Webster: Delusion

Quote:
a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated


"Just because they believe something that probably isn't true does not make them delusional."

Way I understand Webster definition of delusion, yes it does. Plus you are arguing semantics here, would it work better for you if I called them simply 'Wrong'? If you read my numerous posts on this subject, you will find that I did specify exactly what I meant.

Here is what I said:

Originally Posted By: Sini
In this case delusional is a rhetorical device. When I say: “Delusional knuckle-draggers emerged from the stygian depths of right-wing fever swamps to beget yet another tinfoil conspiracy” I ‘formally’ mean: “You have started with a false premise when you claim elections were stolen.”


"I could just as easily call you delusional for believing beyond any doubt that the election was not stolen."

You can't - first I never stated "believing beyond any doubt", if you present irrefutable evidence I will change my mind. Second, and more important distinction, is that I do not hold unjustified belief.

Here is direct quote stating my justification for my opinion:
Originally Posted By: Sini
I have sufficient evidence: A) The Federal Election Commission endorsed tally of United States Electoral College is in, and it is 332 Obama to 206 Romney. These are official results; they are not disputed, are not in process of counting/recounting, are not being challenged in courts. B) Romney, an official GOP leader and the GOP presidential campaign nominee, conceded and acknowledged Democratic victory.


"No I don't think we're discussing the first argument there, that simply makes no sense. It's based on a faulty premise for which there is no evidence, and the conclusion does not follow from the two premises"

Plus it is an invalid argument, so we don't even need to demonstrate that premises are fallacious. This is why I keep asking, and yet to get an answer that I can understand, but this is how I see Derid's position.

Derid position is one of the following:

a. He does not contradict my original position.

or

b. He has an invalid argument with a false premises.

I don't see "c." - do you?


Originally Posted By: Brutal
In your argument, P2 again uses the argument from silence. Lack of evidence for is not evidence against. Your conclusion then in this case is based on a faulty premise. This argument could be made in the same way, but would also be wrong:

(P) Some people believe the election was stolen
(P) There is evidence of the ability to commit voter fraud
-----------------------------
(C) The election was stolen

The overriding point here is not that you are wrong, but that you can't be right in this argument. You will (reasonable assumption here) never be able to prove that the election was stolen or not stolen. We can go on like this forever, because this argument is pointless and not winnable.


My argument is:

(P1) Some people believe the elections was stolen
(P2) There is no evidence of fraud
----------
(C) There people are delusional

It is valid.
P1 false P2 true results in C false
P1 true P2 false results in C false
P1 false P2 false results in C false
It is sound.

P1 true - as per article I linked
P2 is true, you are technically correct that by itself it can be considered an argument from silence, but supressed premise here "that they presented". At no point in this discussion any evidence of voter fraud was presented. Additionally, as I disucessed with Derid, such fraud must be very substantial (5 states!) in order to have an effect.

In light of your comments:

(P1) Some people believe the elections was stolen
(P2) There is no evidence of substantial fraud that they preseted
----------
(C) There people are delusional

[Linked Image]