Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> If Srila Prabhupada did not establish the status quo in which he operated

> as the sole diksa guru from 1966 to 1977, then who or what did?

 

It is also unproven that someone or something established Srila Prabhupada

as the sole diksa-guru for ISKCON. Therefore your question is meaningless.

 

It is like following debate:

A: "The moon is made of Swiss cheese."

B: "That is unproven."

A: "If the moon is not made of Swiss cheese, then what kind of cheese is it

made of?"

 

 

> With regards your logical fallacy of challenging others to prove a

> negative in your first defence you write:

> ...

> You challenge him to provide evidence that something did NOT occur. This

> is a logical fallacy.

 

It is not a fallacy to ask the opponent to prove his claim, even if the

claim is a negative. Where did you read that? You quoted a text from

Wikipedia about "negative proof", but I certainly did not present a negative

proof.

 

Note that it is not fallacious to assume something is false until it has

been proven true. For example it was not fallacious when at

www.iskconirm.com/Srila%20Prabhupada's%20Will.htm IRM wrote:

 

"Whenever any CLAIM is made, the burden of proof rests on the party making

the claim. One cannot simply ASSUME that the claim being made is true. One

needs to provide evidence in order to prove the claim. Until this is done,

the claim remains simply a speculation."

 

Whether or not an 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' (e.g. asking to prove a

negative) is really fallacious depends crucially upon the burden of proof.

And the burden of proof is on the person who made the claim.

 

 

> Just for the record I shall now show you why your accusation that our

> position is based on a logical fallacy is unfounded.

> ...

> Since B supports A then it is illogical to state that it is a non

> sequitur. A non sequitur is an argument where the conclusion is drawn from

> premises which aren't logically connected with it.

 

There are several types of "non sequitur" (see also the text below from

Wikipedia). For example:

- Affirming the consequent ("If A then B. B. Therefore, A.") .

- Denying the antecedent ("If A then B. Not A. Therefore, not B.").

- The conclusion is not logically connected with the premises.

 

You committed the logical fallacy "affirming the consequent" with the

statements:

A: Srila Prabhupada established himself as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON in

1966.

B: Srila Prabhupada said that he is the initiator in ISKCON, and similar.

 

I agree that in our case "B supports A" is not fallacious. But "B. Therefore

A" is a logical fallacy.

 

A classical example of this fallacy is:

 

"When it rained, then the streets are wet. The streets are wet. Therefore it

rained."

 

Right now I can see that in Zurich all streets are wet, but the sky is blue,

the sun is shining, and it did not rain since three weeks.

 

 

Conclusion: Following is still unproven:

"Srila Prabhupada established himself as the sole diksa guru for ISKCON in

1966" and "someone or something established Srila Prabhupada as the sole

diksa guru for ISKCON".

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

 

 

------------------------

>From Wikipedia:

 

Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument

is a non sequitur if the conclusion does not follow from the premise. It

should be stressed that in a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true

or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not

follow from the premise. All logical fallacies are actually just specific

types of non sequiturs. The term has special applicability in law, having a

formal legal definition.

 

Here are two types of non sequiturs of traditional noteworthiness:

 

1) Any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur:

 

If A then B. (e.g. If I am a cat, I am a mammal.)

B. (e.g. I am a mammal.)

Therefore, A. (Therefore, I am a cat.)

Even if the premises and conclusion are all true, the conclusion is not a

necessary consequence of the premises. This sort of non sequitur is also

called affirming the consequent.

 

2) Another common non sequitur is this:

 

If A then B. (e.g. If I am in Tokyo, I am in Japan.)

Not A. (e.g. I am not in Tokyo.)

Therefore, not B. (e.g. Therefore, I am not in Japan.)

The speaker could be in all kinds of other places in Japan. This sort of non

sequitur is called denying the antecedent.

 

(If either of the above examples had "If and only if A, then B" as their

first premise, then they would be valid and non-fallacious.)

 

Many other types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified

into many different types of logical fallacies. In everyday speech and

reasoning, an example might be: "If my hair looks nice, all people will love

me." However, there is no real connection between your hair and the love of

all people. Advertising typically applies this kind of 'deduction'. Another

example: "If I read a book it will rain."