- #1
jostpuur
- 2,116
- 19
I've seen this happening several times. Person A and person B debate about some claim X. The A and B agree upon some claim X_0, so the A attempts to prove X with some reasoning chain.
A says:
"X_0 implies X_1. (then some explanations)
then X_1 implies X_2 (blablabla more explanations)
then X_2 implies X_3 (blablabla more explanations)
...
finally X_(n-1) implies X."B responds to the A:
"QUOTE X_0 implies X_1. (then some explanations) /QUOTE
No, this is mistake. X_0 does not imply X_1.
QUOTE then X_1 implies X_2 (blablabla more explanations) /QUOTE
Again. You are assuming X_0 would imply X_1.
QUOTE then X_2 implies X_3 (blablabla more explanations) /QUOTE
Wrong. You are again assuming X_0 would imply X_1
...
QUOTE finally X_(n-1) implies X. /QUOTE
And again! X_0 does not imply X_1."The person A probably knows that his reasoning chain was kind of reasoning chain where each step relies on the previous one. Wouldn't it just be sufficient for B to explain why the first step was wrong once? Isn't that a deliberate attempt to make the A's post seem more inconsistent than what it really is?
A says:
"X_0 implies X_1. (then some explanations)
then X_1 implies X_2 (blablabla more explanations)
then X_2 implies X_3 (blablabla more explanations)
...
finally X_(n-1) implies X."B responds to the A:
"QUOTE X_0 implies X_1. (then some explanations) /QUOTE
No, this is mistake. X_0 does not imply X_1.
QUOTE then X_1 implies X_2 (blablabla more explanations) /QUOTE
Again. You are assuming X_0 would imply X_1.
QUOTE then X_2 implies X_3 (blablabla more explanations) /QUOTE
Wrong. You are again assuming X_0 would imply X_1
...
QUOTE finally X_(n-1) implies X. /QUOTE
And again! X_0 does not imply X_1."The person A probably knows that his reasoning chain was kind of reasoning chain where each step relies on the previous one. Wouldn't it just be sufficient for B to explain why the first step was wrong once? Isn't that a deliberate attempt to make the A's post seem more inconsistent than what it really is?