The negating philosophy of "IF"
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and 10 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
- Required rating
“IF’ ‘is the most useless word in any language because it acknowledges only that which is currently not true. The argument of “if” almost always begins by stating “if,” and it is virtually always directly followed by a wish as if it were true only for the wishing, which implies, of course, that the thing wished for is not a current truth.
Is this really supposed to be a positive way to being an argument? Well, I just did, didn’t I? But my premise did not follow with any matter that is currently not true. Remember, my premise stated that In fact, the premise is true and I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise. ”If” is “almost always” followed by something not true; I did not say it was always followed by truth.
Is this really supposed to be a positive way to being an argument? Well, I just did, didn’t I? But my premise did not follow with any matter that is currently not true. Remember, my premise stated that In fact, the premise is true and I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise. ”If” is “almost always” followed by something not true; I did not say it was always true.
Beginning an argument with “if” is not the same as proposing a theory to explain natural phenomena not yet proven by the empiric method, such as either proposing or negating the existence of anything yet unseen, but may, in fact, be true. I don’t want this debate to enter the arena of religious entities. That just results, at best, in agreeing to disagree. There is no point in using those examples. I suggest using a completely different construct, such as the current accuracy of DNA profiling by regional origin of ancestors, or any subject of your choosing. This is not a debate regarding the particular facts or theories of any construct, but rather the relative stability of any “if” argument.
I contend that use of the word, other than as used to propose a scientific theorem, which is difficult to discuss by any other construct than if/then, is generally fruitless because of the resulting condition I applied in the first paragraph.
- "Supposing that, assuming that, in the circumstances that; used to introduce a condition or choice.
- (computing) In the event that a statement is true (a programming statement that acts in a similar manner).
- Supposing that; used with past or past perfect subjunctive indicating that the condition is closed.
- Supposing that; given that; supposing it is the case that.
- Although; used to introduce a concession.
- (sometimes proscribed) Whether; used to introduce a noun clause, an indirect question, that functions as the direct object of certain verbs.
- (usually hyperbolic) Even if; even in the circumstances that.
- Introducing a relevance conditional."
- Sometimes, IF is used to concede a minor point
- ex. He was an unskilled, if enthusiastic lover.
- Both conditions are true- unskilled, enthusiastic. IF does not only indicate that which is not yet true
- Sometimes IF is strictly contemplative and uninterested in any eventual or particular truth
- ex. If life gives you lemons, make lemonade.
- IF here indicates a philosophic conditional. The statement only suggests one remedy when relevant but does not indicate any condition that is not yet true.
"However, “most” is not an ultimate descriptive. One might use “most” as “Dogs are the most useful domesticated animals, because they offer unconditional love.” That is an acceptable statement, both by cultural heritage, and by practical experience. It does not negate the possibility that someone has a “most useful domesticated animal” for an entirely different purpose."
- Superlative adjectives always use "the"
- PRO and CON agree that Truth is NOT the only measure of a word's usefulness PRO here concedes my R1 argument, "there are other measures by which a word's use may be tested and PRO has
not addressed those measures. PRO has failed to falsify alternatives." That is, PRO concedes that the 'not yet true' aspect of ifness is not the sole criteria by which to judge a word's use. In fact, there are many criteria for use: brevity is a quality to be admired in word usage (particularly in 5000 char/round debates) and IF is a most brief word. Poetic potential is an excellent criteria by which to judge a word's use. IF rhymes with cliff and shares with cliff a narrative horizon of poetic potential.
- For PRO to justify MOST USELESS, PRO must survey alternative criteria and show a convincing case for uselessness across criteria.
- CON hopes readers will recall CON's R1 note:
- "Readers will note that CON has inserted the major premise as an implied,
necessary syllogistic bridge between PRO's single premise and
conclusion. If truth is not the only measure of a word's usefulness,
then PRO's argument must fail."
- PRO has invalidly argued against the suggested addition to PRO's argument.
- METAPHOR: Imagine CON saw PRO with a two legged stool and offered PRO a stick to balance the stool but PRO magically polymorphed the stick into a rabbit. The question of where PRO shall sit is left outstanding.
