Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Paul

"The big bang is history"

Recommended Posts

Guest Paul

Here is an excerpt from the October 10, 2006 meeting:

Mr. Paszkiewicz: [October 10, 2006, 32:27-32:43] “I’ve, Matt, uh, yeah, I said the simple version of the Big Bang theory when we discussed it, and by the way, this is history, too, right, because history has a starting point, and people are divided over where it started and how it started, so it is history.”

History begins when humans start recording things and leaving a record of it. Everything before that is called pre-history, or pre-historic. Of all people, a history teacher should know that.

It's amazing to see a history teacher claim the Big Bang is history. Apparently no justification is out of bounds if it supports his position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is an excerpt from the October 10, 2006 meeting:

Mr. Paszkiewicz: [October 10, 2006, 32:27-32:43] “I’ve, Matt, uh, yeah, I said the simple version of the Big Bang theory when we discussed it, and by the way, this is history, too, right, because history has a starting point, and people are divided over where it started and how it started, so it is history.”

History begins when humans start recording things and leaving a record of it. Everything before that is called pre-history, or pre-historic. Of all people, a history teacher should know that.

It's amazing to see a history teacher claim the Big Bang is history. Apparently no justification is out of bounds if it supports his position.

On other thing...Paszkiewicz's words seemed to imply that the Big Bang was history, so it's okay to talk about it in his class.

But, uh, one slight problem...even if the Big Bang _was_ considered history...it's sure as hell not US history, and that's the name of the class. That was such a huge leap that I was flabbergasted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is an excerpt from the October 10, 2006 meeting:

As Paul guns for the "Top Thread Starter" title.

Not much for follow-up--are you? Spotlight too dim once the thread starts to lengthen?

Mr. Paszkiewicz: [October 10, 2006, 32:27-32:43] “I’ve, Matt, uh, yeah, I said the simple version of the Big Bang theory when we discussed it, and by the way, this is history, too, right, because history has a starting point, and people are divided over where it started and how it started, so it is history.”

History begins when humans start recording things and leaving a record of it. Everything before that is called pre-history, or pre-historic. Of all people, a history teacher should know that.

the branch of knowledge dealing with past events.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/history

So, when Mr. Paszkiewicz is teaching his history class he is relegated to using the term "history" in a very narrow sense?

This complaint tells us more about you than it does Mr. Paszkiewicz, Paul.

It's amazing to see a history teacher claim the Big Bang is history. Apparently no justification is out of bounds if it supports his position.

What's more amazing is seeing a guy who is supposedly a competent lawyer tell us first that Mr. Paszkiewicz dismissed the Big Bang and shortly thereafter inform us that the same Mr. Paszkiewicz is calling that same (non?) event "history."

And it's not that Paszkiewicz was inconsistent, either.

Fallacy of equivotion, Paul.

You don't get to decide the sense in which other people use their words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bryan: "Fallacy of equivotion, Paul.

You don't get to decide the sense in which other people use their words. "

Once again you are mistaken, Bryan. It's foundational to the value of language to insist that people use the agreed-upon meaning of words. If everyone redefines what that meaning is, we end up with nonsensical statements which are devoid of any meaning at all. A person would be free to lie at will, and then deny the falsity of what he said. And his defenders would be free to assert that he didn't lie, when all the evidence clearly shows that he did.

Oh . . . wait. That would be the situation in which we find ourselves, wouldn't it?

Leigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Traditionally, the study of history was limited to the written and spoken word. However, the rise of academic professionalism and the creation of new scientific fields in the 19th and 20th centuries brought a flood of new information that challenged this notion. Archaeology, anthropology and other social sciences were providing new information and even theories about human history. Some traditional historians questioned whether these new studies were really history, since they were not limited to the written word. A new term, prehistory, was coined, to encompass the results of these new fields where they yielded information about times before the existence of written records." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History (emphasis added)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
"Traditionally, the study of history was limited to the written and spoken word. However, the rise of academic professionalism and the creation of new scientific fields in the 19th and 20th centuries brought a flood of new information that challenged this notion. Archaeology, anthropology and other social sciences were providing new information and even theories about human history. Some traditional historians questioned whether these new studies were really history, since they were not limited to the written word. A new term, prehistory, was coined, to encompass the results of these new fields where they yielded information about times before the existence of written records." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History (emphasis added)

The point is that Mr. Paszkiewicz was using every pathetic ploy he could think of to justify himself. Some sense that I'm becoming more aggressive toward him. Damn right. Let him put your kid under the bus, and see how aggressive you get. He's dealing with one pissed-off papa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bryan:  "Fallacy of equivotion, Paul.

