What logic? You flatter yourself.
OK . . . you say long winded mental gymnastics is a “BASELESS GENERALIZATION”. I distilled your discussion of aliens and unicorns and then your painfully twisted ending of beliefs versus conclusions down to one simple sentence.
Do you dispute that reduced result?
BTW, FWIW, I agree with your evaluation of aliens and unicorns ONLY SO FAR AS THEY GO WITHIN THEMSELVES.
This guy, BTW, gives belivers in other life in the universe a bad name:
OK . . . now let’s address, or should I say “refut” (~grin~), what you call “logic”.
You went into a discussion of aliens and then unicorns and somehow arrived at a painfully tortured “distinction” between beliefs and conclusions. Nothing more than splitting semantic hairs.
My conclusion (belief?) is that if that’s what passes for “logic” in your book, you failed your “Critical Thinking” course.
Now let’s address “knowing” and “probable”.
(And, NO I’m not saying they are the same, or you’re splitting semantic hairs here.)
In this case, you’re just flat out wrong. AFAIK, making a “claim” is not necessarily an assertion of knowing. It can be . . . or not.
Claiming can also be an assertion of probability.
Was PD claiming a certainty, or a probability?
I don’t believe (CONCLUDE) anyone here asserts they are in possession of a working crystal ball (mine’s in the shop being repaired).
Back to your “logic” . . .
Where in the heck are you getting all this logic stuff?
What . . . did you read a book by S.I.Hiyakawa and all of a sudden become a master of semantics, or did you read a book by Bertrand Russell and all of a sudden become a master of metaphysics?
Seriously, is this stuff of your own devising or are you pulling it from somewhere else?
Am I calling your baby ugly here? You bet.
If you’ve hung around discussion boards for any length of time, you’ve either developed the requisite thick skin, or you perceive these as personal attacks (“internalizing”?)
They’re certainly not personal attacks. It’s just the nature of discussion boards, particularly political or religious boards.
Has my baby been called ugly? You bet. I expect it, and it doesn’t bother me at all.
Digging your heels in, eh?
You believe that since PD disagrees with you, he is “internalizing”. And you’re not?
I’m not going to use that distorted made-up definition of yours . . . “a belief justified on the evidence” . . . because it reduces a “belief” to something it’s not.
The OED definition of “belief”: An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
Wiki: Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.
A belief is neither justified nor unjustified, just as an opinion is neither right nor wrong.
(I believe or have an opinion that red wine is better than white wine. You believe or have an opinion that white wine is better than red wine. Is either of us unjustified or wrong?)
I would claim to know just as much as you know about Moore’s circumstances . . . which is NOTHING.
C’mon, Brown . . . are you really that thick?
We both have opinions, different ones to be sure . . . and that’s as far as it goes.
Jeezzzz . . . Brown . . . are you reading comprehension challenged?.
Let me post this a second time: