General statement as statement of fact or opinion.

[Pachomius]

First, thanks for the easy registration.

My purpose for joining is to find out from people here where I am logically right and when wrong.

Consider this question below which I submitted to experts in AllExperts.com, but they don't know logic it seems, the two experts who replied to me.:

I say "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism;" I am challenged to produce evidence that the statement is a fact; so I refer to two skeptics in skeptics forums who are soft on Buddhism; is that enough to prove the statement, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism?" because two skeptics are part of the plural subject, skeptics, in the sentence, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism."

Thanks for any lessons in logic.

You see, I invited a discussion on compatibility between skeptics and Buddhism, in a skeptics forum, saying that I find skeptics soft on Buddhism. My idea from the start has been to just hear opinions of others; but it appears that a number of respondents, the majority, reacted quite vehemently and hostilely demanding that I produce evidence.

If you are curious to know which forum I am talking about, ask me.

I wonder how the members of this message board will react to my opinion that skeptics are soft on Buddhism.

Anyway, I decided that I would produce evidence to show that "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism" is a fact.

Now, I recall that in college I seem to remember that when you have a general sentence of the kind, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism," and you can produce two skeptics soft on Buddhism, then that sentence is true; because two skeptics satisfy the plural subject noun of the sentence, "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism."

No, I have not gone that route yet, but when I do I am sure to meet with more very angry, almost hateful, namecalling, like liar, troll, crazy, etc.

So, what do you guys here say?

If there be anyone here who is also from that board, then you will recognize me here. There is only one member there who tried to take my side, to explain to the rest that I am just inviting people to exchange opinions, not stating a fact in saying that "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism -- and he got also the same unkind treatment.

Anyway, if you are curious, here is the address of that forum, and my name there is also Pachomius, skeptic friends org / forum SFN Skeptics Friends Net.*

What do you think, guys here, will you also bawl me out? for asking your opinion on my opinion that skeptics are soft on Buddhism?


Pachomius

*Try this: enter this sentence in Google, Skeptics are soft on Buddhism.

[HallsofIvy]

The logical interpretation (meaning "in the study of logic") of the statement "Skeptics are soft on Buddhism" is "ALL skeptics are solf on Buddhism". To prove that you would have to interview all skeptics or give some more general proof. If you had intended "Most Skeptics are solf on Buddhism", which is arguably implied by your original statement, proving that would still be a very large job.

If you intended "Some skeptics are soft on Buddhism" then you would only need to show one or two such skeptics. But this is not at all implied by your original statement.

As far as you saying any of those goes, my only difficulty would be that "skeptic" is ambiguous and I have no idea at all what you consider "soft on Buddhism".

[chrisforbes]

"sceptics are soft on bhudism"

Straight away I agree with that statement. Logic is all about looking at a statement and breaking it down to pieces and counter-arguing. So we can start with the easy stuff, bhudists believe in reincarnatioin, they also believe in parralel universises and karma. Your move.

[cocobagscom207]

这是新加的空白文章30，可以在ubb可视化编辑器中，添加和修改文章内容。