You don't get to decide the sense in which other people use their words. "

Once again you are mistaken, Bryan.

Where was the first time? Or the last time? Or one of the in-betweens?

It's foundational to the value of language to insist that people use the agreed-upon meaning of words.

True. And you're aware that one of the agreed-upon meanings of the word "history" is the one that I quoted (with a URL), correct?

If everyone redefines what that meaning is, we end up with nonsensical statements which are devoid of any meaning at all.

So, apparently Leigh is a careless reader.

I'm not suggesting that words should mean anything at all as a basis for communication. I'm pointing out that where a word has more than one accepted meaning (as is the case with "history") it is not the prerogative of the reader to choose which meaning suits his purposes in judging the writer.

And, when it comes down to it, people do sometimes designate a particular meaning to a particular word. Paul LaClair provided an example of this when he capitalized "Faith" and gave it a specific definition not normally associated with the capitalized form of the word.

Look it up:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

So, Leigh, you're barking up the wrong tree, and Mr. LaClair unquestionably committed the fallacy of equivocation.

A person would be free to lie at will, and then deny the falsity of what he said.  And his defenders would be free to assert that he didn't lie, when all the evidence clearly shows that he did.

Oh . . . wait.  That would be the situation in which we find ourselves, wouldn't it?

Leigh

No doubt you didn't allow your pathetic defense of Paul's equivocation to cross your mind while launching that misguided attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Traditionally, the study of history was limited to the written and spoken word. However, the rise of academic professionalism and the creation of new scientific fields in the 19th and 20th centuries brought a flood of new information that challenged this notion. Archaeology, anthropology and other social sciences were providing new information and even theories about human history. Some traditional historians questioned whether these new studies were really history, since they were not limited to the written word. A new term, prehistory, was coined, to encompass the results of these new fields where they yielded information about times before the existence of written records." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History (emphasis added)

If only Strife could have managed to read one paragraph further:

"In the 20th century, the division between history and prehistory became problematic. Criticism arose because of history's implicit exclusion of certain civilizations, such as those of Sub-Saharan Africa and pre-Columbian America. Additionally, prehistorians such as Vere Gordon Childe and historical archaeologists like James Deetz began using archaeology to explain important events in areas that were traditionally in the field of history. Historians began looking beyond traditional political history narratives with new approaches such as economic, social and cultural history, all of which relied on various sources of evidence. In recent decades, strict barriers between history and prehistory may be decreasing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History

(bold emphasis added)

Are you guys trying to make me overconfident by posting as many lame arguments as possible, or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bryan, you've been wrong so many times, in so many different ways (some of which I myself have pointed out), I just can't choose just one. Such an embarrassment of riches, don't you know.

But your endless hair-splitting was, in retrospect, a pleasure compared to your current full-out insanity.

Today alone you have declared:

1) that it's an objective truth that faith and science are equivalent ways of understanding reality

2) that in spite of extremely convincing audio evidence, Mr. P is innocent of proselytizing and then lying about that proselytizing

Dial it down a notch, buddy. You look like a loon.

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If only Strife could have managed to read one paragraph further:

"In the 20th century, the division between history and prehistory became problematic. Criticism arose because of history's implicit exclusion of certain civilizations, such as those of Sub-Saharan Africa and pre-Columbian America. Additionally, prehistorians such as Vere Gordon Childe and historical archaeologists like James Deetz began using archaeology to explain important events in areas that were traditionally in the field of history. Historians began looking beyond traditional political history narratives with new approaches such as economic, social and cultural history, all of which relied on various sources of evidence. In recent decades, strict barriers between history and prehistory may be decreasing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History

(bold emphasis added)

Are you guys trying to make me overconfident by posting as many lame arguments as possible, or what?

