My argument was rationalist. Anybody who believes in this flying saucer foolishness is perforce bull goose loony. Anybody who believes people who believe otherwise is not rational. Therefore all rational people believe that anybody who believes in flying saucers is bull goose looney.
I seem to remember that a statement like this is called "circular logic", or maybe it's "begging the question", something like that. It's a weak argument either way. The only way it might work is if you accept the opening assertion as axiomatic, a self-evident truth. In that case, your logic would be correct, but your conclusion would not be accepted by a person who doesn't accept your axiom. So now it all comes down to belief, not unlike religious belief. People believe in God because they believe in God, or don't because they don't. Me, I try to keep an open mind about things like that. Just because a thing hasn't been proven yet doesn't necessarily mean that it's false. Even if it never gets proven, that still doesn't prove that it's false, just unlikely.
By the way, I know what a paradox is, I just wanted to see if you knew it.
No comments:
Post a Comment