Rather than try to teach anyone logic (I recommend spending a day reading all the articles posted
on About.com, under "logic, reasoning, and/or critical thinking"), the basic thing to know in
differences of opinion is how to analyze someone's premises, which lead to their conclusion.
Usually their premise is true; but that does not mean a true premise leads to a true conclusion.
For instance:
1. All humans are mammals. (premise)
2. All cats are mammals. (premise)
3. All cats are humans. (conclusion)
You can see from this example that the premises are true, but the conclusion is false. This is how
someone uses critical thinking to determine just how logical someone's argument or opinion is,
otherwise we would all be walking around believing cats were humans. In the case of the people I
encountered, who professed to be researchers of Nostradamus, one of their conclusions was,
Nostradamus did not write The Prophecies with punctuation.
This is how their argument breaks down:
1. Nostradamus wrote The Prophecies. (premise)
2. Nostradamus wrote Orus Apollo without punctuation. (premise)
3. Punctuation was not standardized in the 16th Century. (premise)
4. Many books from that period have punctuation that does not match the
author's manuscript (termed "printer's copyright"). (premise)
5. Nostradamus did not write The Prophecies with punctuation. (conclusion)
If you look at their reasoning, there is a lack of true premise about Nostradamus and The
Prophecies, other than he wrote it. They draw their conclusion based on questionable facts (or
opinions), or accepted facts that refer to Nostradamus writing something other than The
Prophecies. Premise number four is related to the fact that the publications of Nostradamus Orus
Apollo include punctuation, which does not appear written on the manuscript. This, however,
means the conclusion can only be true if represented as, “Nostradamus might not have written
The Prophecies with punctuation.
The true conclusion is one of possibility, based on probability. The fallacious conclusion
erroneously states an unproven theory, because what could be accepted as true facts do not add
up to the conclusion drawn.
This is the only argument that can come to the true conclusion they desire to make:
1. Nostradamus wrote The Prophecies. (premise)
2. The original manuscript of The Prophecies contains absolutely zero
punctuation. (premise)
3. Nostradamus did not write The Prophecies with punctuation. (conclusion)
Since they did not make this argument, and because their sources are facsimiles of original (or
nearest to original) publications, their lack of making the above statement means, There is no
surviving original manuscript of The Prophecies. Without that document, everything becomes
conjecture, based on probability. As long as that one piece of evidence remains lost, then it is
possible that Nostradamus wrote The Prophecies with punctuation, which is clearly indicated in
the earliest original copies of the publications of The Prophecies. It cannot be proven no
possibility exists.
I will write more about this later because there is a hidden reason why this group refuses to accept
the possibility that the punctuation of The Prophecies is Nostradamus'.
on About.com, under "logic, reasoning, and/or critical thinking"), the basic thing to know in
differences of opinion is how to analyze someone's premises, which lead to their conclusion.
Usually their premise is true; but that does not mean a true premise leads to a true conclusion.
For instance:
1. All humans are mammals. (premise)
2. All cats are mammals. (premise)
3. All cats are humans. (conclusion)
You can see from this example that the premises are true, but the conclusion is false. This is how
someone uses critical thinking to determine just how logical someone's argument or opinion is,
otherwise we would all be walking around believing cats were humans. In the case of the people I
encountered, who professed to be researchers of Nostradamus, one of their conclusions was,
Nostradamus did not write The Prophecies with punctuation.
This is how their argument breaks down:
1. Nostradamus wrote The Prophecies. (premise)
2. Nostradamus wrote Orus Apollo without punctuation. (premise)
3. Punctuation was not standardized in the 16th Century. (premise)
4. Many books from that period have punctuation that does not match the
author's manuscript (termed "printer's copyright"). (premise)
5. Nostradamus did not write The Prophecies with punctuation. (conclusion)
If you look at their reasoning, there is a lack of true premise about Nostradamus and The
Prophecies, other than he wrote it. They draw their conclusion based on questionable facts (or
opinions), or accepted facts that refer to Nostradamus writing something other than The
Prophecies. Premise number four is related to the fact that the publications of Nostradamus Orus
Apollo include punctuation, which does not appear written on the manuscript. This, however,
means the conclusion can only be true if represented as, “Nostradamus might not have written
The Prophecies with punctuation.
The true conclusion is one of possibility, based on probability. The fallacious conclusion
erroneously states an unproven theory, because what could be accepted as true facts do not add
up to the conclusion drawn.
This is the only argument that can come to the true conclusion they desire to make:
1. Nostradamus wrote The Prophecies. (premise)
2. The original manuscript of The Prophecies contains absolutely zero
punctuation. (premise)
3. Nostradamus did not write The Prophecies with punctuation. (conclusion)
Since they did not make this argument, and because their sources are facsimiles of original (or
nearest to original) publications, their lack of making the above statement means, There is no
surviving original manuscript of The Prophecies. Without that document, everything becomes
conjecture, based on probability. As long as that one piece of evidence remains lost, then it is
possible that Nostradamus wrote The Prophecies with punctuation, which is clearly indicated in
the earliest original copies of the publications of The Prophecies. It cannot be proven no
possibility exists.
I will write more about this later because there is a hidden reason why this group refuses to accept
the possibility that the punctuation of The Prophecies is Nostradamus'.
| Logic Keeps One from Making an Ass of You and Me (Assume) |
| All Material Copyright of Robert Tippett with the exception of the obviously stolen stuff Reproduction by Permission Only |
Archive List
There's More --->
