Never mind that Folley's linearity, here, disallows the exceptions where fallacious arguments are *good* arguments ... maybe even [gasp] made good *because* they're fallacious. But because some of my AI slop has recently been labeled "factually incorrect" 8^D, his use of the phrase starting just after the 2:36 mark triggered me.
The 7 Levels of Logical Thinking https://youtu.be/yrimaWOQtfM?si=QL8-wj68gqj67ltu&t=156 "There are awful people throughout history who have still been factually correct about some things. And there are incredibly moral people who have been factually incorrect about some things." Grrr. In addition to the assumption of linearity, let's put aside the violation of Hume's guillotine. What I'd like to focus on is nickname "fact". What is fact in such argumentation? I suppose we could allow that axioms are "brute" facts and, if the inference is truth-preserving, subsequent sentences may be facts but not brute. But these punctuation marks, the well-formed sentences are distinct from the transformations that operate on them. Are the transformations properly called "facts", just like the sentences they operate on? My guess is that they're more akin to axioms than derived outcomes. So the transformations are also brute, if they're facts at all. And if we promote primitive transformations to "facts", then do we also promote compositions of transformations to "facts"? Would the compositions be analogous to the derived sentences? So composite tranforms are mere facts but primitive transformations are brute facts? Worse yet, although the rest of what he says in the rest of the video is fine, just fine, w.r.t. to what can be called or understood as "fact", are metalogical classificiations of logics somehow *more* factual? I mean, if some property holds for a class of logics, then there's a bit of wiggle room in which logic you choose for some task addressable by any in the class. So that metalogical fact is a more robust fact than a persnickety fact upheld by a smaller set of logics. By this progressive promotion, we might say that "brute facts" of axioms or primitive transforms in a particular logic are not even facts, whereas metalogical true sentences are facts, flipping the whole "factuality calculus" on its head. Could "it is blue" be less factual than "there exist things that are blue"? Or even more radical, is it possible that AI hallucinations, having been derived from more data than God, are more factual than any particular validated output? Is gaslighting more entheogenic than psilocybin? Where are the representative Scientologists when you need one? -- 8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω. .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
