Chocolate

reed's picture
Submitted by reed on Mon, 2011-09-12 02:16

P1: Nothing is better than eternal life.
P2: A chocolate bar is better than nothing.

Therefore

C: A chocolate bar is better than eternal life.


( categories: )

But...

ding_an_sich's picture

A chocolate bar is not a conceptual blank-out, whatever that means; Heaven may be in the sense that it has no real meaning or referrent. So the "algebraic" set up for Reeds argument is still, well, in bad shape. The argument is also not valid either, because the supposed middle term is not really a middle term because it has two different meanings.

And it does not really matter who is up to the task; I have already pointed out that the argument is fallacious. The problem on this thread was a lousy one on the basis of its foundations; hence, present a different argument.

Goode's not up to the task,

gregster's picture

Goode's not up to the task, but the argument is unsound but still valid if, as ding fairly asks, a chocolate bar can be shown to be better than a number? But the zero stands for me to mean a conceptual blank-out.

My first thought about this

reed's picture

My first thought about this argument was that it was an equivocation on the word "nothing" but I couldn't come up with two definitions of nothing for this argument.

"Nothing is better than X" can be read two ways - the statement is amphibolous.

Nein...

ding_an_sich's picture

"P1: Zero is other than zero
P2: A chocolate bar is better than zero

C: A chocolate bar is better than zero."

But clearly Reed is not taking "nothing" to mean zero; and even if he is, how can you say that a thing is better than a number? That makes no sense. Perhaps greater than, but that is only in the context of other numbers. So even if Reed is not committing a fallacy, his premises make absolutely no sense. So either way his argument is rubbish. It's funny, but no one should take it seriously.

Furthermore, the first premise is so blatantly false it is not even funny. Zero cannot be other than zero. C'mon! Zero is identical with itself. If it were other than itself, then that would entail a contradiction. The translation of the argument is just all wrong.

If it isn't obvious that the argument is fallacious, I do not know what to tell the Almighty Heralds of Reason, i.e., the Randites participating in this thread.

Proof

gregster's picture

What would you choose Goode? Nothing, a chocolate bar, or eternal life?

I

gregster's picture

think that it is.

Hello?

Richard Goode's picture

No.

So you think Reed's argument is valid?

Ding?

gregster's picture

"Do you think ding_an_sich was correct about there being an equivocation on the word "nothing"?"

No.

Algebraically..

gregster's picture

You're saying:

P1: Zero is other than zero
P2: A chocolate bar is better than zero

C: A chocolate bar is better than zero.

How's your algebra?

reed's picture

Gregster -
Do you think ding_an_sich was correct about there being an equivocation on the word "nothing"?

Nothing

ding_an_sich's picture

The first premise indicates that there is not a thing such that that thing is better than eternal life, while the usage of nothing in the second premise indicates that nothing refers to a lack of objects altogether. Hence, the fallacy.

But I am sure you are not being serious about the argument itself, and are simply making fun of eternal life in a logical way. It gave me quite the chuckle. Smiling

For distinction

reed's picture

ding_an_sich -
What are the two definitions of nothing?

Ugh...

ding_an_sich's picture

I do not know if this was supposed to be a joke or not, but you are equivocating two uses of the word "nothing". Hence, your argument is fallacious.

Get more go on Mofo™!

Richard Goode's picture

At the ALCP conference on the weekend, someone rightly pointed out that the logo of the new Mana Party looks like a chocolate bar.

Mana Bar

The new Mana Bar competes with the iconic white chocolate Mofo™ Bar.

Mofo Bar

Get more go on Mofo™!

[Cross-posted from Eternal Vigilance.]

Didn't

gregster's picture

You mean to post this on the Women's Weekly?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.