Are we at CFC Intellectuals?

[sanabas]

To clarify, I also said that #7 to be so broad a definition as to be hardly worthy. If that is your standard, and you ignore the others listed there, then I humbly submit that someone who studies Stephan King and the nuances of his literature is just as much an intellectual as someone who reads a 'philosophical text'. Indeed, there are probably many that would define Kings works as 'philosophical texts'.

I'm agreeing with you again. I think I posted it earlier, I don't think #7 suffices in and of itself, because there is very little substance to it.

Since I don't know anything about formal logic, is it true that pretty well every logical statement about 2 sets can be represented by 2 circles and a box?

Venn Diagrams are what you're looking for.

 

[MobBoss]

By the way Mob Boss you don't have to meet them all that's just silly, go look up a few words, you'll se what I mean, you have to meet at least 1, but your more likely to be the archetype if you meet them all.

Why is it silly to say the standard to be an intellectual is to meet all of the specifications listed in your dictionary offering?

Most intellectuals I know are highly emotional people, the act of emotionless rationilisation is that which they apply to their science or study, they don't go round debating like emotionless automatons, you'd possibly know this if you ever met any, but since to most people they are virtual Gods instead of just academics/scholars and scientists you probably will never meet one.

Your definition would say those highly emotional people are not intellectuals because they would violate #4 and #8. You cant have it both ways. Either you use the definition to describe them that you put forth in all aspects, or you dont. Thats precisely why I think the definition you supply works against you. How can you make a claim to a certain label when the definition of that label that you gave directly disqualifies you in one or more specifications?

In that aspect, I humbly submit that yes, a true intellectual would meet all the specifications of your supplied definition and that we here at CFC OT probably have less than a handfull of true intellectuals that post here.

 

[brennan]

To clarify, I also said that #7 to be so broad a definition as to be hardly worthy. If that is your standard, and you ignore the others listed there, then I humbly submit that someone who studies Stephan King and the nuances of his literature is just as much an intellectual as someone who reads a 'philosophical text'. Indeed, there are probably many that would define Kings works as 'philosophical texts'.

And no one answered my earlier question that under that definition, does it suffice to merely meet one specification to be an 'intellectual' or should you have to meet all of them? If you are under the opinion that the minimum serves, then we are all intellectuals here and my premise that certain people are average holds true. If you are under the opinion that all the specifications should be met to be considered intellectual, then very few people here could be described as truly intellectual - which I also claim.

So which is it?

I notice that you've gone from 'anyone who read a book' and 'reading a Steven King novel' to "someone who studies Stephan King and the nuances of his literature". I don't think this third phrase is consistent with the first two...(btw: I am not familiar with the work of Stephan King, what field/genre is he in?)

If you meet one use of the word then yes; I think that's been pretty clearly my position all along. Why are you demanding that to be 'intellectual' one must meet every single definition in the dictionary? Many words in the English language have multiple definitions, I am certain you would not insist we interpret every word as only being appropriate if all definitions are met in every instance, why are you taking this stance wrt this particular word?

 

[Gogf]

So if I Stephen Hawking mistakenly calims that he thinks OJ's wife is black and she is in fact white that makes Stephen Hawking not an intellectual, I humbly submit that your talking nonsense

Stephen Hawking doesn't spend hours on end trying to convince people he will almost surely never meet that he is an intellectual. Stephen Hawking probably couldn't care less whether he qualifies as an intellectual or not. He must realize that it's just an adjective, and has no bearing on how intelligent he actually is.

I have nothing against you, Sidhe, but your desperate attempts to convince people that you might qualify as an intellectual are confusing. Nobody's opinion of you is going to change whether or not you're an intellectual.

 

[MobBoss]

So if I Stephen Hawking mistakenly calims that he thinks OJ's wife is black and she is in fact white that makes Stephen Hawking not an intellectual, I humbly submit that your talking nonsense

I am willing to bet my next paycheck that Stephan Hawking would know OJs wife was white.

And just for the record, thats another fallacy to assume that Hawking would make that mistake. I for one, dont think a guy like Hawking would make such a mistake...but thats me.

 

[Mise]

I am willing to bet my next paycheck that Stephan Hawking would know OJs wife was white.

And just for the record, thats another fallacy to assume that Hawking would make that mistake. I for one, dont think a guy like Hawking would make such a mistake...but thats me.

He said "if". You didn't answer his question. And it's not a fallacy, it's not even an assumption. He said "if".

 

[MobBoss]

I notice that you've gone from 'anyone who read a book' and 'reading a Steven King novel' to "someone who studies Stephan King and the nuances of his literature". I don't think this third phrase is consistent with the first two...(btw: I am not familiar with the work of Stephan King, what field/genre is he in?)

