Re: 10 reasons
Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:15 pm
Reliance on fallacious arguments (still) does not advance the position.
Well I can't argue with that.owlice wrote:
Reliance on fallacious arguments (still) does not advance the position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacious wrote:
<<A fallacy is an argument that uses poor reasoning. An argument can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true. A fallacy can be either formal or informal. An error that stems from a poor logical form is sometimes called a formal fallacy or simply an invalid argument. An informal fallacy is an error in reasoning that does not originate in improper logical form. Arguments committing informal fallacies may be formally valid, but still fallacious. Some fallacies are committed intentionally (to manipulate or persuade by deception), others unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance.
Fallacies of presumption fail to prove the conclusion by assuming the conclusion in the proof. Fallacies of weak inference fail to prove the conclusion with insufficient evidence. Fallacies of distraction fail to prove the conclusion with irrelevant evidence, like emotion. Fallacies of ambiguity fail to prove the conclusion due to vagueness in words, phrases, or grammar.>>
Thanks, Nitpicker. Feel free to add your own name to the list of "middle grounders" with a reasonable doubt (... or not).Nitpicker wrote:
Art, not that I'm a prominent person and not that being prominent is important here, but you may add me to the list of "middle grounders" with a reasonable doubt. As stated earlier, I think it's too late for this mystery to ever be resolved with certainty, and as such I really do think that such modern attempts fall into the category of pseudo-history. You don't have to go back more than a few generations before historical "facts" become extremely unclear.
I'm pro-choice myself.Nitpicker wrote:
Personally, I prefer to think that the commoner, William Shakespeare, was the author, as I appreciate the works more this way. I find the works to be reflective of humanity in a universal sense, more so than in an elitist sense. But that is merely my preference and my opinion.
I feel passionately about trying to understand many thing to the best of my ability; it's just that I have been studying math, physics and astronomy far longer than the twenty odd years I have spent on the authorship issue. And while I can't come close to doing cutting edge math, physics or astronomy (any moreNitpicker wrote:
I understand you feel differently and passionately about this and I certainly think you have a superior knowledge of the authorship issue and the works as well. But I remain far more impressed with your superior knowledge of physics and astronomy. (And I'm ambivalent regarding your habit of reposting vast chunks of the interwebs which hold only tenuous connections to the topic at hand.)
I do it mostly for myself but...Nitpicker wrote:
I'm ambivalent regarding your habit of reposting vast chunks of the interwebs which hold only tenuous connections to the topic at hand.
I, at least, respond to your voluminous quotes in exactly that fashion, Art. I think outside of the box which surrounds your quotes.neufer wrote:I also hold out the hope that it might amuse some others
and (most importantly) force them to think outside of the box.
rstevenson wrote:I, at least, respond to your voluminous quotes in exactly that fashion, Art.neufer wrote:
I also hold out the hope that it might amuse some others
and (most importantly) force them to think outside of the box.
I think outside of the box which surrounds your quotes.![]()
Boxrstevenson wrote:I, at least, respond to your voluminous quotes in exactly that fashion, Art. I think outside of the box which surrounds your quotes.neufer wrote:I also hold out the hope that it might amuse some others
and (most importantly) force them to think outside of the box.![]()
Rob
Don't you see a box around each section of quote? There's one above around Art's quote, then one around mine, then a third box around your quote. They get nested as we include a quote in our answers, then nested again as they get included again in a reply. In my browser the posts are on a pale blue background, while the quotes are in alternating shades of pale yellowish tan -- but that may be a setting I made ages ago in the user control panel of this site.Beyond wrote:Boxrstevenson wrote:I, at least, respond to your voluminous quotes in exactly that fashion, Art. I think outside of the box which surrounds your quotes.neufer wrote:I also hold out the hope that it might amuse some others
and (most importantly) force them to think outside of the box.![]()
RobWhat box
![]()
rstevenson wrote:Don't you see a box around each section of quote? There's one above around Art's quote, then one around mine, then a third box around your quote. They get nested as we include a quote in our answers, then nested again as they get included again in a reply. In my browser the posts are on a pale blue background, while the quotes are in alternating shades of pale yellowish tan -- but that may be a setting I made ages ago in the user control panel of this site.Beyond wrote:
BoxWhat box
![]()
No, Art, I haven't. You know this. You also know that I was open to hearing your arguments, that I didn't have a pony in this race. Your insistence that his daughters' illiteracy is by itself proof that Shakespeare did not write the works attributed to him and other such fallacious arguments have not served your side well from my perspective.neufer wrote:Have you actually studied the arguments that favor Shakspere of Stratford as the author
promoted primarily by the well funded Stratford Birthplace Trust
which professes to be decisive of the matter at issue
You know that I know that you don't know this stuffowlice wrote:No, Art, I haven't. You know this.neufer wrote:Have you actually studied the arguments that favor Shakspere of Stratford as the author
promoted primarily by the well funded Stratford Birthplace Trust
which professes to be decisive of the matter at issue
I always allow Stratfordians the benefit of the doubt that they either:owlice wrote:
You also know that I was open to hearing your arguments, that I didn't have a pony in this race.
But his daughters' illiteracy IS by itself proof thatowlice wrote:
Your insistence that his daughters' illiteracy is by itself proof that Shakespeare did not write the works attributed to him
and other such fallacious arguments have not served your side well from my perspective.
Beyond wrote:
Was the daughter illiterate all her life?
http://www.archive.org/stream/historyofwarwick00timmuoft/historyofwarwick00timmuoft_djvu.txt wrote:
HISTORY OF WARWICKSHIRE. (1889)
BY SAM: TIMMINS, F.S.A.
