Are there still liberal Mormons?

[MG 2.0]

IHAQ’s sig line: Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. 2. The best evidence for The Book of Mormon is eye witness testimony, therefore… 3.The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.

Is this an example of a logical fallacy?



Regards,
MG

No.

Well, Ok then. I’ll take your word for it.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

IHAQ’s sig line: Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. 2. The best evidence for The Book of Mormon is eye witness testimony, therefore… 3.The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.

Is this an example of a logical fallacy?



Regards,
MG

No. It’s a different fallacy.

Do think IHAQ’s sig line is bullet proof?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

So after having seen three criticisms of IHAQ’s sig line by three different A.I.’s do you consider IHAQ’s sig line to be ‘clean’ without any problems? On its face and after having had input from three A.I. resources I’m questioning whether his word ought to be fully trusted.

I suppose readers can defer to your expertise rather than three A.I. systems.

To me, as a simple man (nod to BillO’Reilly), his sig line seems pretty dang circular without any evidence to support it.

Again, your problem is willful ignorance. You don't want to learn. You want A.I. to just say you're the winner.

Go read about syllogisms. You don't need to know anything about A.I. to see that there is nothing wrong with the structure of IHAQ's syllogism.

logic has nothing to do with evidence. When a fallacy is committed, especially a formal fallacy, we can't get to the part about evidence because the claim is essentially meaningless.

IHAQs syllogism is totally valid. But valid isn't TRUE. For a syllogism to be true, the premises must be correct and it must be valid. If you don't like IHAQs syllogism, the answer isn't to guess and call it circular reasoning when it's not, but to dispute the premises.

As a regular guy without any formal training that’s what I had a problem with up front. So the question remains whether or not IHAQ ought to reconsider his sig line.

That’s really all I’m saying/proposing. That, and we ought to be careful with our words. All of us.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

No. It’s a different fallacy.

Do think IHAQ’s sig line is bullet proof?

Regards,
MG

It doesn’t beg the question. It may run afoul of the informal fallacy of division.

[MG 2.0]

So after having seen three criticisms of IHAQ’s sig line by three different A.I.’s do you consider IHAQ’s sig line to be ‘clean’ without any problems? On its face and after having had input from three A.I. resources I’m questioning whether his word ought to be fully trusted.

I suppose readers can defer to your expertise rather than three A.I. systems.

To me, as a simple man (nod to BillO’Reilly), his sig line seems pretty dang circular without any evidence to support it.

Again, your problem is willful ignorance. You don't want to learn. You want A.I. to just say you're the winner.

I had no idea what the response would be. Three times.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Do think IHAQ’s sig line is bullet proof?

Regards,
MG

It doesn’t beg the question. It may run afoul of the informal fallacy of division.

Why is that?

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

As a regular guy without any formal training that’s what I had a problem with up front.

Oh, I see. So after the dust is settling, what you meant was whatever the right answer was all along. Sounds familiar.

So the question remains whether or not IHAQ ought to reconsider his sig line.

After your meltdown, I hope he keeps it a long time.

It's obviously meant to provoke. DCP would just read it and shrug and say that the first premise is false. He would say IHAQ is wrong, and that eye witness testimony is extraordinarily reliable. Problem solved.

Oh, in addition to shrug, he'd throw a fit in a long rant, but then he would proceed from there as indicated.

I had no idea what the response would be

But if it was a response you didn't like, you wouldn't disclose it. You'd try another angle.

[Res Ipsa]

It doesn’t beg the question. It may run afoul of the informal fallacy of division.

Why is that?

Regards,
MG

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

If the first premise were “all eye-witness testimony is unreliable,” there would be no fallacy.

[Marcus]

MG, you and copilot apparently don't know what a syllogism is. with more training, the LLM may figure it out, unfortunately, you probably won't. No matter how much training.

It's hilarious that you just shot yourself in the foot again because you failed to understand the material, and this after I tried to give you advice on how to avoid this problem, and you told me I lost you after the first sentence. See? This is the result of not listening to me. I was trying to help.

Syllogism: A subtle or specious piece of reasoning.

Do you understand the circumstances under which an argument formed as a syllogism could be subtle? Do you understand what about the argument could render the resulting syllogism specious? Just throwing that sentence up there tells me you have no clue.

AI is not your friend, MG. Just spend some time learning. Jiffy cut and paste trips you up every time.

[Res Ipsa]

MG, you and copilot apparently don't know what a syllogism is. with more training, the LLM may figure it out, unfortunately, you probably won't. No matter how much training.

It's hilarious that you just shot yourself in the foot again because you failed to understand the material, and this after I tried to give you advice on how to avoid this problem, and you told me I lost you after the first sentence. See? This is the result of not listening to me. I was trying to help.

Syllogism: A subtle or specious piece of reasoning.

Wouldn’t begging the question or circular reasoning fall under this definition of a syllogism?

You are saying that two different LLM’s are ‘up in the night’?

I mean, I know you’re smart gadianton, but really…?

Regards,
MG

Where in the world did you find that totally incorrect definition of syllogism?

The problem with the AI responses is that it would classify every syllogism as question begging, despite the fact that a well-formed syllogism is logically valid.

I’d also note that there is a ton of evidence that demonstrates the general unreliability of eyewitness testimony. If I recall correctly, most of the identified wrongful convictions have been based on faulty eye witness testimony.