Hmm.. Let me get this straight. You think that the fuzziness of the distinction between history and prehistoric civilizations somehow removes the absurdity of Paszkiewicz stretching the definition of "history" to events prior to the existence of any humans? Prior even to the existence of the earth?

And you accuse other people of posting lame arguments? Good grief.

Can you not see the absurdity of his statement, even in context of trying to defend something he said in a US history class? Granted, it's a fairly small point. We all say dumb things sometimes, especially when stressed. But to try to make out like it wasn't a dumb thing to say is just ridiculous.

Your overconfidence is badly misplaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
If only Strife could have managed to read one paragraph further:

"In the 20th century, the division between history and prehistory became problematic. Criticism arose because of history's implicit exclusion of certain civilizations, such as those of Sub-Saharan Africa and pre-Columbian America. Additionally, prehistorians such as Vere Gordon Childe and historical archaeologists like James Deetz began using archaeology to explain important events in areas that were traditionally in the field of history. Historians began looking beyond traditional political history narratives with new approaches such as economic, social and cultural history, all of which relied on various sources of evidence. In recent decades, strict barriers between history and prehistory may be decreasing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History

(bold emphasis added)

Are you guys trying to make me overconfident by posting as many lame arguments as possible, or what?

Bryan exemplifies a kind of thinking that I can remember doing as a child. He is capable of seeing distinctions, but is so biased that he sees only the ones he wishes to see.

On this thread, the statement was that the big bang is a part of history. Bryan is now attempting to justify it by arguing that the distinction is blurred at the edges, at a point when human beings inhabited the earth however. That argument is completely irrelevant to the big bang, which occurred billions of years before human beings ever appeared on earth, and also billions of years before the tiniest microbe appeared.

That's why I don't usually respond to Bryan's posts. He's not listening, and they're at a level of stubborn silliness that doesn't merit a response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bryan, please READ the definition you posted. Do you SEE any mention of cosmology, physics, or astronomy? The definition of history has been extended to cover non-written evidences of human culture. No reasonable person thinks current usage has been extended to cover cosmological events, long predating humanity.

You can sometimes see the word used in the phrase "natural history", as in "Museum of Natural History". This usage dates back a few years and was intended to differentiate human history from geological and cosmological history. Nowadays, we all just call the latter two science.

I challenge you to take your personal definition of history, which apparently has been stretched to cover "life, the universe, and everything" to any university's History Department. See what historians have to say about it.

In any case, if a course is entitled "U.S. History", that what we expect to be taught. Not comparative religion, not cosmology, and for sure not the teacher's personal definitions of salvation and damnation.

Your bunny-trail-hopping is becoming ever more frantic as evidence against your position mounts. Not to mention your level of hostility, which has become increasingly unpleasant.

Leigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Bryan:  "Fallacy of equivotion, Paul.

You don't get to decide the sense in which other people use their words. "

Once again you are mistaken, Bryan.  It's foundational to the value of language to insist that people use the agreed-upon meaning of words.  If everyone redefines what that meaning is, we end up with nonsensical statements which are devoid of any meaning at all.  A person would be free to lie at will, and then deny the falsity of what he said.  And his defenders would be free to assert that he didn't lie, when all the evidence clearly shows that he did.

Oh . . . wait.  That would be the situation in which we find ourselves, wouldn't it?

Leigh

.....as Bill Clinton said"It depends on what the definition of is is."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
The point is that Mr. Paszkiewicz was using every pathetic ploy he could think of to justify himself. Some sense that I'm becoming more aggressive toward him. Damn right. Let him put your kid under the bus, and see how aggressive you get. He's dealing with one pissed-off papa.

If this "preaching " had taken place in a State Collage - like it does- would this be an issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo
If this "preaching " had taken place in a State Collage - like it does- would this be an issue?

