- Page 4

@fast,

fast;108902 wrote:

Well, I didn't say you couldn't say it. I'm saying you can't do it.

Others have stated that God exists, so you can deny that the statement is true, but had such a statement never been made, although you can state that there is no God, you could not (at that time) deny that there is no God since to deny is to respond in the negative.

(I think)

Can you offer any sourced evidence for this response-only claim?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;108904 wrote:

I deny that pumpkin-headed geese with large testicles wielding baseball bats exist in my basement. If you think someone has already made such a claim, I'll try again for you.

How can you deny a claim that was never made? There would be no claim to deny.

To deny is more than to assert in the negative.

Consider the term, "real". That's what we call a denial term. We generally call something real when its authenticity is brought into question. For example, I wouldn't say "it's a real diamond" unless there's a question about its authenticity. For example, is that fake? No, it's a real diamond.

---------- Post added 12-07-2009 at 02:18 PM ----------

.....

Emil;108908 wrote:

Can you offer any sourced evidence for this response-only claim?

Nope.

.......

@fast,

fast wrote:

How can you deny a claim that was never made? There would be no claim to deny.

Do you think, "I deny that pumpkin-headed geese with large testicles wielding baseball bats exist in my basement." is a meaningless statement since it wasn't in response to a claim? I think I am using "deny" appropriately as per the definition of deny. I also don't think I'm responding to anyone. If you do, who do you think I'm responding to?

A claim is an assertion that something is true, but no one need assert something for me to refuse to believe something. Unless, of course, as I said, you consider my act of conjuring something, a claiming of sorts. I just conjured pumpkin-headed geeze with large testicles wielding baseball bats. You think I'm claiming something? If so, what am I claiming about pumpkin-head geeze with large testicles wielding baseball bats? Why does someone have to claim that pumpkin-head geeze with large testicles wielding baseball bats exist, for me to deny they exist?

@fast,

fast;108913 wrote:

How can you deny a claim that was never made? There would be no claim to deny.

To deny is more than to assert in the negative.

Consider the term, "real". That's what we call a denial term. We generally call something real when its authenticity is brought into question. For example, I wouldn't say "it's a real diamond" unless there's a question about its authenticity. For example, is that fake? No, it's a real diamond.

---------- Post added 12-07-2009 at 02:18 PM ----------

.....
Nope.

.......

Suppose I consider a claim and then end up believing it to be false. I'd call that denying it. Why would you not?

You're not going to convince me it seems. The dictionary doesn't support what you say either.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;108919 wrote:

Do you think, "I deny that pumpkin-headed geese with large testicles wielding baseball bats exist in my basement." is a meaningless statement since it wasn't in response to a claim?

No, I wouldn't go that far. I do not think it's meaningless, but one could be misled by it. At least that's what I think.

---------- Post added 12-07-2009 at 02:35 PM ----------

Emil;108922 wrote:

Suppose I consider a claim and then end up believing it to be false. I'd call that denying it. Why would you not?

If you don't make it known that you believe it's not true, then no, I'd say you did not deny that it is true.

@fast,

fast wrote:

No, I wouldn't go that far. I do not think it's meaningless, but one could be misled by it. At least that's what I think.

Fair enough. That may be true. But one can still refuse to believe something that was never previously asserted. And I think one can use "deny" to simply mean a refusal of a belief.

Quote:

If you don't make it known that you believe it's not true, then no, I'd say you did not deny that it is true.

You can outwardly deny, but can't you also deny something quietly to yourself without ever anyone knowing (refuse to believe something)? I need not attempt to articulate the things I affirm or deny.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;108931 wrote:

You can outwardly deny, but can't you also deny something quietly to yourself without ever anyone knowing (refuse to believe something)? I need not attempt to articulate the things I affirm or deny.

It looks like you got a free "thank you." I meant to hit quote.

Any way, although I can believe that some proposition is true or believe that some proposition is not true, I think to affirm or deny that some proposition is true or not requires a little more than the mere believing that it's true or false.

@fast,

fast wrote:

It looks like you got a free "thank you." I meant to hit quote.

Click "remove thank you"

Quote:

Any way, although I can believe that some proposition is true or believe that some proposition is not true, I think to affirm or deny that some proposition is true or not requires a little more than the mere believing that it's true or false.

