On Monday, October 14, 2013 4:02:22 PM UTC-5, Arturo Magidin wrote: > On Monday, October 14, 2013 2:26:30 PM UTC-5, Hetware wrote: > > > > > The point is, don't just take the word of an expert. If you aren't > > > > > > convinced by your own reasoning and analysis, keep digging. > > > > Actually, the point is: if you don't understand what you are reading, check again; don't just make stuff up. > > > > You made stuff up.
Or, to be more explicit; you came here because there was something you read that you did not quite understand or agree with.
Nobody said "you're wrong because the expert said something else", so your "don't take the word of an expert" is completely beside the point. It's misdirection or self-delusion.
Instead, it was pointed out that you were misunderstanding the *meaning intended* by what was written. That the intended meaning was something other than what you were reading into, and that the intended meaning had been explained previously, so that you could actually figure out what that intended meaning was.
You did **not** ask *why* one would want to have that intended meaning. Instead, you dismissed this by saying you did not "answer to mortals".
So, what we actually had was not that somebody invoked the expert as the ultimate authority reflexively and without thinking. What we had was that someone **automatically and unthinkingly** dismissed what he thought was being put forth as an 'expert opinion' on the grounds that it was an expert opinion. That is, the only one doing something unthinkingly was **you**, automatically rejecting something because you thought it was being put forth as "the expert said it, hence it's true."
Nothing you've argued since has addressed the original issue or your original error. It's all been self-justification and self-delusion. You've brought up alternate possible conventions, alternate texts that could have been substituted, alternated statements that could have been made.
Your error in your original reading came because you ignored the standing convention, and did so by introducing extra assumptions (continuity everywhere) into the mix without warrant. You ignored the standing convention because you apparently think that it is beneath you to abide by standing conventions, and for no other reason.
You have not asked why the standing convention is used, and nobody has said "because the experts say we should abide by it". You have not asked anything which people have justified simply by saying "because the experts say so". The only thing that could reasonably be interpreted as saying that is when people mentioned standing conventions. But it's silly to claim that this is an invocation of authority; the author of your book established his conventions to tell you exactly what he means when he says something, and then proceeds to say things in a manner that is consistent with those conventions. It doesn't mean that other conventions are not possible (or "lead to contradictions", the other irrelevant argument you keep trying to make to justify yourself). But if I say "when I say 'or' I mean exclusive or", and then I proceed to say something and you decide you are going to interpret my "or"s as inclusive ors and complain about it, it is perfectly reasonable and logical for people to say "The speaker said that you should interpret his use of 'or' as exclusive; he made his statements with the assumption that you had heard that and would so interpret what he was saying." To this your apparent reply would be "I don't answer to mortals" or "Don't just quote experts at me."
We weren't. We were pointing out the conventions the speaker had set forth and was suing, conventions that you *ignored out of sheer hubris*.
So, again, off that high horse of yours. You aren't exhibiting mental acuity or liberty, you are exhibiting self-delusion.