That depends. Children are legally required to be educated. Unless they are home schooled, then they are legally required to attend class and if it's public school and they are mandated to be there then they really are a captive audience. College is not mandatory. You can skip class or get up and walk out if you want to without the type of reprisal that a high school student would receive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bryan, please READ the definition you posted.

the branch of knowledge dealing with past events.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/history

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=46829

Do you SEE any mention of cosmology, physics, or astronomy?

Yes, insofar as cosmology and past movements of heavenly bodies are past events.

The definition of history has been extended to cover non-written evidences of human culture.  No reasonable person thinks current usage has been extended to cover cosmological events, long predating humanity.

Cambrian history of the Grand Canyon Region / Edwin D. McKee Carnegie Institution of Washington

http://www.library.unlv.edu/collections/mi...chcat=5&recId=9

... it is fitting that Dr. Fraser tell the geologic story of that distant time.Pre-Cambrian History By DONALD M. FRASER

http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/lvgeology/_485.html

A history of the universe

http://geology.rutgers.edu/earth&life.shtml

recording some 20. million years of Early Cambrian history

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7482.pdf

Stromatolites and the pre-Phanerozoic to Cambrian history of the area southeast of Death Valley

http://homepages.gac.edu/~rshapiro/

Dalradian deposition and the late Precambrian-Cambrian history of the N. Atlantic region: a review of the early evolution of the Iapetus Ocean.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/r...:10.1086/319974

GL 204

HISTORY OF THE EARTH

http://cas.bellevue.edu/wfdata/frame8111-5276/pressrel2.asp

Brief History of the Universe

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBhistory.html

History of the Universe

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/chaut/history_outline.html

Brief History of the Universe

http://sscws1.ipac.caltech.edu/Imagegaller...ame=ssc2006-22b

The Star Formation History of the Universe

http://www.noao.edu/noao/noaonews/sep97/node1.html

History of the universe

http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/2000spring/P...ro/history.html

A Brief History of the Universe

http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ast110_06/abhotu.html

Models which allow a "new inflationary" universe history

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984PhRvD..29.2791G

Early history of the universe

http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/cou...iverse_hist.htm

The asteroids, being smaller, formed completely, very early in the solar system history.

http://wind.caspercollege.edu/~marquard/as...ar%20system.htm

Solar System History from Isotopic Signatures of Volatile Elements.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003sshi.conf.....K

At least I'm in good company being unreasonable along with these various university professors and scientists.

Shall I obtain their addresses so that you can inform each of them that they are unreasonable?

Or do you want to got straight to the college and university presidents and have these bums canned?

You can sometimes see the word used in the phrase "natural history", as in "Museum of Natural History".  This usage dates back a few years and was intended to differentiate human history from geological and cosmological history.  Nowadays, we all just call the latter two science.

Oh, it dates back a few years, does it?

I challenge you to take your personal definition of history, which apparently has been stretched to cover "life, the universe, and everything" to any university's History Department.  See what historians have to say about it.

It was nice of Dictionary.com to publish my personal definition of history, wasn't it?

Dare I hope that other dictionary publishers are similarly solicitous of my opinions?

In any case, if a course is entitled "U.S. History", that what we expect to be taught.  Not comparative religion, not cosmology, and for sure not the teacher's personal definitions of salvation and damnation.

And thus will Paul LaClair's adoring followers forgive him even the most specious of arguments.

Your bunny-trail-hopping is becoming ever more frantic as evidence against your position mounts.

:lol:

Like this exemplary post of yours, right?

Not to mention your level of hostility, which has become increasingly unpleasant.

Leigh, your arguments have been stupid arguments. You may find it unpleasant to be told that your arguments are stupid, but it's a fact. I do not state this out of hostility to you, personally--but I aver that I am hostile (in a more moderate sense) to bad arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm..  Let me get this straight. You think that the fuzziness of the distinction between history and prehistoric civilizations somehow removes the absurdity of Paszkiewicz stretching the definition of "history" to events prior to the existence of any humans?

