Not exact matches
I'd be fine if the cartoon was lampooning an
actual conservative belief or pointing out a real
logical fallacy of conservative
thought; but this doesn't seem to be doing that.
What they show, I
think, is that whatever may be the ultimate meaning - status of the function «X is a powerless actuality» and Premise X, Griffin is clearly supposing that they have some kind of surface meaning — enough to permit an investigation of their
logical connections to one another and to the claim that
actual beings are completely determinable.
Yet, given the
logical problems connected with the notion of a finite
actual entity somehow prehending the objective integration of the primordial and consequent natures within God (as indicated above), it makes sense to
think of God's influence on the concrescing
actual occasion simply in terms of divine feelings vis - à - vis objective possibilities already present in the world as a common field of activity for God and all finite
actual occasions.
Obviously, there would be a lot of discussion over where the burden of proof lies (you have to have proof before making a claim vs you have to be able to disprove to sanction for a claim), and I
think it would differ depending on the kind of statements being made, but the idea that facts are fungible and impossible to determine is a concept that, basically, people who find
actual facts inconvenient for their agenda like to claim, but has no
logical basis.
I def see someone who lacks clear
logical thinking and jumps on a conclusion without even fully understanding what he is saying... Guessing you just take things at face value and never delve deeper into the
actual causes / effects of things.
All I am arguing for in my comment (# 176) is that the
actual logical position about causality and proof of causality be stated accurately (I don't
think that Revkin did this, while I do
think that Gavin did) so that stakeholders can make their own decisions about what action they
think they should take now to manage the potential risk.