Quote Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker View Post
We live in a world of shorthand discussions. Technically 2+2 does NOT equal 4, except in certain situations where it does. However, we use the phrase as a shorthand for something everybody knows to be true. This shorthand approach, where we leave out the conditions necessary for the statement to be true (the lawyer-speak), makes it possible to communicate without being too boring, yet it makes a definitive statement out of things that aren't definitive.

I read a fundamentalist christian cartoon that attacked science using the phrase "opposites attract", as if it were an absolute rule in the world rather than a shorthand description (not complete) of how electromagnetic forces behave. They weren't being argumentative, they just didn't understand that the shorthand wasn't "THE LAW!", and built there argument on the assumption that it was.

Essentially, shorthand rules like that are convenient, but they also fail to communicate as well as we might hope. As long as people are a bit fuzzy with their understanding, it's fine, but those misunderstandings can cause mischief.

I'm not suggesting anything here, just musing. In the last post I tried to be a-musing, in this one I dropped the a.
Seemed like a long-winded way of saying "I reject your reality and substitute my own."

Quote Originally Posted by TysonLPrice View Post
OK...accepting that, is there any doubt in your mind what my point was? If in daily communication everything was broke down as you mentioned it would really slow communications up. For example if someone said to you "It's as plain as two plus two equals four", would you say "Technically NOT, except in certain situations where it does"? If you do I'll bet you don't get invited back to very many parties...

I'm just musing also. There are times were exact parameters are necessary for understanding. Programmers can be pendantic to the point it drives non IT people crazy. My post was trying to point out dilettante's use of part of the definition of Ad Hominem reasoning to prove a point was in fact false logic in it self as I see it.

But hell, if I'm wrong and off base it wouldn't be the first time I was all wet with egg on my face
Any one who was around in the early Intel days will be very familiar with the fact that 2 + 2 may or may not equal 4. But 2 just might equal 1.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

-tg