A useful distinction? When I was working in the philosophy Dept at CMU my boss was a logician. I asked him if he had heard the story that Bertrand Russell had fallen off his bike on the Cambridge campus when he realized that Anselm's proof of the existence of God was valid (argument from authority). He looked puzzled but then said, "Ah, valid but not sound".
Frank Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Oct 3, 2017 6:30 PM, "gⅼеɳ ☣" <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hm. My example is simply an argument that I do NOT think succumbs to that > fallacy. Einstein is a reliable, but not completely unchallengeable, > authority. And if he is challenged, we can dig into the theory to find our > own reasoning. > > I'm curious if you believe all argument/reasoning can be *accurately* > formalized? Worse yet, do you believe that all argument can be reduced to > deduction? > > > On 10/03/2017 05:13 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > > Aren't you missing a premise, if you are seeking a valid deductive > argument? > > > > What connects Albert's thought with your conclusion? > > -- > ☣ gⅼеɳ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
