(urth) Dionysus

[António Pedro Marques]

Lee Berman wrote (08-12-2010 08:43):
> Gerry Quinn-
>> I consider the argument: "An alien has been shown to be a shapeshifter;
>> Fr. Inire is an alien; Therefore Fr. inire is a shapeshifter" to be
>> invalid.  Do you see why?
>
> Yes, I do. This is a good example of winning an argument with yourself.
> First, yikes! shades of Monty Python! It is a false assumption that every
> post on this board represents somebody who is looking for an argument.

'Argument' has a number of meanings in english. One of them, and clearly the
one intended here, is 'reasoning'.

> Moving on, Borksi or Ryan or I might propose a solution or pattern or way
> of thinking which solves the puzzle for us or helps overcome the
> cognitive distress. Again this should not be taken as an open invitation
> to argue.  You invalidate a person by telling them, "No that's not a
> solution to your problem/puzzle." when they have just told you that it
> is.

So what exactly do you expect from others? They're welcome to help you lay
bricks, but not to point out that you're building over quicksand or that
your mortar doesn't hold?

I can't believe any of you are unfamiliar with the importance of 
falsifiability. Falsifiability here is the difference between your 
theories/solutions/patterns being about Gene Wolfe's work, and their being 
about yourselves.

I also don't think that your way of reasoning here is similar to either 
Borski's or Ryan's, so why bring them in?