From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Tue May 28 2002 - 19:25:49 MDT
On Tuesday, May 28, 2002, at 12:12 am, Lee Corbin wrote:
> Harvey pointed out that this seemed to be a clear case of circular
> reasoning, which I guess is on his list of logical errors.
These are not "my" list of logical errors. And you don't have to
guess. Get an elementary logic book or an FAQ from the Internet and
learn what the logical fallacies are.
> Because the wording of the "proof" jumps up and down levels,
> making multiple references, it doesn't have a truth value IMO.
IMO? Truth values are very specific in classical logic. You can't
subjectively decide how you believe they should be calculated "in your
opinion."
> Whereas earlier philosophers might have said that
> it's therefore meaningless, I still say that it cannot be
> refuted just within the world of classical logic.
It's fine if you want to dispute classical logic or propose differing
rules for how to derive "logical" theorums, but you are going to need a
lot more study and much more rigorous evidence. Otherwise, you aren't
going to convince anyone to convert to your brand of "logic".
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:27 MST