Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : George Gilder - Forbes ASAP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dragonfly who wrote (459)	4/19/1998 3:49:00 AM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5853

First, I concur with your Biblical argument itself, though as Dave Rose replied, the bible demands faith be employed: Rands argument did not- nor did my query- and so my query is not akin to your example. Second, you certainly are correct to say I've argued to the man by saying your logic is weak. You too have done exactly that to Ms. Rand by saying she "does not know how to form a logical argument." When you simply state that she has no supporting facts this too argues to the man. You state what a first year Philosophy major would conclude, and this too is arguing to the man. Sorry, but you are terribly guilty. You should instead attempt to explain WHY you think NONE of her quoted words are supportive to her conclusion- a relatively tough task- but necessary if we are to take you seriously. Simply saying it is so is not an argument at all- just a bald, lonely, and unsupported statement. It is a simple and trivial matter to provide the example you seek. It is in the quoted passage before us. Consider first your post 445- you asked Dave Rose if he doesn't simply "feel" the statement is "true, even though it may not be logical." Now consider that truth and logic are very different things(and this is EASY to forget, I know too well). Solid logic doesn't guarantee truth is found. This is because a premise must always first be taken for granted in order to make an argument at all(first year Philosophy!)- and a premise may be false! For Ms. Rand to be deemed logical her conclusion must follow logically from her premise- and she has a premise(Again, a logical conclusion drawn from a premise is not to be confused with truth!). The premise here is that Anti-trust laws make all three pricing schemes illegal. The conclusion drawn is that all business is therefore illegal from inception. If the premise is true, her logical conclusion is necessarily true. But if the premise is false, her logical conclusion is necessarily false. Logical but False! If you Dragonfly, cannot take her premise for granted as true, then please explain why anti-trust law DOESN'T allow for all three pricing schemes to be deemed illegal. In this way you'll gain logical advantage.