No. I think that Paul LaClair was a doofus to make the argument that leads off this thread.

I'll bet he's glad you're here to try to change the subject, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Steve_C
If this "preaching " had taken place in a State Collage - like it does- would this be an issue?

Has Bryan ever expressed an opinion on Dinosaurs being on Noah's Ark?

Is that history?

Mythology?

Creationist dementia?

Appropriate discussion for an American History class?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bryan exemplifies a kind of thinking that I can remember doing as a child. He is capable of seeing distinctions, but is so biased that he sees only the ones he wishes to see.

On this thread, the statement was that the big bang is a part of history. Bryan is now attempting to justify it by arguing that the distinction is blurred at the edges, at a point when human beings inhabited the earth however.

That was just my answer to Strife, where his own argument was brought low in the very next paragraph of his source.

My argument, which you are failing to address, is that "history" commonly refers to events in the past, so there's absolutely nothing wrong with Paszkiewicz using it that way.

Naturally you don't like that, since it flatly contradicts the central argument for which you started this thread.

That argument is completely irrelevant to the big bang, which occurred billions of years before human beings ever appeared on earth, and also billions of years before the tiniest microbe appeared.

Right, but it's egg on the face of Strife, to whom I had addressed that reply.

Trust LaClair to take stuff out of context ...

That's why I don't usually respond to Bryan's posts. He's not listening, and they're at a level of stubborn silliness that doesn't merit a response.

:wub:

This is why I try to engage you in argument as much as possible, Paul. You're sloppy, careless, and evidently not much of a thinker.

How is it that you passed up my real argument here

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=46829

in favor of my reply to Strife, here:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47007

?

Is it ineptitude or dishonesty? I can't think of any other option to offer, at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bryan, you've been wrong so many times, in so many different ways (some of which I myself have pointed out), I just can't choose just one.  Such an embarrassment of riches, don't you know.

Well, I wouldn't limit you to just one if you were having trouble deciding. But shouldn't your attack be accompanied by some sort of evidence? If you feel like you need to use a hundred of my supposed mistakes to make your point, by all means proceed.

But your endless hair-splitting was, in retrospect, a pleasure compared to your current full-out insanity. 

Today alone you have declared:

1) that it's an objective truth that faith and science are equivalent ways of understanding reality

:wub:

Where did I declare that? Quote me.

2) that in spite of extremely convincing audio evidence, Mr. P is innocent of proselytizing and then lying about that proselytizing

:rofl:

Same for that one. Quote me.

What I am doing Your Ineptiveness, is calling your side on its arguments steeped in ambiguity. There are a number of logical fallacies associated with ambiguity. Your side doesn't want its fallacies exposed, so it whines about "arguing semantics" in the attempt to keep its arguments from scrutiny.

Your pratfall on the issue of the fallacy of definition was a perfect example. Paul committed a fallacy of definition, and you hilariously ascribed the fallacy to me, instead.

Dial it down a notch, buddy.  You look like a loon.

Okay, now you're crossing me up. Aren't you suppose to lead with the gratuitous and unfounded insult?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Bryan exemplifies a kind of thinking that I can remember doing as a child. He is capable of seeing distinctions, but is so biased that he sees only the ones he wishes to see.

On this thread, the statement was that the big bang is a part of history. Bryan is now attempting to justify it by arguing that the distinction is blurred at the edges, at a point when human beings inhabited the earth however. That argument is completely irrelevant to the big bang, which occurred billions of years before human beings ever appeared on earth, and also billions of years before the tiniest microbe appeared.

That's why I don't usually respond to Bryan's posts. He's not listening, and they're at a level of stubborn silliness that doesn't merit a response.

What you state is exactly why I love responding to Bryan.

My working model of his logic is something far simpler.

People want to rationalize a single argumentative point without extending the logic to everything.

It's bubble logic. All you have to do is show where that logic leads. Usually you only have to take a single step to reach the outside of the bubble.

It is a Picasso/Dali/Worhol world he paints with his logic, and I love his work!

