Thanks for that clarification about "use" and "misuse" Crotchblow. "Very fine" or just fine? Is that like "ultimate truth" vs. just truth?
stemcell On Oct 27, 3:23 pm, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > so is that a perfect example of what I just said...Logic is only limited by > human use of it? did I have to say "misuse'? did I have to say flawed use > of it to make it clearer? You know, my emails have the potential of being > too long if I cover my butt on every angle... > > yes, I am a crotchblow and a very fine one at that. > > > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:09 PM, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Crotchblow said >>> Logic is not limited in scope, only the "human" > > use of it is. <<< > > > Does this make sense in this regard? > > > 1. All birds are mammals. (premise) > > 2. A platypus is a bird. (premise) > > 3. Therefore, the platypus is a mammal. (conclusion) > > > "This is a valid deductive argument, even though the premises are both > > false. But because those premises are not true, the argument is not > > sound. It is interesting to note that the conclusion is true — this > > demonstrates that an argument with false premises can nevertheless > > produce a true conclusion." > > > Critiquing Arguments > > How To Tell When Arguments Are Valid And/Or Sound > > By Austin Cline, About.com > > > Rick S said >>>For example, Carl Jung talked about a "collective > > unconsious". And there's intuition, like when twins separated by > > some > > distance know the other is hurt. Logic is great but it is not the > > only tool in the toolbox. >>> > > > The link was about "truth", correct? I'm not trying to be a smart > > arse. If I am wrong about this assertion then I will go back and read > > the article link again. I have quoted this saying in the past and > > will do so again. "True for you or true for all? If true for all > > then you must give us some kind of objective standard to go by." > > > stemcell > > > On Oct 27, 10:14 am, "C B" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Logic is not limited in scope, only the "human" use of it is. Logic is > > not > > > an isolated system because the brain is not structured that way. Crays or > > > thier ilk could be the only true isolated-logic producers we have. Our > > fat > > > little pinkish grey brain cells can make up some pretty interesting stuff > > > like "faith" - you can get lost squirming in metaphysics, which, in my > > > opinion, does not take an intuitive thinker, but one that is willing to > > be > > > led from logic toward delusion. Okay, stake me in the heart, for that > > one, > > > but I can't go there and believe me I have tried numerous times. > > > > Would you agree that Humans only have one perspective for each brain that > > > can only be glimpsed by another brain and much of what we think is a > > > delusion to someone else (that is not to be construed as disparaging to > > > anyone else)? Logic may be our only bridge.... > > > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:23 AM, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > >>>Rick S said, "My aim is not to disparage logic, > > > > only to point out that it is limited in scope." > > > > > Can you provide an example of another type of verification system that > > > > works better than logic? Do you know of any system that is not > > > > "limited" or at least not as "limited" and what is that system? > > > > > The only ones I can come up with are psychic abilities and > > > > FAITH. :-) Not sure "FAITH" is a "system" but go with me here. :-) > > > > > >>>Taylor said, "Most people who go to great lengths to point out > > limits of > > > > science > > > > (real or imagined) are usually doing so in order to remove obstacles > > > > to your believing in their brand of woo." > > > > > Dr. Wayne Dyer, perhaps? Charles Gillihan? Michael Behe? Oooh > > > > oooh! Wait...Steven C. Myer of the Discovery Institute. > > > > > >>>Taylor said, " I see nothing on the site about who "Dr. Terry > > Halwes" is > > > > or what his > > > > credentials are. That normally means a medical doctor or dentist, at > > > > best, but more likely a Ph.D. in theology or some other pseudo > > > > science. In other words, not a scientist." > > > > > What about a phone psychic? Wait...did I just say that or think it? > > > > > stemcell > > > > > On Oct 26, 11:53 pm, Rick S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > In researching an idea for an essay I had about the limits of > > > > > logic, I came across a very interesting essay by a scientist, to > > which > > > > > I will provide a link. By the way, I also picked up some very > > > > > interesting quotes about logic. My aim is not to disparage logic, > > > > > only to point out that it is limited in scope. First the quotes: > > > > > > "What is laid down, ordered, factual is never enough to embrace the > > > > > whole truth: life always spills over the rim of every cup." > > > > > - Boris Pasternak > > > > > > "Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit." > > > > > - Antoine de Saint-Exupery > > > > > > "A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed > > > > > that uses it." > > > > > - Rabindranath Tagore > > > > > > The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right; > > > > > for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that > > > > > makes the man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical > > > > > quest for truth. > > > > > Sir Karl Popper > > > > > The Logic of Scientific Discovery > > > > > > Here's the link: http://dharma-haven.org/science/terrible-truth.htm > > . > > > > > > Rick S- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" 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/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