Stephan King is primarily known as a horror writer, but he is a superb short story writer as well. He is probably one of the most prolific writers of our day. And I humbly submit that the definition as written says 'showing an interest' and that someone reading a King novel 'shows an interest'.

 

[Gogf]

Resort to authority: it is isn't it, your saying just because you haven't learnt x you can't claim something is illogical, just because you happen to have a PhD in logic does not mean you can not be wrong and you are, nor that I can point out the flaw in downtowns statement.

Huh? Sanabas presented a very logical argument that showed that people who try to convince others that they are intellectuals are in fact not intellectual. You have yet to find a flaw in that argument.

There is no appeal to authority, no "I haven't learned this, so it's illogical." I'm not sure where you're even coming up with this stuff.

In other words it's useless except in philosophy and maybe computer studies?

I would think that logic would be useful in every discipline in which you intend to convince someone of something or make any kind of logical determination.

 

[brennan]

I observed the word 'clearly' in my previous post and it struck me that 'clear' was a good example of a word with multiple definitions. Would you only consider the word to be used correctly only if it met all these:

Spoiler :

clear /klɪər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kleer] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, -er, -est, adverb, -er, -est, verb, noun
–adjective 1. free from darkness, obscurity, or cloudiness; light: a clear day.
2. transparent; pellucid: clear water.
3. without discoloration, defect, or blemish: a clear complexion; a clear pane of glass.
4. of a pure, even color: a clear yellow.
5. easily seen; sharply defined: a clear outline.
6. distinctly perceptible to the ear; easily heard: a clear sound.
7. free from hoarse, harsh, or rasping qualities: a clear voice; clear as a bell.
8. easily understood; without ambiguity: clear, concise answers.
9. entirely comprehensible; completely understood: The ultimate causes of inflation may never be clear.
10. distinct; evident; plain: a clear case of misbehavior.
11. free from confusion, uncertainty, or doubt: clear thinking.
12. perceiving or discerning distinctly: a clear mind.
13. convinced; certain: He was not clear on the first point that she made but agreed with the others.
14. free from anything that would disturb or blame: a clear conscience.
15. free from suspicion of guilt or complicity: She was entirely clear of the crime until one of her accomplices turned informer.
16. serene; calm; untroubled: a clear brow.
17. free from obstructions or obstacles; open: a clear view; a clear path.
18. free from entanglement or contact: He kept clear of her after the argument. She managed to keep her dress clear of the mud.
19. without limitation or qualification; absolute: a clear victory.
20. free from obligation, liability, or debt: After twenty years, our house is clear of the mortgage. Municipal bonds were returning as much as 9 percent, clear of taxes.
21. without deduction or diminution: a clear $1000 after taxes.
22. freed or emptied of contents, cargo, etc.
23. (of tree trunks or timber) free from branches, knots, or other protruding or rough parts: The trunk was clear for 20 feet above the ground.
24. Phonetics. a. (of an l-sound) having front-vowel resonance; situated before a vowel in the same syllable. Compare dark (def. 16a).
b. (of a speech sound) produced without frication or aspiration.

