Hi Steve I am not an expert so correct me if I am wrong. As I see it every day logical arguments (and rationality?) are based on standard classical logic (or something very similar). Yet I am (sadly) not aware of a convincing argument that this logic is the one to accept as the right choice. You might know that e.g. intuitionistic logic limits the power of reductio ad absurdum to negative statements (I don't know what reverse reductio ad absurdum is, so it may not be a precise counterexample, but I think you get my point). Would this not make you hesitate? If not, why?
Cheers, Martin Biehl 2008/11/18 Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To all, > > I am considering putting up a web site to "filter the crazies" as follows, > and would appreciate all comments, suggestions, etc. > > Everyone visiting the site would get different questions, in different > orders, etc. Many questions would have more than one correct answer, and in > many cases, some combinations of otherwise reasonable individual answers > would fail. There would be optional tutorials for people who are not > confident with the material. After successfully navigating the site, an > applicant would submit their picture and signature, and we would then > provide a license number. The applicant could then provide their name and > number to 3rd parties to verify that the applicant is at least capable of > rational thought. This information would look much like a driver's license, > and could be printed out as needed by anyone who possessed a correct name > and number. > > The site would ask a variety of logical questions, most especially probing > into: > 1. Their understanding of Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum methods of > resolving otherwise intractable disputes. > 2. Whether they belong to or believe in any religion that supports various > violent acts (with quotes from various religious texts). This would exclude > pretty much every religion, as nearly all religions condone useless violence > of various sorts, or the toleration or exposure of violence toward others. > Even Buddhists resist MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) while being unable > to propose any potentially workable alternative to nuclear war. Jesus > attacked the money changers with no hope of benefit for anyone. Mohammad > killed the Jewish men of Medina and sold their women and children into > slavery, etc., etc. > 3. A statement in their own words that they hereby disavow allegiance > to any non-human god or alien entity, and that they will NOT follow the > directives of any government led by people who would obviously fail this > test. This statement would be included on the license. > > This should force many people off of the fence, as they would have to > choose between sanity and Heaven (or Hell). > > Then, Ben, the CIA, diplomats, etc., could verify that they are dealing > with people who don't have any of the common forms of societal insanity. > Perhaps the site should be multi-lingual? > > Any and all thoughts are GREATLY appreciated. > > Thanks > > Steve Richfield > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
