>But to the extent that we were talking about logic, is not logic the formalization of good thought?
Not necessarily. For instance: "If A then B implies A" is logically valid but most people would feel that it's stupid thinking. "Every statement implies a true statement" is true if you look at the truth table but this illustrates the difference between propositional calculus and natural language. I suspect you mean sound reasoning by "good thought". Is that responsive to your question? Frank Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Oct 3, 2017 8:52 PM, "Nick Thompson" <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Well, as a Peircean, I am certainly NOT allowed to believe that all valid > logic is deductive, so Got Me There! > > But to the extent that we were talking about logic, is not logic the > formalization of good thought? So, then, it behooves one who would claim > that an argument is logic to formalize it. So, in which logical world (if > not deductive logic) does the statement that Einstein is usually right lead > directly, without an intervening premise, to the conclusion that I should > provisionally believe him. I think the argument IS deductive (in this > case) and that the suppressed premise is that I should treat all people who > are usually right provisionally as authorities. (i.e., as people to be > believed until contrary evidence teaches us otherwise. ) > > n > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > Clark University > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ? > Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 6:30 PM > To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] AI and argument > > 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
============================================================ 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
