On 21 Jul 2010, at 20:17, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 7/21/2010 4:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
"logic" is a confusing term. Informally "non logic" = error,
madness, pain, ...
To fight against logic is dramatic when you see how people accept
so easily conclusion of invalid inference (like in the political
health debate).
Cooper seems unaware of the branch of math called logic, which
illustrates that there is many logics. There is almost as much
logic as they are mathematical structures.
Then classical logic is the most simple and polite logic to
describe all those different logics.
Cooper is well aware of that. But he proposes non-classical logics
different from modal extensions.
To be sure I have not read Cooper. But when I say that classical logic
is the best tool for studying non classical logic, I was not thinking
of modal extension of classical logic. The success of quantum logic,
intuitionistic logic, relevance logic, fuzzy logic, etc. is due to the
fact that they have nice semantics as can be shown by using classical
logic. It is just false that science is classical-logic centred. Since
the Brouwer-Cantor debate, weak logics (non classical sub-logic) have
kept the attention of the professional logicians. And in science,
classical logic is almost ignored. And in day-life, even much of logic
(classical or not) is quasi-systematically ignored. You can be sure
that the number of people executed or in jail due to error in logic is
very big. Just think about the smoker of cannabis in the USA, to take
just one example.
SO...taken with the quotes I provided in my initial response to
Brent,
how friendly do you think he sounds to your position?
I think he sounds friendlier to mine!
Cooper's position is non sense. I'm afraid. He is the one stuck on
Aristotelian logic.
He is interested in logic as a component of reason, by which he
means decision theory as well as inference. But he notes that
decision theory needs to be expanded to consider temporal
relations. He proposes to extend logic by finding evolutionarily
stable logics. His program is fairly radical - not at all stuck in
classical logic.
All right then. I am not opposed to such kind of research. I have
myself study genetic regulatory system in term of different logics.
That may be interesting. Then again, he does not address the comp issue.
All what I was asking (to Rex) was why he thought that Cooper's view
is not friendly with the consequences of the comp hypothesis, which
are radical, but at another level (the level of the origin of the
physical laws).
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
