"why do people hate you?"

Remove all ads!

Getting off the subject of what "priori" means.....

I hate Obama because he's caused an ammunition shortage!
The gun stores have over-priced boxes of 50 rounds...but to buy in bulk, you have to wait 3-6 weeks on a back-order list.

When I pay for ammo, I want to put some lead down range that day...not 3-6 weeks from that day.

----------

Ok, he hasn't actually done *anything* to cause the shortage (aside from being elected). People are afraid that he *will* come down hard on us gun owners, so people are buying in massive quantities and hoarding it. Also, the recent increased activity in Afghanistan has required a lot of ammo to be sent to our troops.

So in light of those reasons, I hate Obama because he *hasn't* done two things that would end this devastating shortage.

• He could pass some pro-gun bill that would make it fractionally easier/cheaper to buy guns or ammo...or sponsor CCW/CCP classes and general gun safety classes.
• He could hit that big red button that says "MOAB" on it, slap a Canadian flag* on the few hundred or so bombers, and turn south-eastern Afghanistan in to flat plane!

(* - obviously, we can't let the world know we blew up half of a country, so someone has to take the blame... )

 

Are you surprised? That's NOD's (No Other Dictionaries) modus operandi.

From your link:

At 30 feet long, it can barely FIT into a C-130! If it was loaded onto a C-130, that would be it's ENTIRE payload. A C-5 would seem like a much more logical choice, but that is ONE BIG BOMB!!! Also, it is strange accoding to the link, there were only 17 ever built (not that you need a lot of them).

 

That Wiki knows of....

 

Drew, we've all been playing semantics since post #15.

My point is that you seem to believe that a priori is by definition a fallacy when it is used to describe reasoning in philosophy. That's what you imply when you say something like:

That is wrong. An a priori fallacy is a fallacy of a priori reasoning. It's a special case.

Nice play on words, only it doesn't work. I'll use any dictionary you want, so long as it's an actual dictionary we're using and not "however Aldeth wants to mangle the English (or other) language today".

 

Rowl! Ftt! Ftt! Hiss!

 

Given that Canada likely only has about 40 bombers, I doubt anyone would buy it Besides, we are a very peaceful people. Quiet, calm, and . . . HEY, are those ****ing Quebecois causing trouble about the language again? ******* **** **** ******* *********! I'll kill them all!!! Gimme my rifle and a big ****ing machete and I'll eliminate those pieces of **** within the week! I'll tell you . . . .

*ahem* We now return you to our regularly scheduled CBC* programming, "How To Hold Doors For Those Less Fortunate Than You Are", an instructive 5 hour documentary written, directed, edited, and produced by R. Theodore Thudblossom.

OK, getting back on topic, EVERYONE uses this a priori reasoning from time to time -- we take a position, and then we look for evidence that supports our position, while minimizing evidence that we don't agree with. Anyone claiming that this sort of reasoning is limited to the right wing only is . . . wrong.

*the CBC is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, for those who don't know. It is a widely used cure for insomnia here in the great white north.

 

It was meant to be funny. Granted, it was done at your expense, so it is understandable that you may not have found it as humorous as others. I was merely trying to make light of the following: When attempting to make a nuanced point, perhaps a dictionary is not the best choice as a priamry source for your argument.

To apply this to the discussion at hand, simply using the dictionary definition of a priori may yield an incomplete assessment of the term, because afterall, a priori is an adjective. The word following the adjective, in this case "reasoning" matters. As Drew has already pointed out, there is an obvious distinction between a priori knowledge and reasoning.

 

That's true, but then Drew didn't point out how he was using it until later. After all, there's also a difference between a priori reasoning an an a priori fallacy.

I'm just a stickler for details and precision. It's the engineer in me.

 

Of course I didn't. I shouldn't need to, since a non-fallacious a priori argument is unassailable. If I respond to an argument you make with "a priori," I'm clearly not congratulating you for stating the obvious. I'm accusing you of employing a fallacy of reasoning. There really isn't any other interpretation.

 

I don't think that in your post you use the word 'reasoning' in it's proper context.

You cannot take for granted that the argument you addressed was indeed rooted in reason

 

Would it be an a priori statement to say that debates on the meaning of a priori are off-topic?

 

That depends, how well defined is the topic?