I was out fixing fences and did not go into the thread before your initial challenge and later post.

“You will have to explain “assumes a proposition are contending for”.

I mean anyone who’s contending for a proposition, for example that the globe is warming, can’t be allowed to assume it in their premises. It can’t be a pre-condition of my entering the debate that I am supposed to accept as a premise that there is global warming. The party asserting a positive proposition has the onus of proving it.

“The only problem with the list is the mine field is being laid but who is to be setting the pressure sensors? You? Perhaps we should seek someone who we can agree would give a fair adjudication on transgressions “

The "mine field" is only explicit agreement that logical fallacies are unacceptable.

Don’t know who would be mutually acceptable. Need a judge.

“Did you have anybody in mind?”

No. Only thing I can think of is to adjourn to debate.org where they seem to have a better format for this kind of formal debate. Not sure how they adjudicate.

“Should we perhaps also have a rule that penalises anyone who – misrepresents the question put to them.”

"For instance I asked of you “exactly what set of figures would need to be produced before you would acknowledge the world is experiencing sustained global warming?” but you went on to qualify the question then answer your own qualifications without addressing the original."

I haven’t misrepresented your question and I never accepted it. As I explained, sustained warming is necessary but not sufficient to establish the warmist argument. We haven't yet joined issue.

In the absence of a mutually acceptable judge, I don’t see we have any option but to go ahead. My point is only this. It’s just too tedious wading through constant accusations of bad faith, circular argument, and appeal to absent authority. If you won’t explicitly renounce recourse to logical fallacies from the outset, then there’s no point discussing the topic.

Well said JKJ. Case in point Poirot's link to the dreary interview with the pompous pontificate Abrahams; samples;

1 Hyperbole: "Doing nothing about the problem is a choice, with tremendous costs"

2 Paranoia: "There are a number of reasons for that. It is clear that a lot of money is spent by organizations that want to ensure we do not invest in clean renewable energy or conservation."

3 Contradiction: "Real scientists are sceptical by nature. We don’t believe what our colleagues tell us until we verify it for ourselves." compared with: "A major indicator of how people feel about climate science is how they view collective action. Persons who think working together on a shared problem (like energy and climate) can lead to exciting and profitable solutions are much more likely to accept the science. People who reject collective action or government intervention are much less likely to accept the science."

4 Fallacy of consensus: "the vast majority of scientists are convinced that humans are a major cause of climate change."

5 Personal insult: "that is plain denial."

6 Girlie man: "I have been attacked numerous times on Mr. Watts’s website, as have my colleagues."

What a sook and what rubbish.

Poirot, are you getting sillier

Dear JKJ,

To be true to the challenge I have been brushing up on the 'logical fallacies' that you would have us both renounce (I'm assuming both rather than just me).

I thought it might be useful to explore the one most immediately to hand;

You put to me; “I was not at my computer in the 29 minutes you gave me to respond”

I put the argument that I had “in fact waited over 12 hours rather than 29 minutes for a reply”

The supporting evidence is the times of the two posts in question;
Posted by csteele, Monday, 25 March 2013 11:20:17 AM
Posted by csteele, Monday, 25 March 2013 11:49:30 PM

Based on the fact that these were 12 hours and 29 minutes apart, I think it would be safe to say that the majority of people reading this would assume that you had failed to notice the PM on the second posting and had calculated the difference at 29 minutes.

My question at this point is; would me saying “I think” transgress the “*relies on* personal argument” rule?

To continue, there would have been an expectation that a reply from you may have been something along the lines of “Yup, sorry, I misread the AM/PM tags”.

Instead you have posted the argument; “I was out fixing fences and did not go into the thread before your initial challenge and later post.”

So I have been exploring Wikipedia to find out if this is;

“Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.

Or possibly;

Post hoc ergo propter hoc therefore because of this" (faulty cause/effect, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) – X happened then Y happened; therefore X caused Y.

Or even something else entirely, though I'm tending toward the first. Please correct me if required.

