ajqtrz
Chef - loquacious Old Dog
So, all of that just to say you agree with Ashrem?
Nope. As I said:
"In the end, then, when you say, "People who disagree (whether becuase they actually think it's not true, or just don't want it to be true) will claim, falsely, that it is not a logical argument." [Quoting Ashrem] you may be right, but you may also be wrong. Sometimes conclusions drawn are not logical, sometimes they are logical but start with untrue premises, and sometimes they are logical and drawn from true premises. It's up to the speaker to deal with proving the premises to be true, and the logic clear. I don't think that has been done [in the] discussions of cross tier trading. At least on the side of those against the practice." {Emphasis added]
Ashrem's implied point was that logical reasons had been given. I concluded that I haven't seen the logic of those reasons discussed so much as the claims made as if they were inherently or obviously logical. My post shows at least two ways a person, upon reading the claims, could come to the conclusion that they weren't logical. Either the logic isn't spelled out sufficiently that the reader can see it, or the premises with which the logic is applied are wrong/inappropriate. And since (paraphrase) as I said, "I don't think that those against cross-tier trading have demonstrated their premises to be correct and/or the logic they use in moving to their conclusion from those premises clear," I can't agree or disagree with Ashrem's conclusion that people who don't see the logic of being against cross-tier trades are so because they, as Ashrem said of them that they, "imply arguments aren't logical because you believe (or have a feeling or preference which convinces you) they are wrong." [Original emphasis) In other words, my argument dealt only with the error of assuming that because I disagree with a conclusion you think you have logicaly presented, it means that I'm motivated by my "feelings or preferences." Sometimes the presentation of the logic and sometimes the premises upon which the logic is based are in error. I give those who disagree with me the credit of believing that if they disagree it must be because I'm wrong or I didn't present the argument well enough to convince them. I then go back and try again, all the time honing my arguments and finding better examples, ways of putting them, analysis etc. Eventually I either find I was right or that I was wrong. And sometimes I find something in the middle -- like both sides are right but start with different premises. If that's the case I then try to discuss the premises since everything flows from those starting points.
Another point, this time something I just noticed in Ashrem's post. When he says that those who aren't convinced of the logic against cross tier trading ""imply arguments aren't logical because you believe (or have a feeling or preference which convinces you) they are wrong," this is a logical fallacy. It is ad hominem because it addresses the motivations of the speaker and not his argument about the subject at hand. The key is to see the phrase "you believe" since what I believe or don't about any objective subject is irrelevant. Just because I believe water freezes at 72 degrees Fahrenheit doesn't mean the lake will freeze over when it's 50 degrees outside.
See:
Again, divorcing an argument from context. Since I was talking about the "lots of logical arguments" in the thread, not the arguments which aren't logical, your conclusion that I might be right or wrong is a failure of logic. Had I said that every argument in the thread is logical, you'd have a case. As it is, you are incorrect.
Since I divorced an argument from context and discussed general principles of argumentation, making no claim about a specific argument or arguments being made, it would appear my post was a meta-discussion of argument in general. Specifically when you can draw a conclusion that others, claim arguments aren't logical because they "believe (or have a feeling or preference which convinces [them]) they [the arguments] are wrong." I discussed the forms of logic and the two places where a seemingly logical statement can fail to be logical. One is that the antecedent is wrong, the other that the conclusion isn't warranted. These are general terms of argumentation and are applicable to any argument being put forward regardless of content. Thus, "divorcing an argument from context" is necessary if you want to talk about the ways an argument might logically fail to be persuasive.
Your assumption that any of the arguments in the tread are logical is the problem. To assume that at least one argument in the discussion of cross-tier trades is logical is to present a straw man argument. You assume a premise: "at least one argument is logical" and the conclude from it that "therefore you can't have been talking about every argument," See the problem? You assume that at least one argument presented is perfectly logical and based upon agreed upon premises. But what if none of them are? I mean if in every argument presented either the premises with which it begins are questionable, or the warrant of the conclusion is unclear to the reader, then, indeed, one cannot say if you and the anti-cross tier folk are right or wrong since the premises with which you began (the "questionable" ones) may be true or false and/or the conclusion, upon further explanation and examination, may be warranted...or may not be so.
AJ
Last edited: