I no longer prima facie credit this man’s claim to be a mathematician. The reason is that mathematicians must be able to reason logically, but his ignorance is manifest.
He calls this “an equivocation fallacy.”
Now, an equivocation occurs when one uses ONE TERM in TWO SENSES.
Now, an equivocation occurs when one uses ONE TERM in TWO SENSES.
For example, the term “pot” can mean a vessel for plants or food, or it can mean marijuana, or it can mean the prize of something (a “jackpot”).
An equivocation on “pot” would occur if you switched sense between propositions in an argument.
An equivocation on “pot” would occur if you switched sense between propositions in an argument.
He says I am “equivocating physical things with emotions.”
But neither “physical things” nor “emotions” were terms used.
The term used was “kindness.”
And I didn’t change senses of the term.
But neither “physical things” nor “emotions” were terms used.
The term used was “kindness.”
And I didn’t change senses of the term.
As far as I know, “kindness” has no other relevant sense in English. We could, I suppose, invent one, and describe “the abstract character of being a kind” as “kind-ness” — but that word, while cogent, doesn’t normally exist in ordinary English.
Someone who used the term “exist” to refer only to “physical things” would simply be misusing it.