<<James Cooke (died 1688) was, during all his later life, a resident at Warwick as a ' practitioner in physick and chirurgery,' and was successful and popular all round Warwick for many years. His principal claim to fame and honour, and to a record here, is that he had the good fortune to find some of the fast-perishing records relating to Stratford-on-Avon in the days of Shakespeare. Soon after the death of John Hall, M.D., the son-in-law of Shakespeare, James Cooke was surgeon to a detachment stationed near Stratford Bridge in the Civil War days. He was invited to see Mistress Hall (Shakespeare's daughter Susannah), and he gives the following account of his interview :
Being, in my art, an attendent to parts of some regiments to keep the pass at the Bridge of Stratford-on-Avon, there being then with me a mate allyed to the gentleman that writ the following observations in Latin, he invited me to the house of Mrs. Hall, wife to the deceased, to see the books left by Mr. Hall. After the view of them, she told me she had some books left, by one that professed physick, with her husband for some money. I told her, if I liked them, I would give her the money again. She brought them forth, among which was this, with another of the author's, both intended for the presse. I, being acquainted with Mr. Hall's hand, told her that one or two of them were her husband's, and showed them to her. She denyed ; I affirmed, till I perceived she began to be offended. At last I returned her the money.
The manuscript is written in a neat hand and in Latin, and Cooke published a translation of it into English under the title of
' Select Observations of English Bodies ; or, Cures both Empiricall and Historicall performed upon very Eminent Persons in Desperate Diseases. First written in Latin by Mr. John Hall, physician, living at Stratford-on-Avon in Warwickshire, where he was very famous, as also in the counties adjacent, as appeares by these Observations, drawn out of severall hundreds of his choicest
The importance and interest of this case-book, so remarkably saved from loss, can scarcely be overstated, and Cooke deserves all praise. Unfortunately there is no reference to the death of Shakespeare, nor even to his last illness, but the little volume is full of quaint and curious facts, professionally and popularly readable. Cooke also published ' Mellificium Chirurgiae ; or, The Marrow of Chirurgy ' (1662), and dedicated to Lord Brooke; and a later edition with a chapter on anatomy ; and another work entitled the * Marrow of Physic.' Cooke died in 1688, and was buried in St. Mary's, Warwick.>>
Beyond wrote:
Was his younger daughter illiterate also?
You might want to run that by a logician, Art.neufer wrote:But his daughters' illiteracy IS by itself proof that Shakspere of Stratford did not write the works attributed to him.
Owls get their feathers ruffled when an intelligent man advances a non sequitur as a decent argument instead of the fallacy it is.Beyond wrote:Well, owls do have feathers that sometimes get ruffled when a contrary wind is in the area.
Being a dead-beat dad was one many things that Shakspere "just coincidentally" shared with Edward de Vere:Nitpicker wrote:
Susanna could have "denyed" things in an attempt to get the money. It could just as easily have been a misunderstanding by James Cooke. Or maybe Susanna was illiterate. It is not clear.
Judith sounds like the black sheep of the family. I'm quite sure she didn't write the works attributed to her father. But it is only a signature. Mine always looks especially shoddy when I have important documents to sign.
To me, it suggests William Shakespeare was more the poor father than the fraud. No shortage of poor fathers, then or now.
I would say that is pretty much a contrary wind.:)owlice wrote:Owls get their feathers ruffled when an intelligent man advances a non sequitur as a decent argument instead of the fallacy it is.Beyond wrote:Well, owls do have feathers that sometimes get ruffled when a contrary wind is in the area.
Reminds me of a Columbo murder case where twins were involved. Columbo ended up proving (as only he could do) that both twins were guilty, because it was impossible for only one twin to have pulled it off.neufer wrote:That's one of many things that Shakspere "just coincidentally" shared with Edward de Vere:Nitpicker wrote:
Susanna could have "denyed" things in an attempt to get the money. It could just as easily have been a misunderstanding by James Cooke. Or maybe Susanna was illiterate. It is not clear.
Judith sounds like the black sheep of the family. I'm quite sure she didn't write the works attributed to her father. But it is only a signature. Mine always looks especially shoddy when I have important documents to sign.
To me, it suggests William Shakespeare was more the poor father than the fraud. No shortage of poor fathers, then or now.
- 1) Both had daughters name Susan born on May 26.
2) Both had wives named Anne born in 1556.
3) Both had fathers named John who (at some time) held the title of Chamberlain.
4) Both leased the Blackfriars Theatre from one Henry Evans.
5) Both were deemed "best in comedy" by Meres in 1598.
6) Both are mentioned in John Manningham's 1602 diary.
7) Both (as boys) were said to have mentors named Smith.
8) Both were specifically connected with gloves.
9) Both were specifically refered to as "sweet."
10) Both lived with women who were patients of Dr. Simon Forman.
11) Both died and were buried in places named Stratford
(to which their fathers were specifically connected).
Reminds me of another list of (so-called) amazing coincidences.neufer wrote: That's one of many things that Shakspere "just coincidentally" shared with Edward de Vere:
- 1) Both had daughters name Susan born on May 26.
2) Both abandoned wives named Anne born in 1556.
3) Both had fathers named John who (at some time) held the title of Chamberlain.
4) Both leased the Blackfriars Theatre from one Henry Evans.
5) Both were deemed "best in comedy" by Meres in 1598.
6) Both are mentioned in John Manningham's 1602 diary.
7) Both (as boys) were said to have mentors named Smith.
8) Both were specifically connected with gloves.
9) Both were specifically refered to as "sweet."
10) Both lived with women who were patients of Dr. Simon Forman.
11) Both died and were buried in places named Stratford
(to which their fathers were specifically connected).
owlice wrote:
Neufer, has anyone ever refer to you as "sweet"?