I haven't played with these for decades but I know it is going to be fun so bugger the judge and let's get on with it.

Cont...

Cont...

So back to my question; “exactly what set of figures would need to be produced before you would acknowledge the world is experiencing sustained global warming?”

To your response was; “sustained warming is necessary but not sufficient to establish the warmist argument. We haven't yet joined issue.”

Indeed we have not joined the issue since I explicitly avoided doing so. It is a simple question that might just as easily read “exactly what set of figures would need to be produced before you would acknowledge the world is experiencing sustained global cooling?” To impugn any answer from you would illustrate your support that the world is indeed warming would of course be a logical fallacy and we are both committed to avoiding them like the plague.

To use your language then let us replace 'exact figures' with 'data set'. I would hope that there isn't a reticence on your behalf for providing data sets or at least robust summaries as this will be a very bereft discussion.

Therefore “what data set would need to be produced before you would acknowledge the world is experiencing sustained global warming?”

csteele

LOL.

Okay:

Yes I noticed only the minute difference, not the hour difference. My error. Yes you are right, my saying I was out fixing fences was logically
a) missing the point
b) irrelevant.

And for penance I offer the following:
1. I waive any contention whether the world is experiencing sustained global warming. I assume it as given for the sake of argument.
2. I answer your question ““exactly what set of figures would need to be produced before you would acknowledge the world is experiencing sustained global warming?”, as follows “I don’t know, and will be guided by you on that.”

Your Q: “ “what data set would need to be produced before you would acknowledge the world is experiencing sustained global warming?””

My answer: “Any”.

There. What could be more amenable and fairer than that?

Now. As that point is no longer in issue, pray tell us how you get from there to your conclusion that the sustained global warming, which we are indubitably experiencing, is anthropogenic, detrimental, and amenable to improvement by policy?

“My question at this point is; would me saying “I think” transgress the “*relies on* personal argument” rule?”

I don’t think it would transgress the personal argument rule at all. T

he reason is because, even if the majority of people reading this did in fact assume that I had failed to notice the PM on the second posting and had calculated the difference at 29 minutes, that fact alone would not invalidate my argument that you haven’t proved your case.

My point about personal argument is only that one’s entire argument can’t *rely on* it. The argument can’t take the form “The warming must be anthropogenic because you are an idiot if you don’t agree.”

If you can independently show evidence and reason why the warming must be anthropogenic, it would not be against the rule to add personal argument, though it would be bad manners, and logically speaking, irrelevant.

Ie you can have personal argument *in addition to*, not *in substitution for* logically valid argument; but better avoided of course.

Dear JKJ,

Normally I wouldn't let someone get away with a “for the sake of the argument” fallacy. If one accepts that the process of arguing is about moving toward agreement by building agreement one step at a time, then having one of the party concede just “for the sake of the argument” introduces a weak foundation stone which that party can pull at will to collapse the whole effort.

Of course I am not saying you would stoop to such a thing to win the day so in the spirit of magnanimity I will let it stand just as I am prepared to let you avoid producing a data set but I think it only fair I get to play that card once too.

Right, to your question. You put to me the following;

“As that point is no longer in issue, pray tell us how you get from there to your conclusion that the sustained global warming, which we are indubitably experiencing, is anthropogenic, detrimental, and amenable to improvement by policy?”

A gentle reminder of your words if I may; “If you won’t explicitly renounce recourse to logical fallacies from the outset, then there’s no point discussing the topic.”

I am going to flag that your question directly speaks to plurium interrogationum or the 'Fallacy of many questions' (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question) – “someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved.”

I might need some help with the second but I have a feeling it also transgresses the 'Fallacy of division' “which occurs when one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.”. For instance does a 'warmist' need to have concluded all three of your propositions?

I invite you to rephrase your question to align more closely with the agreed rules.

Perhaps if we concentrate on curbing the plurium interrogationum we might more usefully move forward.

Or to use some street vernacular 'Let's break it down!'

Dear Poirot,

Thanks. ;)