Hm, I don't see why it would. Is my declaring that I believe a proposition required so that I believe a proposition (or not)?

@Zetherin,

[QUOTE=Zetherin;108950]Click "remove thank you"[/QUOTE]I don't see it, and even if I did, I'd leave it any way. You're easy to talk to, and I certainly thank you for that.

[quote]Hm, I don't see why it would. Is my declaring that I believe a proposition required so that I believe a proposition (or not)?[/quote]
No. There is a difference between believing P and saying you believe P. It's possible to say that you believe P and not believe P. One has nothing to do with the other.

There is a difference I believe between being in denial and actually denying something.

Anyhoots, I'm not committed to my stance on the issue, and I've qualified what I've said as "I think" at least on two occasions. As Kennethamy sometimes says, "I'm not married to the idea."

@fast,

fast;108957 wrote:

I don't see it, and even if I did, I'd leave it any way. You're easy to talk to, and I certainly thank you for that.

No. There is a difference between believing P and saying you believe P. It's possible to say that you believe P and not believe P. One has nothing to do with the other.

Overstatement. The speech act of x saying "I believe (that) [P]" correlates strongly with x believing that P. Surely they have something to do with each other, though not logical implication.

fast;108957 wrote:

There is a difference I believe between being in denial and actually denying something.

Yes.

fast;108957 wrote:

Anyhoots, I'm not committed to my stance on the issue, and I've qualified what I've said as "I think" at least on two occasions. As Kennethamy sometimes says, "I'm not married to the idea."

This idiom is becoming worse and worse because divorce rates are increasing. It should be avoided. The divorce rates are already high enough for young people to not understand it unless they knew that back in the days divorces were not possible/unheard of/etc.

By the way, fast, I noticed the ambiguity of "or" a long time ago. That's why I use "/" for the alternative expression meaning of "or" and "or" for the normal disjunction or similar expression.

@fast,

fast wrote:

I don't see it, and even if I did, I'd leave it any way. You're easy to talk to, and I certainly thank you for that.

Thank you, I feel the same.

Quote:

There is a difference between believing P and saying you believe P.

There most definitely is.

And isn't it also possible to believe P, but never claim that you believe P? Likewise, isn't it possible that you deny P, but never claim that you deny P?

Claims are not the only things people can deny, are they? I can simply deny one of my own ideas, an idea that no one has ever claimed (asserted was true). I gave you that example earlier.

fast wrote:

Anyhoots, I'm not committed to my stance on the issue, and I've qualified what I've said as "I think" at least on two occasions. As Kennethamy sometimes says, "I'm not married to the idea."

I'd hope that all of us focus more on building each other up (intellectually), than tearing each other down. When I discuss something with someone philosophically, it comes with the understanding that good philosophers are swayed by good argument. Positions often are fleeting the more one critically thinks. Learning, and acknowledging you are learning, is not a sign of weakness, but rather a sign of humility.

@Emil,

Emil;108908 wrote:

Can you offer any sourced evidence for this response-only claim?

Can you deny something without having something first to deny?

@Zetherin,

[QUOTE=Zetherin;108975]Learning, and acknowledging you are learning, is not a sign of weakness, but rather a sign of humility.[/quote]
I'm not conceding. I still think I'm correct. I just need to find out why I'm correct (if I am). It'll come. That's not to say I'm dogmatic in my views, however--far from it. I do change my views on occasion, and I do listen to reason, but if I don't feel the reasons that have been given are sufficient to change my view, or if I'm skeptical for some other reason, I tend to a bit slow about changing my views.

By the way, I am not a philosopher, and I have never (not even once) learned what I know by reading the works of other philosophers [so much for my credibility!]. Emil keeps trying to get me to read things, and I've successfully avoided doing so despite his efforts, but I do acknowledge (as I'm sure Kennethamy would agree) that I would progress much faster if I did.

---------- Post added 12-07-2009 at 09:30 PM ----------

Zetherin;108975 wrote:

I can simply deny one of my own ideas, an idea that no one has ever claimed (asserted was true). I gave you that example earlier.

That has the ring of peculiarity (to me).

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;109036 wrote:

Can you deny something without having something first to deny?

No, but you can deny an idea without first claiming it.

fast wrote:

I'm not conceding.

