid has a variety of lemons in his pocket, Wed 7 May 2008, 16:52, closed)

Yes!
Manchester is definitely the best university in the country. And I don't care if anyone disagrees with me.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 7 May 2008, 16:54, closed)

@Squid...
There's hope for you as a philosopher yet. You're on the right lines in respect of god. In fact, D thinks that he can prove god's existence rationally, but he also thinks that reason is reliable because god guarantees it. So his argument isn't mistaken quite for the reason you mention - but it is circular, and, in this case, viciously so.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 7 May 2008, 16:55, closed)

Marvellous
You truly are a pedant, and for that I salute you. If you'd mentioned the misuse of apostrophes this would have been the perfect post.
(I Love Your Shoes, Wed 7 May 2008, 16:59, closed)

oh ffs Enzyme
I know you just spout this shit to impress the ladies - you with your teasing Latin phrases, your flirtatious declensions and your come-to-bed conjugations. Stop it at once, you're impressing no one.

*sighs wistfully*
*dusts shrine to St. Enzyme*
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 7 May 2008, 17:24, closed)

oh come on CHCB
that's a euphemism if ever I heard one.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 7 May 2008, 17:33, closed)