25. (in cryptography) not coded or enciphered. Compare plaintext.
26. bright; shining: a clear flame.
27. Obsolete. illustrious.
–adverb 28. in a clear or distinct manner; clearly.
29. so as not to be in contact with or near; away (often fol. by of): Stand clear of the closing doors.
30. entirely; completely; clean: to cut a piece clear off; to climb clear to the top; to run clear off the road.
–verb (used with object) 31. to remove people or objects from (usually fol. by of): to clear a courtroom of photographers; to clear the table of dishes.
32. to remove (people or objects) (usually fol. by from): to clear the photographers from the courtroom; to clear the dishes from the table.
33. to make clear, transparent, or pellucid; free from cloudiness or impurities: to clear a liquid by means of a filter.
34. to make free of confusion, doubt, or uncertainty: He spoke to his supervisor to clear his mind about their working relationship.
35. to make understandable or lucid; free from ambiguity or obscurity: She rephrased the report in order to clear the essential points.
36. to make (a path, road, etc.) by removing any obstruction: He had to cut away the underbrush to clear a path.
37. to eat all the food on: to clear one's plate.
38. to relieve (the throat) of some obstruction, as phlegm, by forcing air through the larynx, usually producing a rasping sound.
39. to make a similar rasping noise in (the throat), as to express disapproval or to attract attention.
40. to remove from (the brow) any traces of tension or anxiety, as folds or wrinkles.
41. to free of anything defamatory or discrediting: to clear one's name.
42. to free from suspicion, accusation, or imputation of guilt; prove or declare innocent: The jury cleared the defendant of the charge.
43. to remove instructions or data from (a computer, calculator, etc.).
44. to pass by or over without contact or entanglement: The ship cleared the reef. The fisherman cleared his line.
45. to pass through or away from: The ship cleared the harbor. The bill cleared the Senate.
46. to pass (checks or other commercial paper) through a clearinghouse.
47. (of mail, telephone calls, etc.) to process, handle, reroute, etc.: The dispatcher clears hundreds of items each day.
48. to free from debt: Just a few dollars more would clear him. The widow had to borrow money to clear her husband's estate.
49. to gain as clear profit: to clear $1000 in a transaction.
50. to pay (a debt) in full.
51. to receive authorization before taking action on: You'll have to clear your plan with headquarters.
52. to give clearance to; authorize: The chairperson has to clear our speeches before the meeting.
53. to authorize (a person, agency, etc.) to use classified information, documents, etc.: He has finally been cleared for highly classified information.
54. to remove trees, buildings, or other obstructions from (land), as for farming or construction.
55. to free (a ship, cargo, etc.) from legal detention at a port by satisfying customs and other requirements.
56. to try or otherwise dispose of (the cases awaiting court action): to clear the docket.
57. (of a commodity) to buy up or sell out the existing supply of.
58. Skin Diving. to drain or expel unwanted water in: to clear a snorkel by sharp exhalations; to clear a regulator and face mask while underwater.
59. Bridge. to establish one or more winning cards in (a given suit) by leading the suit until all the outstanding cards have been drawn: He cleared the heart suit before attacking spades.
–verb (used without object) 60. to become clear.
61. to exchange checks and bills, and settle balances, as in a clearinghouse.
62. to become free from doubt, anxiety, misunderstanding, etc.: His mind cleared when he heard the truth.
63. to pass an authority for review, approval, etc.: The bill must clear through the assembly before it becomes legal.
64. to remove dishes, food, etc., from a table following a meal: Is it my turn to clear?
65. to remove previously inserted instructions or data from a computer, calculator, typewriter, or the like.
66. Nautical. a. to comply with customs and other requirements legally imposed on entering or leaving a port (often fol. by in or out).
b. to leave port after having complied with such requirements.

67. (of a commodity for sale) to sell out; become bought out: Wheat cleared rapidly.
–noun 68. a clear or unobstructed space.
69. plaintext.
70. a piece of clear lumber.
—Verb phrases71. clear away or off, a. to remove in order to make room.
b. to leave; escape: We were warned to clear off before the floods came.
c. to disappear; vanish: When the smoke cleared away, we saw that the house was in ruins.

72. clear out, a. to remove the contents of: Clear out the closet.
b. to remove; take away: Clear out your clothes from the closet.
c. to go away, esp. quickly or abruptly.
d. to drive or force out: The police cleared out the pickets by force.

73. clear up, a. to make clear; explain; solve.
b. to put in order; tidy up.
c. to become better or brighter, as the weather.

—Idiom74. in the clear, a. absolved of blame or guilt; free: He was suspected of the theft, but evidence put him in the clear.
b. en clair.

And if not, why are you making this a necessary condition for use of the term 'intellectual'?

 

[Sidhe]

I am willing to bet my next paycheck that Stephan Hawking would know OJs wife was white.

And just for the record, thats another fallacy to assume that Hawking would make that mistake. I for one, dont think a guy like Hawking would make such a mistake...but thats me.

Er hold on a minute no your making a logical fallacy in assuming he would know, where as I'm just sayin that if he didn't know x then that doesnt mean that he is not an intelectual? Which is logically consistent, because I say if and that is no precondition on whether he does or doesn't it merely says under condition x.

Mob Boss almost every post on this thread is a logical fallacy? Are you not tired of doing it?

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

 

[azzaman333]

A: Bob is an intellectual
B: Bob's words, thoughts & actions convince others he is an intellectual
C: Bob needs to convince others he is an intellectual by telling them he is, as they do not see him as one.

A->B
Therefore ~B->~A (not B implies not A)

Please point out the fallacy, and tell me which fallacy it was.

Just because Bob is an intellectual, and Frank is convinced by Bob's actions that Bob is an intellectual, doesn't mean Fred will be convinced by Bob's same actions. So how do we decide whether Frank or Fred is correct about Bob's intellect?

 

[brennan]

Stephan King is primarily known as a horror writer, but he is a superb short story writer as well. He is probably one of the most prolific writers of our day. And I humbly submit that the definition as written says 'showing an interest' and that someone reading a King novel 'shows an interest'.

You don't have to keep 'humbly submitting'. Your rationale will either stand up on it's own or not, regardless of how humble you claim to be. How does reading a novel show an interest in abstract thought? Would this apply to anyone reading a Mills & Boon? A tabloid newspaper? Or is this, as I suspect, a weak attempt to set standards unjustifiably low?

 

[Atlas14]

And just for the record, thats another fallacy to assume that Hawking would make that mistake. I for one, dont think a guy like Hawking would make such a mistake...but thats me.