Oh, I didn't mean you were. I was speaking in general, with a polite tone (if I came off derogatory in some way).

Quote:

That has the ring of peculiarity (to me).

I even demonstrated it in front of you. Quite literally.

Can you explain what is peculiar about what I did, or why you do not think that I did what I said I did?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;109044 wrote:

Can you explain what is peculiar about what I did, or why you do not think that I did what I said I did?

You can dismiss one of your ideas, and you can certainly do that without making any claims or assertions to another, but what's peculiar (peculiar to me, I'll add) is for the person you're making it known to that you deny something is yourself.

A denial (it seems to me) requires a communicated contrary assertion to another.

@fast,

There is a well-known logical fallacy called "denying the antecedent". This refers to an argument of the following (invalid) form:

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

For example:

If I live in London, I live in England.
I do not live in London.
Therefore, I do not live in England.

What is being 'denied' here is "I live in London". But note that no-one (not even the speaker) has actually claimed that he/she lives in London; the argument merely states "If I live in London..." This surely demonstrates that the established usage of 'deny' need not refer to the negation of a claim; it can refer to any type of negative statement.

@ACB,

ACB;109245 wrote:

There is a well-known logical fallacy called "denying the antecedent". This refers to an argument of the following (invalid) form:

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

For example:

If I live in London, I live in England.
I do not live in London.
Therefore, I do not live in England.

What is being 'denied' here is "I live in London". But note that no-one (not even the speaker) has actually claimed that he/she lives in London; the argument merely states "If I live in London..." This surely demonstrates that the established usage of 'deny' need not refer to the negation of a claim; it can refer to any type of negative statement.

"Denial" here is just used as a synonym of "negation". I suppose it is being supposed that the illustration you give is something that can happen in actual conversation in which the second premise is the denial of something already stated in the first premise.

@ACB,

ACB;109245 wrote:

There is a well-known logical fallacy called "denying the antecedent". This refers to an argument of the following (invalid) form:

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

For example:

If I live in London, I live in England.
I do not live in London.
Therefore, I do not live in England.

What is being 'denied' here is "I live in London". But note that no-one (not even the speaker) has actually claimed that he/she lives in London; the argument merely states "If I live in London..." This surely demonstrates that the established usage of 'deny' need not refer to the negation of a claim; it can refer to any type of negative statement.

I can tell that you are not espousing the view that you do not live in England but rather expounding on the issue of whether or not we can deny without it being a claim that is being denied, but supposing you were making the argument, it would be true that you are not denying anything but rather asserting as true that you do not live in England. That does not show that it's false that I could not silently deny your claim that you do not live in England.

@fast,

fast wrote:

You can dismiss one of your ideas, and you can certainly do that without making any claims or assertions to another, but what's peculiar (peculiar to me, I'll add) is for the person you're making it known to that you deny something is yourself.

A denial (it seems to me) requires a communicated contrary assertion to another.

But you don't have to make it known, at all, to deny something. Again, I understand how you're using "deny", but it isn't the only way people use "deny". Once again, it could mean simply, "refusing to believe", and you can certainly refuse to believe something you yourself have conjured and that which no one else has knowledge of.

I didn't immediately dismiss the idea I conjured. I considered it, and I may have even believed it for a while, but then I eventually denied it (refused to believe it). Still, no one had knowledge of any of this, let alone the idea I conjured.

But you are saying I did not deny my idea, I dismissed it, right?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;109256 wrote:

But you are saying I did not deny my idea, I dismissed it, right?

Yes, that's what I'm saying, but your previous paragraph has peaked my curiosity. You said, "denied it (refused to believe it)". I take it that you think one meaning or sense of "denied" is logically equivalent to "refused to believe it." I have no problem with you refusing to believe something so long as there's something to refuse to believe, so if you can show that they can rightfully be considered synonymous, then I suppose you got me.

---------- Post added 12-08-2009 at 12:22 PM ----------

Here's a definition: refuse to accept or believe; "He denied his fatal illness"

But, notice the example. There are implications.

---------- Post added 12-08-2009 at 12:25 PM ----------

The example is irrelevant. You win. I'm sold. As long as there's something to deny, then it can be denied.

---------- Post added 12-08-2009 at 12:27 PM ----------

Unless of course there is a difference between denying something and being in denial, but I'm ready for a rest on this.

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know