If Bryan saw people in a boat that was taking on water, he could justify drilling holes in the boat to let the water out.

I like Strife, but he's no fun to read. (sorry)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On this thread, the statement was that the big bang is a part of history. Bryan is now attempting to justify it by arguing that the distinction is blurred at the edges, at a point when human beings inhabited the earth however. That argument is completely irrelevant to the big bang, which occurred billions of years before human beings ever appeared on earth, and also billions of years before the tiniest microbe appeared.

That's why I don't usually respond to Bryan's posts. He's not listening, and they're at a level of stubborn silliness that doesn't merit a response.

What you state is exactly why I love responding to Bryan.

My working model of his logic is something far simpler.

People want to rationalize a single argumentative point without extending the logic to everything.

It's bubble logic. All you have to do is show where that logic leads. Usually you only have to take a single step to reach the outside of the bubble.

It is a Picasso/Dali/Worhol world he paints with his logic, and I love his work!

If Bryan saw people in a boat that was taking on water, he could justify drilling holes in the boat to let the water out.

You're invited, nay encouraged to try to refute any of my arguments using the technique of reductio ad absurdum that you allude to above minus any representative example.

In fact, if we look at this thread, we find something completely different going on.

1. Paul argues that Paszkiewicz isn't much of a history teacher since he counts the Big Bang as history. Paul ridicules Paszkiewicz on the basis of the working definition even though the normal definition is entirely in accord with what Paszkiewicz said. LaClair's argument is hypertechnical, representing a fallacy of equivocation (Paul substituting his own meaning of "history" for that used by Paszkiewicz).

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=46796

2. Strife presented a slightly more reasonable argument based on narrowing the issue to U.S. history, but ignored the context of the Oct. 10 meeting:

"I said, uh, simple version in the Big Bang theory when we discussed it, and by the way this is history, too, right? ‘Cause history has a starting point and people are divided over where it started and how it started."

Quite in keeping with the issue of epistemology, IOW, which does have direct application to all of history, including U.S. history.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=46819

3. I point out Paul's fallacy of equivocation.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=46829

4. Leigh "An American in Texas" makes a good point but misapplies it to my argument (accuses me of making a mistake when she has made a mistake).

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=46915

5. Strife tries to buttress Paul's argument by citing an encylopedia entry that he thinks supports Paul's argument (a hard divide between "history" and "pre-history" with the latter referring to times prior to written language). http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=46958

6. Paul tries to rehabilitate his opening post by saying his point was just to show how Paszkiewicz was using pathetic ploys to justify himself (and Paul also admits to emotional investment in the controversy, surprising nobody at all, I think).

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=46973

Whatever the intent, the argument was bad.

7. I pointed out Leigh's mistakes.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47006

8. I pointed out that Strife's own source goes on to contradict the citation he posted as to the divide between history and pre-history. In the very next paragraph, that is. That's a good sign of a poor ability to research.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47007

9. Leigh returns to say that I've been wrong many times--so many times that she can't decide on one example. She provides two supposed examples in the form of statements allegedly made by me, neither of which I made (paraphrase included, if accuracy is a reasonable expectation in a paraphrase).

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47037

10. WilliamK weighs in with a straw man fallacy implied in what seems to be a rhetorical question supposedly representing my argument.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47042

11. Paul responds to justify his tendency to avoid engaging me in debate. Paul chooses my response to Strife to represent my response to Paul's argument ("Bryan is now attempting to justify it by arguing that the distinction is blurred at the edges, at a point when human beings inhabited the earth however. That argument is completely irrelevant to the big bang, which occurred billions of years before human beings ever appeared on earth, and also billions of years before the tiniest microbe appeared")

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47059

12. Leigh reports in again, asking that I read my own definition of "history," apparently supposing that the encyclopediia entry that I cited in correction of Strife was the definiton of history I was using (even though I specifically cited a definition in my initial post to the thread (#3). Leigh challenges me to find university professors who use "history" as I do, apparently confident that it cannot happen.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47137

13. "Guest" pops by with the Clinton ""It depends on what the definition of is is," as though using that quotation somehow undermines my argument. As a fallacious appeal to ridicule it might work on some, I suppose.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47214

14. Another "Guest" weighs in with a question for LaClair, pointing out that religious opinions are expressed commonly by teachers in state-funded schools.