Then is it not also a logical fallacy to assume Stephen Hawking would not argue all day whether he was an intellectual or not with someone?

 

[Perfection]

Er hold on a minute no your making a logical fallacy in assuming he would know

That's a strawman (which in case you didn't know is a logical fallacy), he said he's willing to bet. That does not mean absolutely assuredness.

 

[Sidhe]

Huh? Sanabas presented a very logical argument that showed that people who try to convince others that they are intellectuals are in fact not intellectual. You have yet to find a flaw in that argument.

There is no appeal to authority, no "I haven't learned this, so it's illogical." I'm not sure where you're even coming up with this stuff.



I would think that logic would be useful in every discipline in which you intend to convince someone of something or make any kind of logical determination.

What has him making a new argument that had no original reference to the point got to do with anything? And again it's bs anyway it assumes that if jesus says he's the son of God and no one ever believes him and he is the Son of God that therefore makes Jesus not the son of God in other words it's just the same nonsense as Downtowns worded differently? ie it's now not a non sequitor it's now moving towards an appeal to authority.

I trust the opinion of my peers over the opinions of a bunch of internet nerds any day, they at least know me, what you guys think is utterly irrelevant to me....

Look that's the last time I'm going to reply because your all talking fantasy, and I'm bored now.

 

[MobBoss]

And if not, why are you making this a necessary condition for use of the term 'intellectual'?

Well, all you proved there is that it is much easier for one to be 'clear' than it is for one to be an intellectual, no?

And just like I suggest, under the definition for clear, if you do not meet certain aspects of that definition then you would indeed be 'unclear' correct? Therefore it is not in error to say person X meets this aspect of being an intellect (under the broad term about all of us do) but they do not under another aspect of the definition.

So which is it? If person A meets one definition, but doesnt meet another, who is to say which definition is correct? Whos to say a true intellectual meets them all, just like someone who is truly clear meets all the pertaining definitions of 'clear'?

 

[Mise]

Huh? Sanabas presented a very logical argument that showed that people who try to convince others that they are intellectuals are in fact not intellectual. You have yet to find a flaw in that argument.

The argument is perfectly logical, but the conclusion is true IFF his assumptions are true. His logic was flawless, but he argument was not, for obvious reasons.

 

[Sidhe]

That's a strawman (which in case you didn't know is a logical fallacy), he said he's willing to bet. That does not mean absolutely assuredness.

What your missing is though, he says he's willing to bet and based on that Stephen Hawking remains an intellectual however because I got that wrong about OJ's wife, I am not: it's what is known in the trade as a logical fallacy based on another one, but then I guess you joined the conversation late.

I think it's called modus ponens which isn't a logical fallacy per se, but since both conclusions are if taken as a leads to b. It is.

In other words lets sum this up:

Because I didn't know OJ's wife was white I am not an intellectual.

What if Stephen Hawking didn't know, would that make him not an intelectual?

I'm willing to bet he would know?

Do you see what I mean here? Just saying the second statement, means nothing. He is asserting that my intelectual staus rests on an unrelated bit of information absolutely if I don't know this I am not an intellectual, where as I am saying if so then.

He's willing to bet means he assumes Stephen king would probably know, that's all I meant anyway.

 

[MobBoss]

Er hold on a minute no your making a logical fallacy in assuming he would know,

Incorrect, I said I am willing to bet he would know. That leaves room for him not knowing. Again, I dont know for sure, but I am willing to bet he would.

Mob Boss almost every post on this thread is a logical fallacy? Are you not tired of doing it?

Actually, I just corrected you here...again. I in no way stated that Hawking would know the data for sure, but I find it highly probable.

And no, I have yet to get tired in correcting you.

 

[Gogf]

What has him making a new argument that had no original reference to the point got to do with anything?

This thread has changed from "are we at CFC intellectuals" to "is Sidhe an intellectual?" With that in mind, it is very relevant.

And again it's bs anyway it assumes that if jesus says he's the son of God and no one ever believes him and he is the Son of God that therefore makes Jesus not the son of God in other words it's just the same nonsense as Downtowns worded differently?

No it doesn't. It's reasonable to assume that people will realize that you are intelligent based on your past 10,000 posts. It is not reasonable to assume that people will realize that Jesus is the son of God just by looking at him.

ie it's now not a non sequitor it's now an appeal to authority.

No, it is NOT an appeal to authority. Please stop throwing around logical terms to the point where they become meaningless.

I trust the opinion of my peers over the opinions of a bunch of internet nerds any day, they at least know me, what you guys think is utterly irrelevant to me....

That cannot be true, or you would have stopped your trying to convince us that you are an intellectual a long time ago. In fact, I suspect that, if you didn't care, you never would have said that you qualify as an intellectual at all.