Brian Smith

Members
  • Content count

    1,359
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Brian Smith

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday September 01

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://
  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location Los Angeles
  1. I am auctioning four CD lecture series from the AR Bookstore: Psycho-Epistemology I by Harry Binswanger The Epistemology of Altruism by Peter Schwartz Clarity in Conceptualization: The Art of Identifying "Package Deals" by Peter Schwartz Savoring Ayn Rand's "Red Pawn" by Dina Schein The auction will begin on Tuesday evening and run five days. All materials are in pristine condition. And all are being offered at half the AR Bookstore price. Here are links for all four: http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ290190308118 http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ290190294766 http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ290190304708 http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ290190313575 While all were quite informative, Ms. Schein's work was particularly insightful and enjoyable. Its approach and the depth of analysis is similar to Dr. Peikoff's "Eight Great Plays". That said, all bidders will definitely be getting their money's worth no matter which lecture they acquire.
  2. On-Topic and Off-Topic Issues

    I must disagree with your ideas but, before leaving the conversation, I did want to thank you for expressing them.
  3. Fundamentals of Logic

    As I explicitly stated, identifying a false premise or invalid logic identify the fact that a man needs to check his premises. In other words, they are the REASONS one provides to support the claim that someone else needs to check his specific premises.With that, and for the reasons stated in the 'On/Off Topic' thread, I will express my appreciation for the thread and take my leave of it.
  4. Fundamentals of Logic

    Excellent. Of course, when the person indicates they cannot explain WHY they make the claim - as was the case of the example - then that is still verecundiam. If you reference different examples - as you are here - then of course it may NOT be verecundiam. But that would be addressing different context, not this one.
  5. On-Topic and Off-Topic Issues

    Unfortunately, so have I. And I think it goes to the heart of this thread. When one or two fallacies are not understood, explaining them can be important to the discussion of a subject and can be resolved fairly easily. But when fundamentals of logic are not grasped, then no rational discussion of a subject will be possible. Regardless of the subject, the discussions will necessarily become about logic (just as disagreements on political subjects which are the result of not grasping fundamentals of ethics will ultimately become discussions about ethics). Given the above, at this point I would simply like to state my appreciation for this thread - including that it was allowed to continue for so long. While it did not serve the purpose I had hoped, it has certainly helped me resolve a few long-standing questions here - and has proved useful to me in an entirely different context (though that is merely a happy coincidence). Therefore, I shall be taking my leave from this (and related) conversation.
  6. Fundamentals of Logic

    That is the problem - one my arguments do not seem to have been able to resolve. At this point, the issue becomes one of diminishing returns.
  7. Fundamentals of Logic

    As I have already stated, I do not accept things on faith (nor do I encourage others to accept things on faith). I do this precisely BECAUSE I am honest and rational. As has been stated multiple times, the requirements of reason are that a person either needs to connect the conclusion to reality - or - dismiss it. Doing something else takes the person out of the realm of reason. The argument from ignorance which you provide (don't dismiss the conclusion because X might be good - you haven't proven its not) for doing something other than those two things does not somehow make it rational. Do not accept ANYTHING on faith - not even Ayn Rand.
  8. On-Topic and Off-Topic Issues

    The above is false. There is no such thing as an 'Arbitrary and True' statement or 'Arbitrary and False' statement. The arbitrary can neither be true nor false. Only that which has a connection to reality can be identified as either true or false. In other words, the terms are indeed mutually exclusive.Put simply, the nature of the terms is as I have identified them True and False are the 'non-A'. Arbitrary is the 'A'
  9. Fundamentals of Logic

    WHERE has that been the context of ANY discussion here?Most of the statements here have been made in the context of 'finding a logical fallacy or false premise' in an argument. And if you want to trace back the context of this particular thread of the discussion, it was an individual who makes a claim but can't identify for anyone his reasons for his support. And in that case, one certainly doesn't 'assume' their conclusion is true absent any evidence except that they are members of the forum. That TOO is verecundiam.
  10. On-Topic and Off-Topic Issues

    The claim appears to be that it is 'irrelevant' to apply principles of logic in a discussion whose subject is anything other than epistemology.
  11. On-Topic and Off-Topic Issues

    So - to use a previously used example: if a member opened a new topic about the cause of this morning's volcanic eruption, and he stated:I saw a comet last night The volcano erupted this morning Therefore the comet caused the eruption It is your claim that it would be 'irrelevant' (and disruptive, etc as has been stated in other posts) to post in that thread the fact that it is a logical fallacy to claim the order of the events is the cause of the events? It would be 'irrelevant' even though it would result in having to change the premises (ie the facts which are relevant to the discussion?)
  12. On-Topic and Off-Topic Issues

    Exactly. The arbitrary has been dropped as the alternative to the non-arbitrary.
  13. On-Topic and Off-Topic Issues

    A logical fallacy identifies that some indicated relationship between the facts is invalid. Is the relationship between facts not a factual issue? Is the fact that different facts may need to be introduced - or all the facts discarded (because the conclusion was arbitrary) - etc not a 'factual' issue? If so, must reject such a view of what qualifies as 'factual'.
  14. Fundamentals of Logic

    This is verecundiam. A claim is not to be assumed true (to whatever degree) DESPITE the fact of a logical fallacy or false premise for that claim, simply because of the 'authority' of the person making the claim. Doing so is exactly what identifies such an appeal as fallacious rather than legitimate.
  15. Fundamentals of Logic

    Please identify how you logically conclude that saying one can "reconnect the conclusion to reality by providing a different argument" includes ONLY "reality-checking the conclusion" and somehow excludes "reality-checking the premises".