15. Keith responds to post #14.

16. I point Leigh toward my definition of "history," which I think she probably missed, and then I provide a fairly long list of science professionals that use the term according to the definition I provided.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47357

17. I answer William K's (rhetorical?) question in the negative, and return the subject immediately to Paul's OP argument.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47358

18. Steve C responds to post #14 and drops my name even though his arguments have nothing to do with either Paul's argument or my argument in response to Paul.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47388

19. I point out Paul's straw man argument from his post (#11).

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47438

20. Confident that Leigh constructed straw man positions for me in her post (#9), I ask for the quotations from me in support of her versions of my claims (haven't heard back from Leigh yet on that one).

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47440

21. Almost a week later,"Guest" weighs in to slap Paul on the back for his dim opinion of my arguments, oblivious to the fact that Paul offered a straw man argument in that same post.

We have the intimation that my arguments are susceptable to reduction to absurdity without any example offered and, I suggest, without the faintest evidence of such in this thread.

What is this, if it's not an attempt to bury past mistakes by bumping the thread with a misleading epilogue? And continuing a campaign to discredit my arguments without using reasonable examples?

Edited by Bryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
1.  Paul argues that Paszkiewicz isn't much of a history teacher since he counts the Big Bang as history.  . . .

21.  Almost a week later,"Guest" weighs in to slap Paul on the back for his dim opinion of my arguments, oblivious to the fact that Paul offered a straw man argument in that same post.

So what is pre-history?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

What you state is exactly why I love responding to Bryan.

My working model of his logic is something far simpler.

People want to rationalize a single argumentative point without extending the logic to everything.

It's bubble logic. All you have to do is show where that logic leads. Usually you only have to take a single step to reach the outside of the bubble.

It is a Picasso/Dali/Worhol world he paints with his logic, and I love his work!

If Bryan saw people in a boat that was taking on water, he could justify drilling holes in the boat to let the water out.

You're invited, nay encouraged to try to refute any of my arguments using the technique of reductio ad absurdum that you allude to above minus any representative example.

In fact, if we look at this thread, we find something completely different going on.

1. Paul argues that Paszkiewicz isn't much of a history teacher since he counts the Big Bang as history. Paul ridicules Paszkiewicz on the basis of the working definition even though the normal definition is entirely in accord with what Paszkiewicz said. LaClair's argument is hypertechnical, representing a fallacy of equivocation (Paul substituting his own meaning of "history" for that used by Paszkiewicz).

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=46796

2. Strife presented a slightly more reasonable argument based on narrowing the issue to U.S. history, but ignored the context of the Oct. 10 meeting:

"I said, uh, simple version in the Big Bang theory when we discussed it, and by the way this is history, too, right? ‘Cause history has a starting point and people are divided over where it started and how it started."

Quite in keeping with the issue of epistemology, IOW, which does have direct application to all of history, including U.S. history.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=46819

3. I point out Paul's fallacy of equivocation.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=46829

4. Leigh "An American in Texas" makes a good point but misapplies it to my argument (accuses me of making a mistake when she has made a mistake).

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=46915

5. Strife tries to buttress Paul's argument by citing an encylopedia entry that he thinks supports Paul's argument (a hard divide between "history" and "pre-history" with the latter referring to times prior to written language). http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=46958

6. Paul tries to rehabilitate his opening post by saying his point was just to show how Paszkiewicz was using pathetic ploys to justify himself (and Paul also admits to emotional investment in the controversy, surprising nobody at all, I think).

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=46973

Whatever the intent, the argument was bad.