- What's so useless about being not true? Fiction is not true but useful. Religion is not true but useful.
- PRO dropped my main counterargument: "PRO omits a necessary major premise and offers a minor premise that is
only sometimes true. PRO has failed to support this conclusion.
"When meaning is ambiguous usefulness declines."
"That your “Floccinaucinihilipilification” may be less useful than “if” is accepted out of hand, but...."
"we cannot assume to know which of many candidate words is the absolute least useful word with any statistical accuracy."
Is there really any word in that string that begs to be defined in order to understand the entire phrase in its simplicity?
- Yes. In fact, after 3 rounds of clarifications we are still trying to discover PRO's formal intent.
- In R1, PRO argued that:
- IF only acknowledges that which is not true
- (but also) ”If” is “almost always” followed by something not true
- (PRO's thesis being one example)
- (excepting scientific theorems)
- In R2, PRO argued that:
- MOST USELESS might have meant "very" as in "a most useless word" [P1]
- (and/or) that MOST might have meant a majority as in "51 is “most” of 100 [C2]
- Magritte's "The Treachery of Images" is "an example of the wide gap between language and meaning," which PRO calls the "conundrum of language." [P1]
- In R3, PRO argued that:
- IF is NOT the most useless word in any language, rather he meant that the idea of conditional conjunctions generally is useless regardless of language.
- Now, PRO wants to claim his resolution is unambiguous after relying so heavily on thematic ambiguity in prior arguments.
“Useless” is interpreted by my opponent as a function of mere frequency of use, and not recognized by my opponent as a function of unaccomplished purpose, arguing merely that “floccinaucinihilipilification” is a word used less often than “if.”
- Quite false.
- CON argued that Floccinaucinihilipilification [SEE => R1, C2, P2] is useless because
- too long
- too obscure (frequency of use)
- too difficult to
- In R2,P1, poetic potential was identified as a criteria for useful words and CON advised that there were many other criteria which PRO had failed to falsify.
- That's 5 criteria by which FLOCCINAUCINIHILIPILIFICATION fails to be as useful a word as IF. PRO's claim is falsified.
“If” has its adequate, and equivalent words in each of those languages, and others, and in other languages, “if” has the same consequence as I propose in English, which is why I included their mention in the premise.
- PRO's statement is entirely unproven and false by varying degrees depending on the language. As CON showed in R1, IF has multiple meanings that translate into many different words.
- For example, Greek has multiple words that roughly translate as IF in the "supposing that" sense: αν, εάν, άμα , ει but no word that translates well for the "although" concession sense of IF.
- Further, if IF translates to many words in some languages, (and not at all in a few other languages) not all of those translations can simultaneously qualify as PRO's superlative: "THE most useless word."
- Worse for PRO's case, the conveyance of the conditional and subjunctive moods in most languages relies more on modifying the verb than on any conditional conjunction.
- That is, with most languages you change or add to the verb to make it "not yet true" rather than necessarily connecting a consequence to a condition via conjunction.
"[this debate] is about the functional uselessness of “if,” considering that, among other conditions that are not under discussion in this premise, it acknowledges only that which is currently not true"
- So, IF only means "not yet true" but also means other things PRO doesn't want to discuss. PRO and CON seem to agree that IF has multiple meanings, even if PRO only wishes to discuss one of those meanings. If we do agree that IF has multiple meanings, we have refuted that IF only means "that which is currently not true" and PRO's case must fail.
- Ultimately, PRO is blaming the wrong part of speech. What PRO is talking about is the subjunctive mood.
- IF is a commonly associated conjunction but IF is not the part of speech that makes the sentence indicate "not yet true."
- ex. "If I were a butterfly", I would have wings. The indicative, the statement of fact would use "I was a butterfly, I am a butterfly"
- We can indicate the subjunctive mood without using IF.
- ex. "I wish I were a butterfly; I would have wings."
- In English, we modify the verb to indicate the unreality of the grammatical mood. PRO is finding fault with IF for changing the mood to "not real" when PRO ought to blaming the verb.
- Since PRO can't argue that all verbs in the subjunctive mood are alike in uselessness, PRO's argument must fail.