From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue May 28 2002 - 20:57:43 MDT
Harvey writes
> > 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.
Yes, good point. I happen to have quite a stack of logic books,
and so it does seem reasonable that you're using the standard ones.
For all I knew, however, you had extended the conventional list.
Please accept my apology for implying that perhaps *your* list
was not the standard one.
> > 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."
Many people would suppose "If this sentence is true, then
God exists" to have a truth value, namely false. I think
that it should not be taken to have a truth value. On the
other hand, expressions that are logical fallacies take the
value "false". The "Logical Fallacies" are so-called,
at least to the extent of my knowledge, because they are
logically invalid. Statements like "Many people have been
to Hawaii" have semantic, not logical content.
You make it sound as though you don't agree with any of
the points of my previous post. Is that true? In it I
explained why self-reference is not always circular or
illogical. I alluded to the Godelian sentence G which
refers to itself and is, basically, "This sentence is
not demonstrable". For the sake of our differences,
mostly methodical, it would help if you did acknowledge
troublesome points that you agree with, or points that
you concede. I did so above.
> > 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" theorems, 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".
What evidence do you have that I want to dispute classical
logic, or that I propose differing rules for how to derive
"logical" theorems? I don't understand.
Do you have any evidence that I have a different brand of
logic?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:27 MST