7. I pointed out Leigh's mistakes.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47006

8. I pointed out that Strife's own source goes on to contradict the citation he posted as to the divide between history and pre-history. In the very next paragraph, that is. That's a good sign of a poor ability to research.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47007

9. Leigh returns to say that I've been wrong many times--so many times that she can't decide on one example. She provides two supposed examples in the form of statements allegedly made by me, neither of which I made (paraphrase included, if accuracy is a reasonable expectation in a paraphrase).

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47037

10. WilliamK weighs in with a straw man fallacy implied in what seems to be a rhetorical question supposedly representing my argument.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47042

11. Paul responds to justify his tendency to avoid engaging me in debate. Paul chooses my response to Strife to represent my response to Paul's argument ("Bryan is now attempting to justify it by arguing that the distinction is blurred at the edges, at a point when human beings inhabited the earth however. That argument is completely irrelevant to the big bang, which occurred billions of years before human beings ever appeared on earth, and also billions of years before the tiniest microbe appeared")

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47059

12. Leigh reports in again, asking that I read my own definition of "history," apparently supposing that the encyclopediia entry that I cited in correction of Strife was the definiton of history I was using (even though I specifically cited a definition in my initial post to the thread (#3). Leigh challenges me to find university professors who use "history" as I do, apparently confident that it cannot happen.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47137

13. "Guest" pops by with the Clinton ""It depends on what the definition of is is," as though using that quotation somehow undermines my argument. As a fallacious appeal to ridicule it might work on some, I suppose.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47214

14. Another "Guest" weighs in with a question for LaClair, pointing out that religious opinions are expressed commonly by teachers in state-funded schools.

15. Keith responds to post #14.

16. I point Leigh toward my definition of "history," which I think she probably missed, and then I provide a fairly long list of science professionals that use the term according to the definition I provided.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47357

17. I answer William K's (rhetorical?) question in the negative, and return the subject immediately to Paul's OP argument.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47358

18. Steve C responds to post #14 and drops my name even though his arguments have nothing to do with either Paul's argument or my argument in response to Paul.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47388

19. I point out Paul's straw man argument from his post (#11).

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47438

20. Confident that Leigh constructed straw man positions for me in her post (#9), I ask for the quotations from me in support of her versions of my claims (haven't heard back from Leigh yet on that one).

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47440

21. Almost a week later,"Guest" weighs in to slap Paul on the back for his dim opinion of my arguments, oblivious to the fact that Paul offered a straw man argument in that same post.

We have the intimation that my arguments are susceptable to reduction to absurdity without any example offered and, I suggest, without the faintest evidence of such in this thread.

What is this, if it's not an attempt to bury past mistakes by bumping the thread with a misleading epilogue? And continuing a campaign to discredit my arguments without using reasonable examples?

Paul said the Big Bang happened prior to human records, and you offer a 21-point argument on all manner of wrongness that engendered. Call me simple-minded, but I find that bizarre.

The context of Mr P saying “[The Big Bang theory] is history, too, right, because history has a starting point, and people are divided over where it started and how it started, so it is history," is that Matthew says Mr. P does not seem qualified to speak on the Big Bang the way he did.

Mr. P says he *is* qualified because the Big Bang is history, and Mr. P is a history teacher. If the definition of "history" is "stuff that happened," then yeah, Mr. P is can include the Big Bang, as he could include every other subject you can possibly think of.

Even if you took the "narrow" definition of history, Mr. P is probably not qualified to speak on *all* history ranging from pre-Columbian America, exactly how the pyramids/Stonehenge were built, or all manners of human history that has no written record. To try to stretch this to the Big Bang? Well... it might strain credulity in some people.

I would call Mr. P's ratonalization an example of bubble logic. You may not agree, but I feel I have sound, valid footing to say so.

I really tried not to be snarky, which is hard to do, because I will be first to admit that I'm an ass.

Doesn't mean I'm wrong though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dingo Dave
If Bryan saw people in a boat that was taking on water, he could justify drilling holes in the boat to let the water out.

Just keep on drilling those holes Bryan. When the boat winds up sinking, you can always blame it on the fallacious thinking of the sailors.

After all the boat didn't really sink did it? It was merely a "redistribution of water levels".

:angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×